SC: Law protects women involved in illicit affairs

MANILA, Philippines — Even if a woman is just a paramour, she is still protected under the law, the Supreme Court (SC) stressed in a decision it released recently.

It cited the case of a married man who questioned a permanent protection order issued against him, saying Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, cannot protect his lover since she is just a paramour.

But in a decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the Supreme Court ruled that the law does not make any distinction and should also apply to the woman.

The decision noted that the man was already married when he met his lover in 1979. He was then 47 while the woman was 20.

However, after some years, the woman sought the courts’ help in protecting her and their children from further acts of violence.

But the man argued that the permanent protection order does not apply in this case because she is only a paramour and that their children are all grown up and does not qualify under RA 9262, which defines “children” as those below 18 years or older but incapable of taking care of themselves.

He also said that if used to favor the woman, then the law would effectively tolerate adulterous relationships.

This did not work with the SC though which pointed out in the decision that even if a woman is engaged in a forbidden relationship, this does not diminish her dignity. It added that she would still be protected by the law that values her and her children’s dignity and guarantees full respect for their human rights.

Applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not make any distinction, neither should the courts, the SC ruling read in part.

It said that the law “protects women and their children from various forms of violence and abuse committed within a setting of an intimate relationship” – including the respondent woman and their children.

It cited Estacio v. Estacio, a similar case of violence against women and their children, when it explained that neither RA 9262 nor the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children distinguishes the age at which children are included in protection orders.