In a precedent-setting decision, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that fathers can seek protection and custody orders before the courts against mothers who abuse their children in violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children (VAWC) law.
In a vote of 10 justices with five dissenters, the SC said “it is improper to conclude that the law (VAWC under Republic Act No. 9262 enacted in 2004) denies a father of these remedies solely because of his gender or that he is not a ‘woman victim of violence.’"
It pointed out that “RA 9262 explicitly allows ‘parents or guardians of the offended party’ to file a petition for protection orders.”
“The statute used the gender-neutral word ‘person’ as the offender which embraces any person of either sex. Logically, a mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under VAWC is not absolved from criminal liability notwithstanding that the measure is intended to protect both women and their children,” the SC stressed.
With the ruling, the SC granted the petition filed by Randy Michael Knutson who challenged the ruling of the trial court which denied his plea for the protection of Rhuby against her mother Rosalina.
Based on the SC’s narrations in the decision, Randy, an American citizen, met Rosalina in Singapore in 2005. They got married and begot a daughter named Rhuby. They lived in the Philippines starting in 2011.
However, Randy and Rosalina became estranged after he discovered her extra-marital affairs. Rosalina got hooked in casinos and incurred huge debts from casino financiers. She sold the family’s house and lot, condominium unit, and vehicles which Randy provided.
Rosalina then rented an apartment and got herself a boyfriend.
In his plea for protection before the trial court, Randy said that Rosalina maltreated her own mother in Rhuby’s presence and at one time, she pointed a knife at their daughter and threatened to kill latter.
He also said that her wife sent him her naked pictures with a message that he would not see her body again.
The apartment, owner, he said had to terminate the lease because of noise and after marijuana plants were confiscated in the premises.
On Dec. 7, 2017, Randy – on behalf of Rhuby, filed a petition for protection order under RA 9262 before the Taguig City regional trial court (RTC). He said his wife placed their daughter in “a harmful environment deleterious to her physical, emotional, moral, and psychological development.”
However, on Jan. 10, 2018, the RTC dismissed the petition with a ruling that the protection order sought under RA 9262 cannot be issued against a mother who allegedly abused her own child.
The RTC ruled that the child’s mother cannot be considered an offender under RA 9262 and that the remedies sought by the father are not available because he is not a “woman victim of violence."
When his motion to reconsider the ruling was denied by the trial court, Randy elevated the issue directly to the SC.
Citing a previous decision in 2013, the SC said that Congress excluded men as victims under RA 9262. The SC said then: “The legislative intent is to limit the protection against violence to women and children only. The classification rests on substantial distinctions because women and children are vulnerable victims of abuse compared to men.”
In the decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and made public last Feb. 6, the SC said:
“It is improper to conclude that the law denies a father of these remedies solely because of his gender or that he is not a ‘woman victim of violence.’ Section 9 (b)26 of RA No. 9262 explicitly allows ‘parents or guardians of the offended party’ to file a petition for protection orders.
“The exact provision was incorporated in Section 12 (b )27 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9262 and Section 8 (b)28 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, or the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children. The statute categorically used the word ‘parents’ which pertains to the father and the mother of the woman or child victim.
“Under Section 5, Rule 3 of Rules of Court, ‘[a} minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad !item.’
“In this case, the title of the petition for issuance of a protection order is unequivocal, to wit: ‘RANDY MICHAEL KNUTSON acting on behalf of minor RHUBY SIBAL KNUTSON, Petitioner, -versus- ROSALINA SIBAL KNUTSON, Respondent.’
"There is no question that the offended party is Rhuby, a minor child, who allegedly experienced violence and abuse. Thus, Randy may assist Rhuby in filing the petition as the parent of the offended party.
“On the other hand, Randy is not asking for a protection order in his favor. As intimated earlier, Randy filed the petition on behalf of their minor daughter Rhuby. The petition is principally and directly for the protection of the minor child and not the father.
“Admittedly, Randy also asked for the temporary custody of their daughter because the mother was allegedly unfit. Yet, the RTC did not evaluate the case whether the mother may be divested of custody over the child. The RTC ignored the evidence on the pretext that the father is not allowed to apply for protection and custody orders because he is not a woman victim of violence.
“On this point, the Court finds grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC that amounted to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.
“The RTC should have examined the evidence on record and made a prima facie determination as to the ideal person to whom the temporary custody of the child should be awarded. The best interest of the child should be the primordial and paramount concern.
“The fact that a social legislation affords special protection to a particular sector does not automatically suggest that its members are excluded from violating such law. This is not the first time that social legislations in the Philippines with penal character used the phrase ‘any person’ to describe who may be offenders.
“There are parallel provisions in RA No. 7610, 39 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, RA No. 7277, as amended by RA No. 9442, or the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons; RA No. 8042,44 as amended by RA No. 10022,45 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995; RA No. 4670,47 or the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers....
“In other words, identification or association with such groups will not exempt their members from criminal liability. A child 16 years old and above who acted with discernment may still be charged with violation of RA No. 7610 if he induces or coerces another child to perform in obscene exhibitions. A person with disability is likewise criminally liable under RA No. 7277, as amended, if he discriminates or publicly ridicules another person suffering from restriction, impairment, or a different ability.
“Logically, a mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under RA No. 9262 is not absolved from criminal liability notwithstanding that the measure is intended to protect both women and their children.
“In this case, however, the RTC dismissed Randy's petition for protection orders on behalf of his minor daughter on the ground that the mother cannot be considered as an offender under the law.
“To restate, the policy of RA No. 9262 is to guarantee full respect for human rights. Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed against children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is a party.
“Section 4 of RA No. 9262 mandates that the law ‘shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and their children.’
“Obviously, the RTC's restrictive interpretation requiring that the mother and her child to be victims of violence before they may be entitled to the remedies of protection and custody orders will frustrate the policy of the law to afford special attention to women and children as usual victims of violence and abuse.
“The approach will weaken the law and remove from its coverage instances where the mother herself is the abuser of her child. The cramping stance negates not only the plain letters of the law and the clear legislative intent as to who may be offenders but also downgrades the country's avowed international commitment to eliminate all forms of violence against children including those perpetrated by their parents.
“The RTC's consoling statement that children who suffered abuse from the hands of their own mothers may invoke other laws except RA No. 9262 is discriminatory. The supposed reassurance is an outright denial of effective legal measures to address the seriousness and urgency of the situation.
“Suffice it to say that only RA No. 9262 created the innovative remedies of protection and custody orders. Other laws have no mechanisms to prevent further acts of violence against the child.
“In sum, the Court refuses to be an instrument of injustice and public mischief perpetrated against vulnerable sectors of the society such as children who are victims of violence. The Court will not shirk its bounden duty to interpret the law in keeping with the cardinal principle that in enacting a statute, the legislature intended right and justice to prevail.
“FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition (filed by Randy) for Certiorari is GRANTED. The Orders dated January 10, 2018 and March 14, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 69 in JDRC Case No. 313 are SET ASIDE. Let a PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER be issued immediately. SO ORDERED.”
Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (with a separate opinion) and Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando, Amy C. Lazaro Javier (with concurring opinion), Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, Samuel H. Gaerlan, Ricardo R. Rosario, Jhosep Y. Lopez, Japar B. Dimaampao and Jose Midas P. Marquez concurred in the decision.
Those who dissented were Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo and Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Rodil V. Zalameda, Antonio T. Kho Jr., and Maria Filomena D. Singh.
TAGS: #SC #VAWC #Protection of children #Randy Michael Knutson