I L O N
. D R
A V S 0 1 3
RCI | June 2 5, 2
A 2 67
179
G G.R . No.
Temporary
Protection
Order
TPO GRANTED
March 24 = TPO (30 days) April 26 = Opposition
MAY 23 = Modify TPO w/ visitation rights
MAY 24 = Renewed TPO w/ visitation rights
AUGUST 23 = TPO due to failure to comply w/ TPO
SEPTEMBER 26 = TPO extended for 10 days
OCT 5 = TPO renewed & OCT 6 = Order to notify petitioner
Petition for prohibition with prayer
for injunction and temporary
restraining order
Constitutionality of R.A. 9262
Validity of the modified TPO
MAY 26 = CA issued 60-day TRO against TPOs
JANUARY 24 = CA dismissed the petition
1. Failure of petitioner to raise the
constitutional issue in his pleadings
before RTC
2. Collateral attack on RA 9262
AUGUST 14 = MR is denied, hence this petition
ISSUES Whether or not
• Issue of constitutionality was not raised at the
earliest possible opportunity?
• RA 9262 is violative of the equal protection clause?
• RA 9262 is violative of the due process clause of the
constitution?
• RA 9262 is violative of the policy to protect the
family as a basic social institution?
• RA 9262 is an undue delegation of judicial power to
the barangay officials?
PETITION FOR REVIEW IS
DENIED
Question of constitutionality of R.A. 9262
not raised before the RTC of Bacolod City
As a general rule, the question of constitutionality
must be raised at the earliest opportunity so that
if not raised in the pleadings, ordinarily it may not
be raised in the trial, and if not raised in the trial
court, it will not be considered on appeal. Courts
will not anticipate a question of constitutional law
in advance of the necessity of deciding it.
Gender-based classification of RA 9262 does
not violate the Equal Protection Clause
The equal protection clause in our Constitution
does not guarantee an absolute prohibition against
classification. The non-identical treatment of
women and men under RA 9262 is justified to put
them on equal footing and to give substance to the
policy and aim of the state to ensure the equality of
women and men in light of the biological, historical,
social, and culturally endowed differences between
men and women.
Grant of a TPO ex parte cannot be challenged
as violative of the right to due process
The rules require that petitions for protection order be in
writing, signed and verified by the petitioner thereby
undertaking full responsibility, criminal or civil, for every
allegation therein. Since "time is of the essence in cases
of VAWC if further violence is to be prevented, ”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.
RA 9262 is not violative of policy to protect
the family as a basic social institution
Mediation is a process by which parties in equivalent
bargaining positions voluntarily reach consensual
agreement about the issue at hand. Violence, however,
is not a subject for compromise. A process which
involves parties mediating the issue of violence implies
that the victim is somehow at fault. In addition,
mediation of issues in a proceeding for an order of
protection is problematic because the petitioner is
frequently unable to participate equally with the person
against whom the protection order has been sought.
Punong Barangay’s executive functions do
not constitute an exercise of judicial powers
Thee BPO issued by the Punong Barangay or, in his
unavailability, by any available Barangay Kagawad,
merely orders the perpetrator to desist from (a) causing
physical harm to the woman or her child; and (2)
threatening to cause the woman or her child physical
harm. Such function of the Punong Barangay is, thus,
purely executive in nature, in pursuance of his duty under
the Local Government Code to "enforce all laws and
ordinances," and to "maintain public order in the
barangay."
i n c in g
c o n v r t o
e a n d itio n e
id e n c y p e t
t e ev n t e d b e
o n c r e re s e o f th i s an
No c e re p r a t io n h ic h
e n t s w d e c la 6 2 , w th e
a 2 y
argum warrant ty of R.A. 9 into law b tive
io n a li i g n ed xe c u
s tit u t a n d s q u a l e
n c o n g r e s s e c o - e
u C o n o f th t .
ac t o f f fic e r tm e n
s t o e p a r
highe d
