Mothers may be liable under VAWC, too

Published in Daily Tribune on February 16, 2023
by: Mary Jasmin Zennaia M. Balasolla

The passage of Republic Act 9262, also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, was a defining moment in Philippine legal history. Some believed that RA 9262 had shifted the law even further in favor of women, demoting men to the role of adversaries. To be clear, however, RA 9262 is not anti-men; rather, it seeks to protect women and children.

Even though men are the most common offenders, this is not always the case. Other people, including mothers, may be held liable under VAWC, as determined in the case of Knutson v. Sarmiento-Flores (G.R. 239215, 12 July 2022).

On 7 December 2017, Randy Michael Knutson (Randy) petitioned the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 69 for the issuance of Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders against Rosalina Sibal Knutson alleging that she put their daughter, Rhuby Sibal Knutson, in a dangerous environment that was detrimental to her physical, emotional, moral, and psychological development.

The RTC denied Randy’s petition and held that protection and custody orders could not be issued against a mother who allegedly abused her own child because the child’s mother is not considered an offender under the law. Moreover, the remedies are not available to the father because he is not a “woman victim of violence” contemplated therein.

Randy moved that the dismissal be reconsidered, but the RTC denied his motion. This prompted him to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.

In granting Randy’s petition, the Supreme Court ruled that it is improper to conclude that a father cannot avail of the remedies in RA 9262 solely because he is not a “woman victim of violence.”

Section 9(b) of RA 9262 allows the offended party’s parents or guardians to file a petition for protection orders. This provision was incorporated in Section 12(b) of RA 9262 Implementing Rules and Regulations and Section 8(B) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children). Pursuant thereto, Randy, as the father of the child victim, can file a petition for a protection order on the child’s behalf.

Furthermore, Randy can file for a protection order because he is not asking for it in his favor but on behalf of his minor daughter, Rhuby.

The Supreme Court also ruled that RA 9262 applies in cases where the mother commits violent and abusive acts against her own child. Section 3(a) of said law defines “violence against women and their children” as:

Any act or 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 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 results 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.

This does not mean, however, that the husband or the father is the only culprit. The law used the gender-neutral word “person” as the offender which embraces any person of either sex.

The fact that a social legislation provides special protection to a specific sector does not imply that its members are immune from violating such laws. Despite the measure to protect both women and their children, a mother who maltreats her child, resulting in violence defined and penalized under RA 9292, is not exempt from criminal liability.

The Supreme Court ruled that the restrictive interpretation of requiring the mother and her child to be victims of violence before seeking protection and custody orders will frustrate the law’s policy of giving special attention to women and children. The approach will weaken the law and exclude cases where the mother is the abuser of her child from its coverage.

Finally, the RTC’s reassuring statement that children who have been abused by their mothers may seek relief under other laws other than RA 9262 is discriminatory. The ostensible reassurance is an outright rejection of effective and innovative measures under RA 9262 which is not availed in other laws.

Read more: https://tribune.net.ph/2023/02/16/mothers-may-be-liable-under-vawc-too/

Read more Daily Tribune stories at: https://tribune.net.ph/

Follow us on our social media
Facebook: @tribunephl
Youtube: TribuneNow
Twitter: @tribunephl
Instagram: @tribunephl
TikTok: @dailytribuneofficial