The RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children (VAWC) Act of 2004 has been one of the most discussed and deliberated statutes by lawmakers. It defines as well as criminalized acts of violence against women and their children. Under the said law, acts or series of acts that are committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, ex-wife, a woman the offender had a dating or sexual relationship with, or whom he has a child with, or against the woman’s child (legitimate or illegitimate) which causes any physical, sexual, psychological harm and suffering, or even economic abuse are punished accordingly with imprisonment ranging from 1 month and 1 day to 20 years, payment of P100,000 to P300,000 as damages or mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment, due on the discretion of the Regional Trial Court, specifically one that’s designated as a family court on the same place where the crime is committed.
Under the VAWC Act, protection for women and her children is highlighted. A minor and a person aged 18 years old and beyond but has no ability to decide for himself/herself due to a physical, emotional or mental illness can make full use of its defense. The woman, the victim-child, or any citizen who has personal knowledge of the circumstances of the commission of the crime may file a complaint. Aside from this, a victim may also file for a Protection Order as remedies to prevent the commission of further acts of VAWC. Usually, when VAWC is mentioned, most people only think that it refers to men as offenders. What’s uncommon is that lesbian partners/girlfriends or former partners whom the victim had a sexual or dating relationship with may also be held liable.
Recently, the Supreme Court reiterated its ruling on the applicability of the VAWC Act to lesbian relationships. In a Decision penned by Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting on an Information filed against Jacinto, alleging she caused Maria Eloisa Sarmiento Fouts physical injuries under Section 5 (a) of the said law and dismissing Jacinto’s Motion to Quash, the Court held:
“ VAWC may likewise be committed ‘against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship’. Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word ‘person’ who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships.”
To add, Jacinto’s position on the pronouncement of the Court in Garcia v. Drilon case is not a mere obiter dictum and that the issue presented on the said case on whether the Anti-VAWC Act was discriminatory for singling out husbands or fathers as offenders, is associated with the discussion on the law’s applicability on lesbian relationships. In this case, the rationale for the approval and execution of the statute was recognized. It was noted that the it is the unequal power relationship between women and men and the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of violence, as well as the widespread gender bias and prejudice against all women all make for real differences which justify the classification of the law.
Section 14, Article II of our 1987 Constitution expressly mandates the State to recognize the role of women in nation building and to ensure fundamental equality before the law of women and men. Because of this, there is nothing discriminatory about the VAWC law. Being deemed as a public crime, the application of VAWC Act shall not be limited through genders to provide ample protection to victims as well as achieve the statutory aims of the law.
