Title
Supreme Court
Garcia vs. Drilon
Case
G.R. No. 179267
Decision Date
Jun 25, 2013
Petitioner challenged R.A. 9262's constitutionality after a TPO was issued against him. SC upheld the law, ruling it valid under equal protection, due process, and family protection principles, dismissing claims of undue delegation of judicial power.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6387)

Statutory Protections under R.A. 9262

Enacted March 8, 2004 (effective March 27, 2004) under 1987 Constitution police power, RA 9262 defines “violence against women and their children” in physical, sexual, psychological, and economic terms. It provides for ex parte Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs, 15-day duration) and court-issued Temporary (30-day) and Permanent Protection Orders (PPOs) to prevent further VAWC. It mandates roles for barangay officials, law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, social workers, and health-care providers.

Trial Court’s Issuance of TPOs

On March 24, 2006, the RTC-Family Court granted an ex parte TPO ordering petitioner to remove personal belongings, surrender firearms, pay support, and refrain from harassing respondent and their children. Subsequent amended TPOs expanded reliefs to include use of vehicles, housing, bond to keep the peace, and detailed financial accounting. Petitioner filed oppositions and motions for modification but TPOs were renewed repeatedly for 30-day periods.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

Petitioner filed CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01698 for prohibition, injunction, and TRO to enjoin enforcement of TPOs and to challenge RA 9262’s constitutionality under equal protection, due process, and alleged unconstitutional delegation. CA issued a 60-day TRO on May 26, 2006 but on January 24, 2007, dismissed the petition for failure to raise constitutional issues at the earliest opportunity and for being a collateral attack on an interlocutory order. Motion for reconsideration was denied on August 14, 2007.

Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court

I. Whether CA erred in dismissing the petition for prohibition as a collateral attack and for failure to raise constitutional issues before the RTC.
II. Whether RA 9262 violates equal protection by granting remedies only to women and children.
III. Whether RA 9262 violates due process in ex parte issuance of TPOs and removal orders.
IV. Whether RA 9262 conflicts with State policy to protect the family.
V. Whether RA 9262 unduly delegates judicial power to barangay officials.

Propriety of CA Dismissal and Early Raising of Constitutional Issue

SC held that constitutional challenges must be raised at the earliest opportunity—here, in petitioner’s Opposition before the RTC. RA 9262’s opposition procedure (A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC Rules) does not bar raising constitutional defenses, since such defenses are not counterclaims or cross-claims. The Opposition may include any matter to show cause why a protection order should not issue. Separate proceedings would lead to multiplicity of suits and collateral attack on interlocutory orders, prohibited by Section 22(j) of the Rules on VAWC.

Equal Protection Analysis under 1987 Constitution

Equal protection permits reasonable classifications germane to legislative purpose. RA 9262 targets women and children as the most vulnerable victims of intimate violence, supported by statistical data showing >90% of domestic violence victims in initial studies (2000–2003) were women abused by intimate partners. The law seeks to address gender-based power imbalances, fulfill State policy under Article II, Sections 11 and 14, and international obligations under CEDAW. The classification rests on substantial distinctions, is directly related to preventing violence against the traditional victims, extends to future conditions, and applies equally to all women and children in its scope. It does not violate due process or unduly delegate judicial power.

Due Process and Ex Parte TPOs

The ex parte TPO mechanism is justified by the urgent need to prevent imminent harm. Procedural due process guarantees notice and opportunity to be heard; here, respondent is served with the TPO, given five days to file Opposition, and a hearing is scheduled within 30 days. Temporary nature of TPOs (renewable) limits any deprivation until full hearing. Judicial rules allow a hearing on legal issues if needed (Sec

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms