Valid and legal order

Republic Act (RA) 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act (VAWCI), allows the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) by the court upon filing an application. The TPO is issued to prevent further acts of violence against women and their children, their family or household members and to grant other necessary relief in order to safeguard them from further harm, minimize any disruption in their daily life and facilitate the opportunity and ability to regain control thereof. Since the TPO is issued prior to any hearing of the case and without notice to the other party, is this not in violation of due process of law and therefore unconstitutional? This is the issue raised and resolved in this case between Roland and Tessie.

Roland and Tessie are husband and wife with three children, Jona 6 years old, Janet 5 years old and Jessica, 4 years old. After seven years of marriage, they already separated when Roland left her and the children at their conjugal home. But even after their separation, Roland still returned to their conjugal home and occasionally holds office there. When Tessie decided to file a petition for legal separation, Roland went inside her room, cocked his gun and pointed the same at his head in order to convince Tessie not to proceed with the legal separation case she filed. Tessie was so scared but he hid her fears. There was also an instance when Roland fed her children with fried chicken which Jessica chewed and spat out. And when Jona started crying Roland threatened him with a belt in order to stop him. So Tessie told Roland that she felt unsafe and insecure with his presence and asked him to stop coming to the house as often as he wanted or she would apply for a protection order from the court. Roland got furious and threatened to withhold his financial support, held her by the nape and pushed her to lie flat on the bed. This prompted Tessie to leave their conjugal home and transfer to another house together with the children. Later on, Roland was able to locate them and while Tessie was at work, he and his companions went to their new house, took the children and refused to give them back to her.

 So Tessie, in her behalf, and in behalf of her minor children, already filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a Verified Petition for the issuance of a TPO against Roland pursuant to RA 9262. Tessie narrated in her petition and in her affidavit attached thereto, the forgoing incidents showing Roland’s abusive conduct.

Based on Tessie’s verified petition, the RTC issued a TPO enjoining Roland from committing and threatening to commit personally or through another, physical, verbal, emotional harm or abuse against Tessie and other family and household members; restraining him from harassing, annoying, texting, telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with Tessie, directly or indirectly or from engaging in any psychological form of harassment for a period of 30 days.

Upon receipt of the order, Roland denied Tessie’s allegations and asked the RTC to lift the TPO claiming among others, that he had been maintaining a separate abode from Tessie for about six months already; that it was Tessie who verbally abused and threatened him with harm whenever their children’s stay with him was extended; that Tessie had been staying in with another man by the name of Ruben after she surreptitiously left their conjugal home with their minor children in violation of their agreement; that Tessie is mentally, psychologically, spiritually and morally unfit to keep the children in her custody.

Before the Petition could be heard on the merits however, Roland already filed with the Court of Appeals (CA), a petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction assailing the TPO mainly because it violates the due process clause of Constitution. But after hearing the petition, the CA denied Roland’s petition and upheld the TPO issued by the RTC. Was the CA correct?

Yes according to the Supreme Court (SC). The SC said that the lower court is really authorized to issue a TPO on the date of the filing of the petition even without the presence and without hearing. According to the SC, it is within the Court’s discretion based on the petition and the affidavit attached thereto, to determine whether violent acts against a woman and her children (VAWC) had been committed for purposes of issuing a TPO. Since time is of the essence to prevent violence and to protect the victim from immediate and imminent danger thereof, the court is authorized to issue a TPO even without notice and hearing because the life, limb or property of the victim is in jeopardy. The grant of a TPO without notice and hearing the other party cannot therefore be challenged as in violation of the right to due process of law. The victim of the VAWCI may already have suffered harrowing experiences in the hands of her tormentor and possibly even death if notice and hearing would still be required before such acts could be prevented. The ordinary requirements of procedural due process must yield to vital public interest like protection of women and their children from violence and threats to their personal safety and security. Thus it is within the court’s discretion based on the petition and the affidavit attached thereto to determine that violent acts have been committed against women and their children for the issuance of the TPO. In this case the acts of Roland really violate RA 9262 (Tua vs Mangrobang etc, G.R. 170701, January 22, 2014).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]