EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 242133, April 16, 2024 ]
ROSELYN AGACID Y DEJANIO* PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARIA ALEXANDRIA BISQUERRA Y NUEVA,** RESPONDENTS.
CONCURRING OPINION
SINGH, J.:
I fully concur with the ponencia of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
The question of whether women may be considered as offenders under Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (Anti-VAWC Act), has already been answered by the Court.
In Garcia v. Drilon (Garcia),1 the Court ruled that "clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word 'person' who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships."2
Similarly, in Jacinto v. Fouts (Fouts),3 the Court has had the opportunity to determine whether a woman in a lesbian relationship may be charged under Republic Act No. 9262 as an offender, and the Court applied Garcia, affirming that women may be offenders under Republic Act No. 9262.
In this case, the petitioner's appeal is also anchored on the assertion that as a woman, the charge against her for violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 should be quashed.
To support her appeal, petitioner argues: firstly, that the pronouncement in Garcia as to the applicability of Republic Act No. 9262 to lesbian relationship is a mere obiter dictum; and secondly, the intent of the law can only be read to mean that its protection covers women from the abusive acts of men, not fellow women.4
Applying Garcia and Fouts, the Petition must fail.
This is an occasion to stress the underpinnings of the application of Republic Act No. 9262 in lesbian relationships. I reiterate my position in my concurring opinion in Fouts.5
At the onset, it is important to note that there is no ambiguity in the law. Violence against women and their children is defined under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 as follows:
"Violence against women and their children" refers to 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. (Emphasis supplied).6
Where the law is clear, there is no room for interpretation; there is only room for application.7 The terms "any person" and "the person" should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. They literally pertain to a person without any qualification as to this person's gender, gender expression, or sexual preference. To be sure, Section 3 (a) also contains the phrase "against a woman who is his wife, former wife . . ." The use of the pronoun "his" is not meant to qualify "any person" as male. It should be noted that under Philippine law, same-sex marriages are not recognized and, thus, only men and women can legally marry.8 This is the context within which the phrase "his wife, former wife" was used.
In any case, an inquiry into the legislative intent behind the Anti-VAWC Act also supports the view that Republic Act No. 9262 includes lesbian relationships. During the meeting of the Bicameral Conference Committee Meeting on the Disagreeing Provisions of Senate Bill No. 2723 and House Bill Nos. 6054 and 5516, the following discussion confirmed the Congressional intent to extend the protection of the Anti-VAWC Act to women in lesbian relationships:
REP. ABAYON.
May I just have a clarification here, Madam Chair, because there might be a case that will be brought before the courts. I just want to clarify whether we are really strict on the definition under letter (e) because the words used is "husband and wife."Does that mean that this refers only to a man and a woman or woman-to-woman would be included? Because this might—we should know here what is really our interpretation. Because if we really consider that a woman-to-woman relationship can still be called as husband and wife relationship, then there might be no more problem in the interpretation brought before the court. So, the intent here of the legislators should be stated in the journal in this Bicam so that there would be no wrong interpretation in the course of a case that might be filed later.
. . . .
REP. SARENAS.
Madam Chair, I don't know. If just for the record we could say that lesbian relationships are included because we are using the conjunctive word "or" and therefore "or" are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis. So, that would cover because we do know women's crisis centers' report that there are many abuses done against women by their lesbian partner. So, it is not limited to husband and wife by the mere fact that we're using the conjunctive "or" so the that lesbian relationship would already be covered by the parties that are romantically involved over time in a continuing basis. If for the record, we are agreed on that it is not. It's a little vague but it should cover.
REP. ANGARA-CASTILLO.1aшphi1
No, as a matter of fact, Madam Chair, if you look at Section 3, that is the way it was defined by the Senate, "committed by any person against." Meaning to say, any person can be a man or a woman. The offender can refer to a man or a woman. That's why it can be covered. So we don't touch it, it's covered.
REP. ABAYON.
No, no, Madam Chair, we have to clarify here. Because the way I look at it, the Senate version does not seem to cover such woman-to-woman relationship. Which is which now? So that when a case is brought before the court, there might be a problem on this definition because a husband and wife—And then, if we refer to the dictionary, a husband is always a man, but there are cases which is now woman-to-woman which a woman would act as a man and which in our ordinary parlance will be considered as a husband insofar as that woman partner is concerned. So, we have to clarify here so that there will be no problem anymore when a case is brought before the court on the issue of definition. So, what is really our legislative intent, to cover or not? So, we have to be consistent here. The Senate would agree on the coverage, then I think we have no more problem on that because when the journal of the bicam will be taken up and part of the intent will be the pivotal point that the court will decide, then there will be no more issue. So, that's why I want to clarify it here. What is really our intent?
REP. ANGARA-CASTILLO.
Madam Chair, my reading is that based on the wording adopted by the Senate using "any person" in defining sexual — in defining violence against women and children, it will cover and it does cover both men and women. And under this "dating relationship," I do not even think that the wording here is really inconsistent with the definition of violence because you say, living as husband and wife, when a lesbian couple live together, one of them takes the role of the husband. So they live as husband and wife. But I am glad that Congressman Abayon has raised that point because we would like to make it clear that the offender in this proposed bill can be either a man or a woman.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. EJERCITO-ESTRADA).
You know, in the definition of violence against women, it states here that: "refers to any act or series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife"—"who is his wife"
REP. ANTONINO-CUSTODIO.
Actually, ma'am, I think it is covered by the dating relationship kasi nakalagay dito or basically ang definition natin ng "dating relationship" covers two areas: a situation where parties live as husband and wife; and then another situation where the relationship refers to the two people romantically involved over time. So I think that would cover actually—that would cover both eh. Kung ang interpretation natin dito sa definition natin but exactly the point of Congressman Abayon is for us to settle here in the bicam in order for the court when they decide on the definition kung covered ba sila or hindi, ano ang intent natin? To cover them or not. 'Yun 'yung, I think, 'yun 'yung ano natin dito.
REP. ABAYON.
Madam Chair, actually, my own interpretation here — is my own interpretation, I repeat, is really that we cover both relationships. Why? Because the definition is very clear, "or against a woman with whom the person has or had" and then we go also "or are romantically linked." So that — I just would like to clarify because this might be a cause of definition wherein a lawyer will define in the other way. That is why we really have to put this as what is really our legislative intent so that there will be now — the decision of the courts will rely on the transcript of the journal in the event a case is brought which I believe many cases will be brought. So this now should be settled. We would like to know if the Senate will agree on the interpretation of the House on the issue.
THE CHAIRPERSON (SEN. EJERCITO-ESTRADA).
So we agree on it.
REP. ABAYON.
So, thank you for that, Madam Chair. So this is now clear that a woman-to-woman relationship is covered as long as that woman would act as a husband and romantically linked or rather "or." Thank you, Madam Chair.1aшphi1 (Emphasis supplied).9
Conscious of the importance of legislative intent in interpreting laws, and aware of the possibility that a case may one day be filed in court claiming that the Anti-VAWC Act applies only to women in heterosexual relationships, the Bicameral Committee made it a point to record the legislative intent that the Anti-VAWC Act covers lesbian relationships. As the law is clear and the legislative intent is unequivocal, this Court cannot but read the Anti-VAWC Act in accordance with its language and intent.
Under Section 2 of the Anti-VAWC Act, the policy behind the Anti-VAWC Act is given elucidation:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity of women and children and guarantees full respect for human rights. The State also recognizes the need to protect the family and its members particularly women and children, from violence and threats to their personal safety and security.
Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed against women and children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and the Provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination Against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is a party. (Emphasis supplied)
As women routinely face various forms of abuse, intimate partner violence is one of the worst forms of violence and discrimination inflicted on them. It is this protection of women from intimate partner violence that is the avowed purpose of the Anti-VAWC Act.1aшphi1 If the law was intended to cover only women who are in heterosexual relationships, that would have been discriminatory to an entire class of women who are in lesbian relationships.
The interpretation that the Anti-VAWC Act applies to both heterosexual and lesbian relationships is also consistent with the Constitutional right to the equal protection of the laws.10 Distinguishing between abused women in heterosexual relationships and abused women in lesbian relationships is not a valid classification. There are no substantial distinctions between these two classes.
Intimate partner violence is no less horrific if it occurs within lesbian relationships. Nor are women in lesbian relationships less oppressed and, thus, in need of lesser protection. Victims of intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships may have distinct experiences of abuse compared to their heterosexual counterparts but these victims similarly suffer stressors, albeit unique to their sexual minority status such as homophobia, transphobia, and in certain cases, the fear that their sexuality may be disclosed to others.11
If the purpose of the Anti-VAWC Act is to protect women from one of the worst kinds of violence suffered by women in general, with the ultimate goal of aiding in eradicating gender discrimination, then the protection afforded by the law must necessarily extend to all women, regardless of gender, gender expression, and sexual orientation.
To withhold the protections afforded by the Anti-VAWC Act to women in lesbian relationships on the basis solely of the fact that their abuser is also a woman is discriminatory. It would mean that the State only affords protection to those who conform to what society regards as "normal" and, in effect, invalidates and penalizes those who are "different." This would effectively affirm to this entire class of women (as well as members of the LGBTQI community in general) that they are right to fear going to the authorities to report their abuse; that their choices are less valid and merit less protection from the law; that the law views them as less than heterosexual women. The law cannot be read in this way.
Nor should the Anti-VAWC Act be read in a manner that would allow women who abuse their same-sex partners to escape liability. Gender is relevant under the Anti-VAWC Act only with respect to the gender of the victim of intimate partner violence. It is blind to the abuser's gender.
The protection of the law is triggered when a woman is the victim of intimate partner violence regardless of whether the relationship is heteronormative or not. It does not function to perpetuate the gender-based stereotype that all women have no agency and thus require protection even in instances where they commit violations of the law. The law recognizes that women have free will and are capable of independent thought and action and will, therefore, be held liable for the consequences of their acts. That, too, is gender equality.
The protections afforded by the Constitution ensure that people are free from arbitrary governmental interferences, that people are free to make choices about how they live their lives, that people are free to embark on their own manner of pursuit of happiness. Our laws and our courts guarantee these not just by preventing and penalizing acts that directly threaten fundamental freedoms; they also guarantee these by ensuring that minorities who pursue choices that do not conform to the generally accepted template of what happiness should look like are not discriminated against for these choices; and that their unique experiences are not invalidated by laws that are blind to their plight.
Also, the Court must recognize the reality of diverse family structures that foster their children and consider themselves as a family unit including households with same-sex partners in lieu of the traditional family structure. The law protects women and their children in all these different familial structures, regardless of the gender of the abuser.
The Anti-VAWC Act is a progressive piece of legislation and should not be interpreted in a manner that would reinforce gender biases against minorities. By interpreting the Anti-VAWC Act to cover all women subject to intimate partner violence regardless of the gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation or the victim and the abuser, the Court recognizes that even women who do not conform to what is generally defined as "normal" or traditional relationship structures are protected by the law. When the law states that it protects women who are victims of domestic abuse, it protects all women without qualification.
I therefore vote to DENY the Petition.
Footnotes
1 Garcia v. Drilon, 712 Phil. 44 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
2 Id. at 104.
3 Jacinto v. Fouts, G.R. No. 250627, December 7, 2022 [Unsigned Resolution, Third Division].
4 Draft ponencia, p. 3.
5 Jacinto v. Fouts, G.R. No. 250627, December 7, 2022 [Unsigned Resolution, Third Division].
6 Republic Act No. 9262 (2004) Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004.
7 Dubongco v. Commission on Audit, 848 Phil. 367, 378 (2019) [Per J. Reyes Jr., En Banc].
8 FAMILY CODE, art. 1.
9 Committee on Youth, Women and Family Relations, Minutes of Bicameral Conference Committee Meeting on the Disagreeing Provisions of Senate Bill No. 2723 and House Bill Nos. 6054 and 5516 (2004), 13th Congress pp. 38–46.
10 CONST., art. III, sec. 1.
11 Adam M. Messinger, Invisible Victims. Same-Sex IPV in the National Violence Against Women Survey, JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE (2011), available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/088620510383023 (last accessed on January 10, 2023).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
