Trial courts can issue a temporary protection order (TPO) in cases involving violence against women and children even without notice and hearing (ex parte) to a person who is named in the complaint.

A TPO is issued by courts “to prevent further acts of violence against women and their children, their family or household members, and to grant other necessary reliefs,” the Supreme Court (SC) said.

The purpose “is to safeguard the offended parties from further harm, minimize any disruption in their daily life and facilitate the opportunity and ability to regain control of their lives,” the SC stressed.

In a decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the said pointed out: “Pursuant to the State policy of protecting women and children from violence and threats to their security and safety, this Court will not interpret a provision of Republic Act No. 9262 (the Violence Against Women and Their Children Act or VAWC) as to make it powerless and futile.”

Reiterating its previous ruling, the SC said: “The scope of reliefs in protection orders is broadened to ensure that the victim or offended party is afforded all the remedies necessary to curtail access by a perpetrator to the victim. This serves to safeguard the victim from greater risk of violence; to accord the victim and any designated family or household member safety in the family residence, and to prevent the perpetrator from committing acts that jeopardize the employment and support of the victim.”

The SC said the order “also enables the court to award temporary custody of minor children to protect the children from violence, to prevent their abduction by the perpetrator and to ensure their financial support."

It said that since “time is of the essence” in cases involving VAWC, “the court is authorized to issue ex parte a TPO after raffle but before notice and hearing when the life, limb or property of the victim is in jeopardy and there is reasonable ground to believe that the order is necessary to protect the victim from the immediate and imminent danger of VAWC or to prevent such violence, which is about to recur.”

The SC said: “There need not be any fear that the judge may have no rational basis to issue an ex parte order. The victim is required not only to verify the allegations in the petition, but also to attach her witnesses' affidavits to the petition.”

Thus, the SC said: “The grant of a TPO ex parte cannot, therefore, be challenged as violative of the right to due process. Just like a writ of preliminary attachment which is issued without notice and hearing because the time in which the hearing will take could be enough to enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of his property, in the same way, the victim of VAWC may already have suffered harrowing experiences in the hands of her tormentor, and possibly even death, if notice and hearing were required before such acts could be prevented.”

It pointed out that “it is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements of procedural due process must yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests, among which is protection of women and children from violence and threats to their personal safety and security.”

The SC, however, reminded trial courts that when a TPO is issued ex parte, “the court shall likewise order that notice be immediately given to the respondent (person named in the complaint) directing him to file an opposition within five (5) days from service.”

Also, it said “the court shall order that notice, copies of the petition and TPO be served immediately on the respondent by the court sheriffs. The TPOs are initially effective for thirty (30) days from service on the respondent.”

The SC decision was issued on a petition of a businessman who has been a long-time partner of a woman with whom he has three children. The second daughter died when she was eight years old.

The decision, which denied the petition, redacted the names, places, and other information that may identify the parties on the case denominated as GR No. 187175 which was made public last Nov. 9.

A summary issued by the SC’s public information office said the woman and her children filed a petition before the regional trial court for the issuance of a TPO and permanent protection order (PPO) against her live-in partner.

The woman told the RTC that her live-in partner would often tell her how worthless she was, and that with his money, he could hire someone to kill her.  

She said that with her live-in partner’s character, he would make true his words and that since her children were his co-complainants, he might be angered “and there is no telling what kind of traumatizing acts he will inflict upon them.”

The RTC issued a TPO which prohibited the businessman “from committing or threatening to commit against the woman and the children physical harm, harassment, and restraint on their personal liberty.”  

He was also ordered to stay 200 meters away from the woman, her designated family and household members, their residence, and the children’s school. A PPO was issued in 2009 prompting him to elevate the issue directly to the SC on a question of law on alleged violation of due process.

The SC said that RA 9262 “is a landmark legislation that delineates and penalizes acts of violence against women and their children committed by intimate partners which include a "husband, former husband, or any person who has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom the woman has a common child, or against her child whether (marital or nonmarital), within or without the family abode.”

It said: “All told, it is unnecessary to belabor petitioner's erroneous conclusion that Republic Act No. 9262 is an improper exercise of police power because it violates the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

“To emphasize, before a duly assailed law or any of its provisions are to be declared void, ‘the grounds for nullity must be beyond reasonable doubt.’

“Conversely, in the case at hand, petitioner miserably failed to raise convincing points of arguments that would merit a declaration of unconstitutionality.  

“Wherefore, the petition is denied for lack of merit. So ordered.”