Dear PAO,

As a father of a minor child, is it legally possible for me to seek remedies under the VAWC Law? My former wife is verbally abusing our child, but she insists that she cannot be held liable under the law because it was enacted solely for the protection of women and their children. I feel hopeless with our current situation.

Rico

Dear Rico,

Indeed, Republic Act 9262 (RA 9262), otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, defines violence against women and their children as “any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.” (Sec. 3(a))

On its face, RA 9262 appears to primarily protect and benefit women. However, in a fairly recent case, the Supreme Court ruled that fathers can seek remedies under the law on behalf of children who are being abused by their mothers. In the case of Knutson v. Hon. Sarmiento-Flores (GR 239215, July 12, 2022, Ponente: Associate Justice Mario Lopez), the Supreme Court stated:

“Section 9 (b) of RA No. 9262 explicitly allows ‘parents or guardians of the offended party’ to file a petition for protection orders. The exact provision was incorporated in Section 12 (b) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9262 and Section 8 (b) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, or the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children. The statute categorically used the word ‘parents’ which pertains to the father and the mother of the woman or child victim. Absolute Sentencia Expositore Non Indiget. The law speaks in clear language and no explanation is required. There is no occasion for the Court to interpret but only to apply the law when it is not ambiguous. Similarly, the statute did not qualify on who between the parents of the victim may apply for protection orders. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus. When the law does not distinguish, the courts must not distinguish.

“In any event, A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC states that the Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory manner to petitions for protection orders. Under Section 5, Rule 3 of Rules of Court, ‘[a] minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem.’ In this case, the title of the petition for issuance of a protection order is unequivocal, to wit: ‘RANDY MICHAEL KNUTSON acting on behalf of minor RHUBY SIBAL KNUTSON, Petitioner, -versus- ROSALINA SIBAL KNUTSON, Respondent.’ There is no question that the offended party is Rhuby, a minor child, who allegedly experienced violence and abuse. Thus, Randy may assist Rhuby in filing the petition as the parent of the offended party.”

The Supreme Court further ruled that RA 9262 is applicable to cases where the mother committed violent and abusive acts against her own child:

“Differently stated, the fact that a social legislation affords special protection to a particular sector does not automatically suggest that its members are excluded from violating such law. This is not the first time that social legislations in the Philippines with penal character used the phrase “any person” to describe who may be offenders. There are parallel provisions in RA No. 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, RA No. 7277, as amended by RA No. 9442, or the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, RA No. 8042, as amended by RA No. 10022, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, RA No. 4670, or the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, RA No. 9433, or the Magna Carta for Public Social Workers, and RA No. 7305, or the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers. In other words, identification or association with such groups will not exempt their members from criminal liability. xxx

“Logically, a mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under RA No. 9262 is not absolved from criminal liability notwithstanding that the measure is intended to protect both women and their children. xxx”

The Supreme Court concluded that it “refuses to be an instrument of injustice and public mischief perpetrated against vulnerable sectors of the society such as children victims of violence. The Court will not shirk its bounden duty to interpret the law in keeping with the cardinal principle that in enacting a statute, the legislature intended right and justice to prevail.” (Knutson v. Hon. Sarmiento-Flores, supra)

Thus, applying this jurisprudence to your case, you may avail of the remedies provided under RA 9262 and file a complaint against your wife on behalf of your abused minor child.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]