I. Introduction
The Philippines is no stranger to these 3 words. It is real, it is
happening, it is claiming lives. It remains to be one of the most persistent
and alarming issues that the Philippines have faced.
VAW is linked with the unequal power relationship between women and
men, resulting from society's misinformed views on gender and sexuality,
according to the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW). Men are
traditionally labelled as leaders and providers, while women are seen as
nurturers and supporters. "This perception leads to men gaining more power
over women," PCW stressed, adding that "VAW is a form of men’s expression
of controlling women to retain power."
This will shed light into VAWC and a position as to whether or not the
Law on Violence Against Women and Children violates the Constitutional
provisions regarding the right of every citizen to due process of law and the
equal protection clause.
III. Argument
This paper will shed light into VAWC and a position as to whether or not
the Law on Violence Against Women and Children violates the constitutional
provisions regarding the right of every citizen to due process of law and the
equal protection clause.
VAWC or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of
2004 or Republic Act No. 9262 took effect on March 27, 2004. Referred to as
the “Anti-VAWC Act”, it is the result of a decade of advocacy of victim-
survivors, women’s human rights advocates and organizations, women
legislators, government agencies and the National Commission on the Role
of Filipino Women1 6 . The passage of this law marks the state’s compliance
with its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW) which the Philippines ratified in 1981, and the
Optional Protocol on the CEDAW, which was ratified by the Philippine Senate
in 2003.
The broad definition of VAW in the law was patterned after the
Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, as referring to
“any act or series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is
his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a
sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or
against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the
family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual,
psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such
acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of
liberty.” It covers all forms of violence, such as physical, sexual,
psychological, and economic. Economic abuse includes deprivation of
support of the lawful wife and minor children, which is a common problem in
the Philippines.
The law is gender-specific, protecting the rights of women only and
their children. Only women may file actions under the Anti-VAWC Act, while
the offenders may either be men or women with whom the victims are or
were in lesbian relationships, because the definition includes past or present
sexual or dating relationships.
Following the Framework for model legislation on domestic violence by
the UN Special Rapporteur on VAW, the Anti-VAWC Act has:
R.A. 9262 does not violate the guaranty of Equal Protection Clause
In the case of Garcia vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013 the
Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the country’s Anti-
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, as it threw out a petition
labelling it as a “husband-bashing” and “hate men” law.
Interestingly, equal protection simply requires that all persons or
things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred
and responsibilities imposed. R.A. 9262 is based on a valid classification as
shall hereinafter be discussed and, as such, did not violate the equal
protection clause by favouring women over men as victims of violence and
abuse to whom the State extends its protection.
There is likewise no merit to the contention that R.A. 9262 singles out
the husband or father as the culprit. As defined above, VAWC may likewise
be committed “against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual
or dating relationship.” Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word “person”
who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses
even lesbian relationships.
Moreover, R.A. 9262 is based on a valid classification as such, did not
violate the equal protection clause by favouring women over men as victims
of violence and abuse to whom the State extends its protection. The unequal
power relationship between women and men; the fact that women are more
likely than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread gender bias
and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the
classification under the law. As Justice McIntyre succinctly states, “the
accommodation of differences is the essence of true equality.”
It further stated that the law was enacted “to address the
discrimination brought about by biases and prejudices against women.”
“Petitioner’s contention, therefore, that RA 9262 is discriminatory and that it
is an ‘anti-male,’ ‘husband-bashing,’ and ‘hate men’ law deserves scant
consideration,” the decision read.
IV. Conclusion
The enactment of the Anti-VAWC Act is an important step in the
struggle to end VAW. However, it is only the first step. The struggle continues
as advocates against VAW are now faced with an equally difficult task of
making sure that the letters of the law are given life, so that the protection
given to women victims and survivors of VAW cease to be empty words and
instead be the actual freedom and power to finally live their lives in peace.
The country’s battle against VAWC should be fought not just by
women, but by everyone. Aside from stronger implementation of laws,
penalties, and recovery programs, advocates emphasize the need for better
prevention. Both women and men, young and old, must be educated about
human rights, women's and gender issues, and the roles they play in ending
discrimination. The more informed women are, the more empowered they
will be. And an empowered society has no room for violence.
Finally, who can speak for women, many of whom are too satisfied
and/or oppressed to make their views known? Certainly not men, and
certainly not the "authorities" - judges, legislators, lawyers, doctors,
psychiatrists, writers, sociologists - regardless of their sex. This does not
mean that every issue is "up for grabs" with the "degree" of equality decided
by the loudest or most prestigious. The power of an individual to give up the
right to equal treatment under the law is non-delegable.