Garcia v Drilon Case Digest

JESUS JESU S C. GA GARC RCIA IA vs.TH THE E HO HONO NORA RABL BLE E RA RAY Y AL ALAN AN T. DR DRIL ILON ON,, Presid Pre siding ing Jud Judge, ge, Reg Region iona a Tri Tria a Cou Cour!" r!"Bra Bran#$ n#$ %&, Ba# Ba#oo ood d Ci! Ci!', ', and ROSALIE JAYPE"GARCIA, (or $erse( and in )e$a( o( *inor #$idren, na*e'+ JO"ANN, JOSEPH EDUARD, JESSE ANTHONE, a surna*ed GARCIA G.R. No. &-/0June /1, /2&3

CONCURRING OPINIONS LEONARDO"DE CASTRO, J.+ ISSUE: Constitutionality of RA 9262

WON R.A. NO. 9262 IS DISCRIMINATORY, UNJUST, AND VIOATIV! O" T#! !$UA %ROT!CTION CAUS!. FACTS:

Petitioner Jesus Garcia (husband) appears to have inflicted violence aainst privat pri vatee re respo sponde ndents nts.. Pet Petiti itione onerr ad! ad!itt itted ed hav havin in an aff affair air "i "ith th a ban ban## !anaer. $e callousl% boasted about their se&ual relations to the household help. $is infidelit% e!otionall% "ounded private respondent. 'heir uarrels left her "ith bruises and he!ato!a. Petitioner also unconscionabl% beat up their dauhter Jo*ann "ho! he bla!ed for suealin on hi!. +ll these drove respondent Rosalie Garcia("ife) to despair causin her to atte!pt suicide on ,ece!ber - /001 b % slittin her "rist. Instead of ta#in her to the hospital petitioner left the house. $e never visited her "hen she "as confined for seven () da%s. $e even told his !other*in*la" that respondent should 2ust accept his e&tra!arital affair since he is not cohabitin "ith his para!our and has not sired a child "ith her. 'he private respondent "as deter!ined to separate fro! petitioner. 3ut she "as afraid he "ould ta#e a"a% their children and deprive her of financial support. $e "arned her that if she pursued leal battle she "ould not et a sinle centavo fro! hi!. +fter she confronted hi! of his affair he forbade her to hold office. 'his deprived her of access to full infor!ation about their businesses.

'hus the R'C found reasonable round to believe there "as i!!inent daner of violence aainst respondent and her children and issued a series of 'e!porar% Protection Orders ('PO) orderin petitioner a!on other thins to surrender all his firear!s includin a .455 caliber firear! and a 6alther PP7. %&tition&' ()all&n*&s t)& (onstitutionality of RA 9262 fo'  +. a-in* a *&n&'/0as& (lassifi(ation, t)us, 1'oiin* '&&i&s only to 3i&s43o&n an not to )us0ans4&n. 2. #& (lais t)at &&n t)& titl& of t)& la3, 5An A(t D&finin* Viol&n(& A*ainst Wo&n an T)&i' C)il'&n5 is al'&ay s&/is('iinato'y 0&(aus& it &ans iol&n(& 0y &n a*ainst 3o&n. 7. T)& la3 also o&s not in(lu& iol&n(& (oitt& 0y 3o&n a*ainst ()il'&n an ot)&'  3o&n. 8. #& as t)at *&n&' alon& is not &nou*) 0asis to &1'i& t)& )us0an4fat)&' of t)& '&&i&s un&' it 0&(aus& its ao3& 1u'1os& is to (u'0 an 1unis) s1ousal iol&n(&. T)& sai '&&i&s a'& is('iinato'y a*ainst t)& )us0an4al& *&n&'. . T)&'& 0&in* no '&asona0l& iff&'&n(& 0&t3&&n an a0us& )us0an an an a0us& 3if&, t)&equal protection  *ua'ant&& is iolat&. Important and Essential Governmental Objectives: 1.

Saf&*ua' #uan Ri*)ts,

2.

!nsu'& :&n&' !;uality an

3.

!1o3&' Wo&n

-.

/. :. ;. 1.

In!erna!iona La4s 3% constitutional !andate the Philippines is co!!itted to ensure that hu!an rihts and funda!ental freedo!s are full% en2o%ed b% ever%one. It "as one of the countries that voted in favor of the Universal ,eclaration of $u!an Rihts (U,$R). In addition the Philippines is a sinator% to !an% United Nations hu!an rihts treaties such as the Convention on the 8li!ination of +ll 9or!s of Racial ,iscri!ination the International Covenant on 8cono!ic Social and Cultural Rihts the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rihts the Convention +ainst 'orture and the Convention on the Rihts of the Child a!on others. UDHR

+s a sinator% to the U,$R the Philippines pleded itself to achieve the pro!otion of universal respect for and observance of hu!an rihts and funda!ental freedo!s #eepin in !ind the standards under the ,eclaration. +!on the standards under the U,$R are the follo"in< Ar!i#e &. +ll hu!an beins are born free and e5ua in dinit% and rihts. 'he% are endo"ed "ith reason and conscience and should act to"ards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. &&&& Ar!i#e -. +ll are eual before the la" and are entitled 4i!$ou! an' dis#ri*ina!ion !o e5ua 6ro!e#!ion o( !$e a4 . +ll are entitled to eual protection aainst an% discri!ination in violation of this ,eclaration and aainst an% incite!ent to such discri!ination. Ar!i#e 7. 8ver%one has the riht to an e((e#!i8e re*ed'  b% the co!petent national tribunals for acts violatin the funda!ental rihts ranted hi! b% the constitution or b% la".

•

•

De#ara!ion o( Poi#' in RA /0/ enunciates the purpose of the said la" "hich is to fulfill the overn!ent=s obliation to safeuard the dinit% and hu!an rihts of "o!en and children b% providin effective re!edies aainst do!estic violence or ph%sical ps%choloical and other for!s of abuse perpetuated b% the husband partner or father of the victi!. 'he said la" is also vie"ed "ithin the conte&t of the constitutional !andate to ensure gender e5uai!'  "hich is uoted as follo"s< Se#!ion &%. 'he State reconi>es the role of "o!en in nation*buildin and shall ensure the funda!ental eualit% before the la" of "o!en and !en. HE!: "A #$%$ is &OT U&CO&SITUTIO&A'

&. RA /0/ " #o*6ian#e 4i!$ !$e CEDA9

It has been ac#no"leded that ?ender*based violence is a for! of  discri!ination that seriousl% inhibits "o!en@s abilit% to en2o% rihts and  freedo!s on a basis of eualit% "ith !en. ? R+ 4/A/ can be vie"ed therefore as the Philippines= co!pliance "ith the CEDA9, "hich is co!!itted to

conde!n discri!ination aainst "o!en and directs its !e!bers to underta#e "ithout dela% all appropriate !eans to eli!inate discri!ination aainst "o!en in all for!s both in la" and in practice. CEDA9 7no"n as the International 3ill of Rihts of 6o!en the C8,+6 is the central and !ost co!prehensive docu!ent for the advance!ent of the "elfare of "o!en. 'he C8,+6 in its prea!ble e&plicitl% ac#no"ledes the e&istence of e&tensive discri!ination aainst "o!en and e!phasi>ed that such is a violation of the principles of e5uai!' of rihts and res6e#! (or $u*an digni!'.

/. P$ii66ines o)iga!ion as s!a!e"6ar!' !o CEDA9

'he Philippines is under leal obliation to ensure their develop!ent and advance!ent for the i!prove!ent of their position fro! one of de 2ure  as "ell as de facto  eualit% "ith !en. 'he C8,+6 oin be%ond the concept of discri!ination used in !an% leal standards and nor!s focuses on discri!ination aainst "o!en "ith the e!phasis that "o!en have suffered and are continuin to suffer fro! various for!s of discri!ination on account of their )ioogi#a se:. 'he overn!ental ob2ectives of protectin hu!an rihts and funda!ental freedo!s "hich includes pro!otin ender eualit% and e!po"erin "o!en as !andated not onl% b% our Cons!i!u!ion but also b% co!!it!ents "e have !ade in the in!erna!iona sphere are undeniabl% i!portant and essential. RA /0/ provides the "idest rane of reliefs for "o!en and children "ho are victi!s of violence "hich are often reported to have been co!!itted not b% straners but b% a father or a husband or a person "ith "ho! the victi! has or had a se&ual or datin relationship.

3. T$e Gender"Based Cassi(i#a!ion in RA /0/ is Su)s!an!ia' Rea!ed !o !$e A#$ie8e*en! o( Go8ern*en!a O);e#!i8es His!ori#a Pers6e#!i8e+

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

+ forein histor% professor noted that< ?fro! the earliest civili>ations on the sub2uation of "o!en in the for! of violence "ere facts of life Judeo*Christian reliious ideasB Gree# philosoph%B and the Co!!on a" eal Code< all ?assu!ed 6a!riar#$' as na!ura B that is !ale do!ination ste!!in fro! the vie" of !ale superiorit%.? -Dth centur% leal e&pert 9iia* Ba#e Conress or the overn!ent to activel% underta#e a!eliorative action that "ould re!ed% e&istin ineualities and ineuities e&perienced b% "o!en and children brouht about b% %ears of discri!ination. 'he eual protection clause "hen 2u&taposed to this provision provides a stroner !andate for the overn!ent to co!bat such discri!ination. Indeed these provisions order Conress to ?ive  hihest priorit% to the enact!ent of !easures that protect and enhance the  riht of all the people to hu!an dinit% reduce social econo!ic and political  ineualities and re!ove cultural ineuities.? 

•

•

RA /0/ is >THE? a*eiora!i8e a#!ion In enactin R.+. 4/A/ Conress has ta#en an a!eliorative action that "ould address the evil effects of the social !odel of patriarch% a pattern that is deepl% e!bedded in the societ%=s subconscious on 9ilipino "o!en and children and elevate their status as hu!an beins on the sa*e e8e as the father or the husband. R.+. 4/A/ ai!s to put a stop to the c%cle of !ale abuses borne of discri!ination aainst "o!en. It is an a!eliorative !easure not a for! of ?reverse discri!ination? aainst. A*eiora!i8e a#!ion   ?is not an e&ception to eualit% but an e&pression and attain!ent of de facto  eualit% the enuine and substantive eualit% "hich the 9ilipino people the!selves enshrined as a oal of the -4D Constitution.? +!eliorative !easures are necessar% as a redistributive !echanis! in an uneual societ% to achieve substantive eualit%. A*eiora!i8e *easures !o a#$ie8e su)s!an!i8e e5uai!' In the conte&t of "o!en=s rihts su)s!an!i8e e5uai!'   has been defined b% the Convention on the 8li!ination of all for!s of ,iscri!ination +ainst 6o!en (C8,+6) as eualit% "hich reuires that "o!en be iven an eual start and that the% be e!po"ered b% an enablin environ!ent to achieve eualit% of results. It is not enouh to uarantee "o!en treat!ent that is identical to that of !en. Rather bioloical as "ell as sociall% and culturall% constructed differences bet"een "o!en and !en !ust be ta#en into

account. Under certain circu!stances non"iden!i#a !rea!*en! of "o!en and !en "ill be reuired in order to address such differences. 6o!en=s strule for eualit% "ith !en has evolved under three !odels< -. @or*a e5uai!'   * "o!en and !en are to be rearded and treated as the sa!e. 3ut this !odel does not ta#e into account bioloical and sociall% constructed differences bet"een "o!en and !en. 3% failin to ta#e into account these differences a for!al eualit% approach !a% in fact perpetuate discri!ination and disadvantae. /. Pro!e#!ionis! *ode   F this reconi>es differences bet"een "o!en and !en but considers "o!en=s "ea#ness as the rationale for different treat!ent. 'his approach reinforces the inferior status of "o!en and does not address the issue of discri!ination of "o!en on account of their ender. :. Su)s!an!i8e e5uai!' *ode  F this assu!es that "o!en are ?not vulnerable b% nature but suffer fro! i!posed disadvantae? and that ?if these i!posed disadvantaes "ere eli!inated there "as no further need for protection.? 'hus the substantive eualit% !odel ives pri!e i!portance to "o!en=s conte&ts realities and e&periences and the outco!es or results of acts and !easures directed at or affectin the! "ith a vie" to eli!inatin the disadvantaes the% e&perience as "o!en.

A. T$e gender")ased #assi(i#a!ion o( RA /0/ does no! 8ioa!e !$e E5ua Pro!e#!ion Cause (application of the substantive eualit% !odel)  'he eual protection clause in our Constitution does not uarantee an absolute prohibition aainst classification. 'he non*identical treat!ent of "o!en and !en under R+ 4/A/ is 2ustified to put the! on eual footin and to ive substance to the polic% and ai! of the state to ensure the eualit% of "o!en and !en in liht of the )ioogi#a, $is!ori#a, so#ia, and #u!ura' endo4ed di((eren#es )e!4een *en and 4o*en. R+ 4/A/ b% affordin special and e&clusive protection to "o!en and children "ho are vulnerable victi!s of do!estic violence undoubtedl% serves the i!portant overn!ental ob2ectives of protectin hu!an rihts insurin ender eualit% and e!po"erin "o!en. 'he ender*based classification and the special re!edies prescribed b% said la" in favor of "o!en and children are substantiall% related in fact essentiall% necessar%

to achieve such ob2ectives. $ence said +ct survives the inter!ediate revie" or !iddle*tier 2udicial scrutin%. 'he ender*based classification therein is therefore no! 8ioa!i8e of the eual protection clause e!bodied in the -4D Constitution. Jus!i#e Brion+ +s traditionall% vie"ed the constitutional provision of eual protection si!pl% reuires that si!ilarl% situated persons be treated in the sa!e "a%. It does not connote identit% of rihts a!on individuals nor does it reuire that ever% person is treated identicall% in all circu!stances. It acts as a safeuard to ensure that State*dra"n distinctions a!on persons are based on reasonable classifications and !ade pursuant to a proper overn!ental purpose. In short statutor% classifications are not unconstitutional "hen sho"n to be reasonable and !ade pursuant to a leiti!ate overn!ent ob2ective.

R.+. No. 4/A/ as a *easure in!ended !o s!reng!$en !$e (a*i' . Conress found that do!estic and other for!s of violence aainst "o!en and children contribute to the failure to unif% and strenthen fa!il% ties thereb% i!pedin the State=s !andate to activel% pro!ote the fa!il%=s total develop!ent. Conress also found as a reai!', !$a! 4o*en and #$idren are *ore sus#e6!i)e !o do*es!i# and o!$er (or*s o( 8ioen#e  due to a!on others the pervasive bias and pre2udice aainst "o!en and the stereot%pin of roles "ithin the fa!il% environ!ent that traditionall% e&ist in Philippine societ%. On this basis Conress found it necessar% to reconi>e the substantial distinction "ithin the fa!il% bet"een !en on the one hand and "o!en and children on the other hand. 'his reconition incidentall% is not the first to be !ade in the la"s as our la" on persons and fa!il% under the Civil Code also reconi>e in various "a%s the distinctions bet"een !en and "o!en in the conte&t of the fa!il%.

Jus!i#e Leonen+ It !a% be said that violence in the conte&t of inti!ate relationships should not be seen and encrusted as a ender issueB rather it is a po"er issue.

3% concurrin "ith these state!ents I e&press a hope< that the nor!ative constitutional reuire!ents of hu!an dinit% and funda!ental eualit% can beco!e descriptive realit%. 'he sociall% constructed distinctions bet"een

"o!en and !en that have afflicted us and spa"ned discri!ination and violence should be eradicated sooner. Po4er and in!i*a#' s$oud no! #o" e:is!. 'he inti!ate spaces created b% our hu!an relationships are our safe havens  fro! the helter s#elter of this "orld. It is in that space "here "e ro" in  the safet% of the special other "ho "e hope "ill be there for our entire  lifeti!e. If that is not possible then for such ti!e as "ill be sufficient to  create cherished !e!ories enouh to last for eternit%. I concur in the ponencia. +ainst abo!inable acts let this la" ta#e its full course. Jus!i#e A)ad+ R+ 4/A/ is a historic step in the 9ilipino "o!en@s lon strule to be freed fro! a lon*held belief that !en are entitled "hen displeased or !inded to hit their "ives or partners and their children. 'his la" institutionali>es pro!pt co!!unit% response to this violent behavior throuh barana% officials "ho can co!!and the !an to i!!ediatel% desist fro! har!in his ho!e partner and their children. It also establishes do!estic violence as a cri!e not onl% aainst its victi!s but aainst societ% as "ell. No loner is do!estic violence lihtl% dis!issed as a case of !arital dispute that la" enforcers ouht not to et into.

C$ie( Jus!i#e Puno on E:6anded E5ua 6ro!e#!ion and Su)s!an!i8e E5uai!' Chief Justice Re%nato S. Puno espouses that the eual protection clause can no loner be interpreted as onl% a uarantee of for!al eualit% but of substantive eualit%. ?It ouht to be construed in consonance "ith social  2ustice as Ethe heart= particularl% of the -4D Constitutiona transfor!ative covenant in "hich the 9ilipino people areed to enshrine as'**e!ri#a e5uai!' to uplift disadvantaed roups and build a enuinel% ealitarian de!ocrac%.? 'his !eans that the "ea# includin "o!en in relation to !en can be treated "ith a !easure of bias that the% !a% cease to be "ea#. C$ie( Jus!i#e Puno oes on< ?'he 8&panded 8ual Protection Clause anchored on the hu!an rihts rationale is desined as a "eapon aainst the indinit% of discri!ination so that in the 6a!en!' une5ua P$ii66ine so#ie!' 

each person !a% be restored to his or her rihtful position as a person "ith eual !oral status.?