Case Summary (G.R. No. 187175)
Petitioner
XXX challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) and assailed the Regional Trial Court’s issuance of a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) in favor of AAA and their children on multiple grounds, including violations of equal protection, due process, police power and conflicts with existing Supreme Court rules.
Respondents
AAA sought and obtained Temporary Protection Orders (TPOs) and a PPO under RA 9262, asserting continued threats to her safety and that of her children. BBB and CCC joined as co-petitioners. The City Prosecutor initially dismissed most charges but later found probable cause for economic abuse under Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262.
Key Dates
• 2004: RA 9262 enacted.
• October 2007: AAA filed for protection orders.
• November 16, 2007: RTC issued TPO; later extended and made permanent on March 6, 2009.
• July 6, 2022: Supreme Court Second Division denied XXX’s petition for review on certiorari.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (equal protection, due process, police power).
• Republic Act No. 9262 (protection orders, definitions of violence, reliefs).
• A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rules on Violence Against Women and Their Children).
• A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA (mediation guidelines).
• Rule 61, Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (support pendente lite).
Procedural History
AAA filed criminal charges (I.S. No. 07J-03232) and a petition in Civil Case No. 07-104 for protection orders and support. The City Prosecutor initially recommended dismissal of physical, psychological, economic and sexual violence charges. The RTC granted a TPO in November 2007, extended it, awarded support pendente lite, and ultimately issued a PPO in March 2009. XXX then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, raising purely legal and constitutional questions.
Issues
- Whether RA 9262 is unconstitutional under the equal protection and due process clauses and an improper exercise of police power.
- Whether PPO reliefs violated XXX’s rights under existing Supreme Court rules (custody, visitation, support pendente lite, mediation).
- Whether AAA, as a live-in partner, and BBB/CCC, as adult children, fall outside RA 9262’s coverage.
Court’s Ruling on Justiciability and Procedural Requirements
The Court held that questions of law and constitutional issues are properly raised in a Rule 45 petition, but the constitutionality of RA 9262 was not expressly pleaded at the earliest opportunity in the trial court. As no clear constitutional challenge was made in XXX’s motions before the RTC, the Court declined to rule on the statute’s constitutionality for failure to meet the “earliest opportunity” requirement.
Constitutionality of RA 9262
Even assuming justiciability, the Court reaffirmed its prior en banc decision in Garcia v. Drilon that RA 9262 withstands equal protection and due process challenges. Classifications favoring women and children are justified by the legislative purpose to address the predominantly female victimization in domestic violence; procedural mechanisms for ex parte TPOs and immediate reliefs serve a compelling state interest in preventing further harm.
Due Process and Equal Protection
RA 9262’s provisions for ex parte TPOs and PPOs, notice, and opportunity to be heard satisfy due process because petitioners verify allegations under oath and respondents may oppose within five days and present evidence. The statutory reliefs—custody, support, stay-away orders, property use—are tailored to prevent recurrence of violence, not arbitrary deprivation of rights.
Scope of Protection Orders under RA 9262
The Court held that the statute applies to any “person” who has had a sexual or dating relationship with a woman, regardless of marital status or legality of the relationship. Live-in partners and common-law relationships without impediment fall squarely within the definitio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 187175)
Parties
- XXX – Petitioner; longtime live-in partner of AAA; challenged constitutionality of RA 9262 and RTC’s grant of a Permanent Protection Order (PPO).
- AAA – Respondent; mother of three, including BBB and minor CCC; petitioner in Civil Case No. 07-104 and complainant in I.S. No. 07J-03232.
- BBB – Respondent; daughter of XXX and AAA, born February 13, 1986; co-petitioner in Civil Case No. 07-104.
- DDD – Deceased daughter of XXX and AAA, born January 23, 1989; died of brain cancer at age eight.
- CCC – Respondent; child of XXX and AAA, born October 31, 1990; co-petitioner in Civil Case No. 07-104.
- Simplicio Boy Hassan Sapid – AAA’s longtime employee and witness.
- EEE – XXX’s lawful wife; co-defendant in a civil action over conjugal property.
Factual Background
- AAA and XXX first met in 1979 when she was 20 and he was 47; they began dating in 1982 while XXX was still married to EEE.
- They had three children: BBB (1986), DDD (1989, died 1997), and CCC (1990).
- XXX allegedly forced AAA to resign from work in 1985, forbade her from working or having friends, controlled her clothing and movements, and threatened her with physical harm.
- Verbal insults included “malandi ka talaga,” “pinapakita mo utong at puki mo,” “magpapahindot ka nanaman,” “papatayin kita kapag nahuli kita,” and “tarantado ka.”
- Economic violence: intermittent support of PHP 1,000–2,000 weekly and occasional milk cans, deemed insufficient; abandonment after arguments; AAA begged third parties for aid.
- Sexual violence: rough and forced intercourse during pregnancy (up to 3–4 times weekly), forced sex while DDD was dying in hospital, coerced oral sex during XXX’s convalescence from open-heart surgery despite amoebiasis.
- XXX accused AAA of infidelity, maintaining multiple relationships, and demanded she procure a PHP 5 million loan and deeds of sale on family properties.
- XXX purchased multiple properties in AAA’s name: two parcels in xxxxxxxx (1987), a condominium in Manila (PHP 3,000,000), and a Taguig City property (PHP 61,200 monthly). He claimed to remit PHP 230,000 monthly since June 2007, totaling PHP 1,086,823.35.
- AAA’s counsel sent a demand letter (Sept 24, 2007) insisting on PHP 50 million lump sum for alleged abuses and prescriptive legitimes, threatening civil and criminal actions.
Proceedings Before the Office of the City Prosecutor (I.S. No. 07J-03232)
- October 10, 2007: AAA filed an Affidavit-Complaint for physical, psychological, economic, and sexual violence under RA 9262; docketed as I.S. No. 07J-03232.
- February 26, 2008: City Prosecutor’s resolution recommending dismissal of all four counts for lack of jurisdiction or merit; based on insufficiency of evidence for psychological and economic abuse and lack of proof for sexual violence.
Civil Case No. 07-104 (RTC Branch 207)
- October 23, 2007: AAA and her children filed for Ex Parte Temporary Protection Order (TPO) and PPO with support and support pendente lite.
- November 1