GARCIA VS DRILON

FACTS: Rosalie Garcia (respondent)

filed a Temporary Protection Order
(TPO) for her and children against her
husband, Jesus Garcia (petitioner),
who had engaged in extra-marital
relationships with the god mother of
their children. Rosalie has been
subjected to physical abuse, as well as
her daughter, and his son has been
suffering from trauma after a few men
attempted to kidnap him from school,
as ordered by his father. TPO is
provided for under RA 9262, AntiViolence Against Women and their
Children Act of 2004.
Court granted the TPO, but the
petitioner failed to live up to the
orders. Respondent called for an
extension and modification of the TPO,
which was granted, after the petitioner
failed to state contrary reasons which
would justify non-issuance of the TPO.
Given time to answer on it, the
petitioner stated that he would no
longer answer, as it would be an
exercise in futility.

ISSUES:
1) Whether the CA erred in dismissing
the petition on the theory that the
issue of constitutionality was not
raised at the earliest opportunity, thus
the petition constitutes a collateral
attack on the validity of the law;
2) CA committed serious error in
failing to conclude that RA 9262 is
discriminatory, unjust, and violative of
the equal protection clause;
3) CA committed grave mistake in not
finding that RA 9262 runs counter to
the due process clause of the
Constitution;
4) CA was erroneous in not finding the
law doing violence to the policy of the
state to protect the family as a basic
social institution;
5) CA seriously erred in not declaring
RA 9262 invalid and unconstitutional
because it allows an undue delegation
of judicial power to the barangay
officials.
DECISION:

Petitioner then raised a prohibition,

with
prayer
for
injunction
and
temporary
restraining
order,
challenging the constitutionality of the
RA 9262 for being a) violative of the
due process and equal protection
clauses, and b) validity of the modified
TPO issued in the civil case for being
an unwanted product of an invalid
law.
A TRO was released on the protection
orders. Later, CA dismissed the
petition for failure of petitioner to raise
the constitutional issues in his
pleadings before the trial court, and
that the challenge to the validity of RA
9262 constituted a collateral attack on
said law. Thus, the petition.

RATIONALE:
1) Constitutional questions have to be
raised on the earliest opportunity. In
the failure of the petitioner to attack
the Constitution, he defended that the
Family court is inadequate to tackle
the complex issue of constitutionality.
Contrary to his allegation, Family
Courts have authority to consider the
constitutionality of a statute. Inspite of
its designation as a family court, it has
the authority as a court of general
jurisdiction to pass all kinds of cases
whether
civil,
criminal,
special
proceedings,
land
registration,
guardianship,
naturalization,
admiralty, or insolvency. RTCs have
the
jurisdiction
to
resolve

constitutionality of a statute. Issue of

constitutionality therefore could have
been firstly raised in the RTC in
Bacolod, not in the CA.
2) RA 9262 is not discriminatory,
unjust, and violative of the equal
protection clause in the senate
deliberations for the law, it was
presented that while men may be
victims themselves, more women are
victims of abuse than the other
gender. There exists unequal power
relationship between women and
men, otherwise known as genderbased
violence.
There
is
widespread gender bias, wherein there
are prejudices against women in
society. The law is pursued with the
UN agreement Convention on the
Elimination
of
All
Forms
of
Discrimination
Against
Women
(CEDAW). More importantly, it is not
the work of the courts to discuss the
wisdom of the laws passed by
congress. The remedy for questions to
laws are repeals or amendments,
which are the work of the legislative.
3) Issuance of TPO is substantiated by
claims of violence against the victim,
in form of petitions written, signed,
and verified by the petitioner. When
the TP is awarded, the court provides
a notice to be immediately given to
the respondent directing him to file an
opposition within 5 days from service.

Opposition to the petition by the

respondent is possible, and should
show cause of why a temporary or
permanent protection order should not
be issued.
4) Under a TPO, the non-referral of a
VAWC case to a mediator is justified.
This, the petitioner claims, runs
contrary to the policy of the State to
protect and strengthen the family as a
basic autonomous social institution.
The grounds for justification is as
follows: The violence inflicted is not
subject to a compromise, as this would
imply that the victim is at fault.
Petitioner of TPO is also unable to
participate equally with the person
against whom protection has been
sought.
5) Issuance of Barangay Protection
Orders (BPO) by the Punong Barangay
or Barangay Kagawad is not a
delegation of judicial authority to
them.
Rather,
it
is
in
the
performance of their duties to
enforce all laws and ordinances
and to maintain public order in
the barangay. It merely orders
the perpetrator to desist from a)
causing physical harm to the
woman or her child, and b)
threatening to cause the woman
or her child physical harm.