Illicit relationships don鈥檛 extinguish women鈥檚 rights vs violence
The Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act (VAWC), or Republic Act No. 9262, protects even women in illicit relationships, according to the Supreme Court.
In a statement on Thursday, the tribunal said the illicitness of a relationship a woman engages in does not diminish her dignity in any way.
“She will be protected just the same by the law that values her and her children’s dignity and guarantees full respect for their human rights,” it added.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the Supreme Court’s Second Division upheld a permanent protection order (PPO) issued against the petitioner, who primarily argued that VAWC could not provide relief for his longtime live-in partner who, he claimed, was only his paramour.
The PPO was issued to prevent the petitioner from further committing acts of violence against the woman and their children.
For the petitioner, who was then 47 and admittedly married when he met the respondent, then 20, in 1979, although the law’s protection extends to a woman with whom one has or had a sexual or dating relationship, this should be interpreted to mean as a relationship without any legal impediment to marry each other. Otherwise, he said, the law would effectively tolerate adulterous relationships.
Article continues after this advertisementNo distinction
However, the high court corrected the petitioner’s notion as it cited the rule on statutory construction that “when the law does not make any distinction, neither should the courts.”
Article continues after this advertisement“The law protects women and their children from various forms of violence and abuse committed within a setting of an intimate relationship—including the respondent woman and their children,” the court said.
The petitioner also argued that RA 9262, which defines “children” as those below 18 years old, or older but incapable of taking care of themselves, cannot be applied to the case since their children have already reached the age of majority by the time the PPO was issued.
But the high court also rejected his argument, explaining that neither RA 9262 nor the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children distinguishes the age at which children are included in protection orders.
“On both issues, the court upheld the state policy of protecting women and children from violence and threats to their security and safety, declaring that it ‘will not interpret a provision of Republic Act No. 9262 as to make it powerless and futile,’” the Supreme Court said.
