The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated it ruling that violations of the law on Anti-Violence against Women and their Children (VAWC) can be committed not only by husbands or fathers but also by women in lesbian relationships.
In its previous decision promulgated in 2013, the SC had ruled that “VAWC may likewise be committed ‘against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship.’”
It pointed out that “the use of gender-neutral word ‘person’ who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships.”
With the reiteration of its previous ruling, the SC – in a decision written by Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting – denied the petition filed by Sandra against the order of the regional trial court (RTC) which denied her motion to dismiss the case filed against her by Maria Eloisa.
Manila Bulletin decided not to print their full names.
The VAWC case was filed before the trial court against Sandra in 2018.
Maria Eloisa claimed, among other things, that Sandra, her live-in partner for 16 years, inflicted
physical injuries on her by crushing her hands with the door of the car during an altercation. She said her injuries required medical attention for at least 30 days.
She also said that Sandra threatened to burn down the house when she refused to issue an absolute
deed of sale in Sandra’s favor.
Sandra asked the trial court to dismiss the charge as she pointed out that the law on VAWC does not apply to lesbian relationship. Her plea was denied in 2019 prompting her to elevate the issue before
the SC.
The SC said Sandra’s petition could be dismissed outright for being an improper remedy since the denial of the motion to dismiss by the trial court was a mere interlocutory order which cannot be appealed.
But the SC said it opted to resolve the petition “only to reiterate the earlier pronouncement in 2013 (Garcia vs Drilon) that Republic Act No. 9262 (VAWC law) applies to lesbian relationships.”
The SC said:
“Contrary to petitioner's (Sandra) submission that the foregoing disquisition in Garcia was a mere obiter dictum (opinion), the Court notes that one of the issues raised in Garcia is the supposed discriminatory and unjust provisions of RA 9262 which are likewise violative of the equal protection clause.
“The foregoing discussion of the Court as to the applicability of the law to lesbian relationships is clearly a resolution of the particular issue raised in Garcia and not a mere obiter dictum or an opinion of the Court.
“The statement of the Court that ‘[t]here is likewise no merit to the contention that RA 9262 singles out the husband or father as the culprit’ further amplifies that the issue of whether RA 9262 only applies to male perpetrators was indeed raised in the said case.
“Applying the case of Garcia, the motion to quash information filed by the petitioner on the ground that the facts charged therein do not constitute an offense utterly lacks basis.
“Wherefore, the petition is denied. So ordered.”