[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’ABOVE THE LAW ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY AYIN DREAM D. APLASCA
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
Friday, October 20, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=”]
I HAVE been dealing with issues concerning violations of Republic Act 9262. Its title is “The Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004.” I think this is somewhat controversial because of the drastic and steady increase of cases involving this. Undeniably, the law should protect women and children from domestic violence.
The purpose of the law is laudable. How and why?
The broad description of this special law covers almost any stormy and shaky relationship that a woman (and their children) may experience in her dealings with her man. The woman could be the man’s wife, or a woman whom he has or had a sexual relationship, or someone with whom he has or had a dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child. However, it expressly excludes one: “a casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or social context cannot be considered as a dating relationship.”
Republic Act 9262 is a special law that defines and penalizes acts of violence against women and their children. Also, it provides protective measures and remedies. The purpose of the law is to give women more than a fighting chance in seeking redress and damages in the legal system.
It penalizes violence against the physical, sexual, psychological or economic aspect of the woman. All of these are remedied and prevented by the issuance of a protection order which may be issued by the court or the Punong Barangay.
As a supplement to this law, the Supreme Court issued AM No. 04-10-11-SC or the “Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children.” This rule provides for the venue and procedure of filing of petitions for protection orders based on RA 9262. It enumerates the reliefs available when the protection orders are issued. Additionally, it enumerates the duties of the court and law enforcement officers in handling this kind of cases.
To better understand the different aspects mentioned in the preceding paragraph, let me define them. Physical violence covers actual, attempted, threatened, or even just placing the woman in fear of the same.
Sexual abuse covers acts of rape.
Psychological abuse covers acts that cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim.
Economic abuse covers acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent.
Some would say that the law is discriminatory because it only protects women and their children. As what the case of Garcia vs. Drilon (GR No. 179267) enunciated, the law does not violate the guarantee of equal protection of laws because it rests on substantial distinctions. Historically, there is an unequal relationship between a man and a woman. They say, “women are the usual and most likely victims of violence.”
This special law is proof that women and children in the Philippines deserve special protection and their war against violence could be won. Let us help them fight all prejudices!
(Atty. Ayin Dream D. Aplasca practices her profession in Iloilo City. She may be reached thru ayindream.aplasca@gmail.com/PN)
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
