Garcia Vs Drilon Digest

G AR C I A V S D R I L O N ( 2 0 1 3 )
JESUS C. GARCIA vs. THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON, Presiding Judge, RTC, Bacolod City, and
ROSALIE JAYPE-GARCIA, et.al.
[G.R. No. 179267; June 25, 2013] Constitutional Law| Equal Protection Clause
Background of the case:

In 2004, Congress enacted RA No. 9262, entitled “An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their
Children”. It defines and criminalizes acts of violence against women and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by
women’s intimate partners, i.e, husband; former husband; or any person who has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or with whom the woman has a common child.
FACTS:
Rosalie Jaype-Garcia filed, for herself and in behalf of her minor children for a Temporary Protection Order
against her husband, Jesus C. Garcia pursuant to R.A. 9262. She claimed to be a victim of physical abuse;
emotional, psychological, and economic violence as a result of marital infidelity on the part of petitioner, with
threats of deprivation of custody of her children and of financial support. The husband now, assails the
constitutionality of RA 9262 as being violative of the equal protection clause.
ISSUE: Whether there is a violation of equal protection clause.
HELD: R.A. 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of the laws.
Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. R.A. 9262 is based on a valid classification as shall hereinafter
be discussed and, as such, did not violate the equal protection clause by favoring women over men as victims
of violence and abuse to whom the State extends its protection.
There is likewise no merit to the contention that R.A. 9262 singles out the husband or father as the culprit. As
defined above, VAWC may likewise be committed “against a woman with whom the person has or had a
sexual or dating relationship.” 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.
R.A. 9262 is based on a valid classification as such, did not violate the equal protection clause by favoring
women over men as victims of violence and abuse to whom the State extends its protection. The unequal
power relationship between women and men; the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of
violence; and the widespread gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying
the classification under the law. As Justice McIntyre succinctly states, “the accommodation of differences … is
the essence of true equality.”
GARCIA v. DRILON G.R. No. 179267 June 25, 2013 699 SCRA 352
FACTS: Petitioner Jesus Garcia (husband) admitted having an affair with a bank manager. His infidelity
emotionally wounded private respondent which spawned several quarrels that left respondent wounded.
Petitioner also unconscionably beat up their daughter, Jo-ann.
The private respondent was determined to separate from petitioner. But she was afraid he would take away
their children and deprive her of financial support. He warned her that if she pursued legal battle, she would not
get a single centavo from him. After she confronted him of his affair, he forbade her to hold office. This
deprived her of access to full information about their businesses. Hence, no source of income.
Thus, the RTC found reasonable ground to believe there was imminent danger of violence against respondent
and her children and issued a series of Temporary Protection Orders (TPO) pursuant to RA 9262.
Republic Act No. 9262 is a landmark legislation that defines and criminalizes acts of violence against women
and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by women's intimate partners.
Petitioner hence, challenged the constitutionality of RA 9262 on making a gender-based classification.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9262 is discriminatory, unjust, and violative of the equal protection clause.
RULING: No. The equal protection clause in our Constitution does not guarantee an absolute prohibition
against classification. The non-identical treatment of women and men under RA 9262 is justified to put them on
equal footing and to give substance to the policy and aim of the state to ensure the equality of women and men
in light of the biological, historical, social, and culturally endowed differences between men and women.
RA 9262, by affording special and exclusive protection to women and children, who are vulnerable victims of
domestic violence, undoubtedly serves the important governmental objectives of protecting human rights,
insuring gender equality, and empowering women. The gender-based classification and the special remedies
prescribed by said law in favor of women and children are substantially related, in fact essentially necessary, to
achieve such objectives. Hence, said Act survives the intermediate review or middle-tier judicial scrutiny. The
gender-based classification therein is therefore not violative of the equal protection clause embodied in the
1987 Constitution.

Garcia Vs Drilon Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garcia Vs Drilon Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garcia Vs Drilon Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G AR C I A V S D R I L O N ( 2 0 1 3 )

Background of the case:

ISSUE: Whether there is a violation of equal protection clause.

You might also like