THE Supreme Court (SC) has issued a landmark ruling upholding the right of a father to apply for protection and custody orders for his child against an abusive mother under Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act (VAWC) of 2004.
The High Court said that RA 9262 does not deny fathers of its remedies solely because of their gender or the fact that they are not a “woman victim of violence.”
In its en banc ruling promulgated on July 12, 2022 but only made public on Feb.6, 2023, the High Court granted the petition for certiorari filed by American national Randy Michael Knutson and issued a permanent protection order in favor of the petitioner’s minor daughter.
Knutson had challenged the ruling of Branch 69 of the Taguig City Regional Trial Court which junked his petition under RA 9262 for the issuance of Temporary Protection Orders (TPOs) against Rosalina Knutson, the mother of his daughter.
In his petition filed on Dec.7, 2017, Knutson alleged that Rosalina put their daughter in an environment harmful to the latter’s physical, emotional, moral, and psychological development after she engaged in extra-marital affairs and got hooked in casinos.
Knutson said her wife also physically abused their daughter and at one time, even pointed a knife and threatened to kill her.
He asked that a TPO be issued against his wife.
But the Taguig RTC dismissed the petition, saying that protection and custody orders under RA 9262 could not be issued against a mother who allegedly abused her own child.
The RTC said that remedies under the law were not available to Knutson, the father, because he was not a “woman victim of violence.”
Knutson then moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, but was also denied by the RTC, prompting him to elevate the case to the SC alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court.
In granting Knutson’s petition, the SC ruled that while RA 9262 excludes men as victims, this does not mean that the law denies a father of its remedies solely because of his gender or the fact that he is not a “woman victim of violence.”
The High Court held that Section 9(b) of the said law explicitly allows “parents or guardians of the offended party” to file a petition for protection orders.
This provision, the SC added, was further incorporated in the law’s implementing rules.
It explained that the law speaks in clear language when it used the word “parents” pertaining to the father and the mother of the woman or child victim.
The law did not qualify who between the mother or father of the victim may apply for protection orders, the SC added.
“The statute categorically used the word ‘parents’ which pertains to the father and mother of the woman or child victim. 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,” the ruling penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez said.
“Similarly, the statute did not qualify on who between the parents of the victim may apply for protection orders. When the law does not distinguish, the court must not distinguish,” the ruling added.
In the case of Knutson, the SC held it is clearly stated in the title of his petition for issuance of a protection order that he is acting on behalf of his minor daughter.
“There is no question that the offended party is the daughter, a minor child, who allegedly experienced violence and abuse. Thus, Knutson may assist his daughter in filing the petition as the parent of the offended party,” the SC said.
Likewise, it said Knutson is not asking for a protection order in his favor and that it is “principally and directly for the protection of the minor child and not the father.”
‘ABUSIVE ACTS’
The SC also ruled that RA 9262 covers situations where the mother committed violent and abusive acts against her own child.
“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,” it said, citing Section 3 of the said law which states “violence against women and children” as abusive acts “committed by any person.”
“The statute used the gender-neutral word ‘person’ as the offender which embraces any person of either sex. Logically, a mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under RA 9262 is not absolved from criminal liability notwithstanding that the measure is intended to protect both women and their children,” the SC said.
The Taguig RTC’s position that only children under the care of the woman victim of violence can be protected under RA 9262, according to the SC, is a restrictive interpretation that “will frustrate the policy of the law to afford special attention to women and children as usual victims of violence and abuse.”
Such approach, it added, “will weaken the law and remove from its coverage instances where the mother herself is the abuser of her child.”
“This negates not only the plain letters of the law and the clear legislative intent as to who may be offenders but also downgrades the country’s avowed international commitment to eliminate all forms of violence against children including those perpetrated by their parents,” it also said.
The SC added that the Taguig RTC’s consoling statement that the children who suffered abuse from the hands of their own mothers may invoke other laws except RA 9262 is discriminatory.
“The supposed reassurance is an outright denial of effective legal measures to address the seriousness and urgency of the situation given that only the VAWC created the innovative remedies of protection and custody orders. Other laws have no mechanisms to prevent further acts of violence against the child,” it added.
Lastly, the SC said that in issuing its ruling, “it refuses to be an instrument of injustice and 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,” it said.
