Supreme Court ensures due process in anti-VAWC orders for men

MANILA, Philippines — Protection orders anchored on the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act (VAWC) do not violate men’s right to due process, the Supreme Court said on Friday.

The High Court said that even though protection orders are swiftly issued, the accused party is not denied of due process, as they are informed of the accusations and given the opportunity to explain their side.

“The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one’s defense,” the decision, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marivic Leonen, read. 

The petition questioned the legitimacy of Republic Act No. 9262, also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children (VAWC) Act of 2003, particularly concerning the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) issuance of a Permanent Protection Order PPO in favor of XXX's former partner, AAA, and their children, BBB and CCC.

AAA and her children submitted an Urgent Petition to the RTC, seeking the issuance of an ex-parte temporary protection order (TPO) and permanent protection order in 2007 after harmful and death threats from XXX.

A TPO is a protection order issued by the court on the day the application is filed, after a decision made without the involvement of the other party that indicates the need to issue such an order.

Given XXX's behavior, AAA was concerned that his threats might materialize. She feared for the safety of their children, who were co-petitioners, expressing worry about potential traumatic acts XXX might inflict upon them.

The RTC ruled in favor of AAA and her children prohibiting XXX from causing physical harm, harassment, or restricting their personal freedom. 

XXX was also ordered to maintain a distance of 200 meters from AAA, her identified family members, their home, and the children's school. 

The RTC later made the TPO permanent in 2009. In response, XXX appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of the Anti-VAWC Act and the permanent protection order.

The High Court rejected the petition and said: A protection order is an order issued to prevent further acts of violence against women and their children, their family or household members, and to grant other necessary reliefs.”

“Since ‘time is of the essence in cases of VAWC if further violence is to be prevented,’ the court is authorized to issue ex parte a TPO after raffle but before notice and hearing when the life, limb, or property of the victim is in jeopardy and there is reasonable ground to believe that the order is necessary to protect the victim from the immediate and imminent danger of VAWC or to prevent such violence, which is about to recur,” the court added.