Payment of filing fees presents an obstacle in initiating a petition in court for the issuance of a PO as most of those who seek this remedy have no means to support themselves and suffer from economic abuse from their spouses. The Anti-VAWC Act provides that if the victim-survivor is an indigent, or if there is an immediate necessity due to imminent danger or threat of danger against her person, the court shall accept the application without payment of the court fees. However, in actual practice, requests for waiver of payment on the latter grounds are not recognized as indigency is the only accepted exemption. Even asserting pauper litigant status is arduous as proof of financial status is required. These gaps in implementation erode the intent of the law to provide immediate protection to the petitioner by ensuring the issuance of a PO in the soonest possible time.
The mandatory and speedy issuance of a PO is a clear policy set forth in the law. A TPO must be issued on the date of the filing of the application after ex parte determination that sufficient ground exists for its issuance. Priority over all other proceedings is given to hearings involving the determination of the basis for the application, and failure to act within the reglementary period absent any justifiable cause renders the official concerned administratively liable. The issuance of a PO is the first legal recognition of the violence experienced by the petitioner; thus, the misconception that it simply concerns domestic affairs must be changed.
Dilatory pleadings and tactics inevitably increase the petitioner’s emotional and financial strain. Thus, the Supreme Court promulgated Rules on Violence against Women and Their Children which specifically prohibit the filing of certain pleadings that may delay or prolong the litigation of the case. Prohibited pleadings must be treated as ‘mere scraps of paper’ which should not be taken cognizance of by the courts. In the event that these are filed in cases involving the Anti-VAWC Act, they should be stricken from the record and their filing should be deemed a waiver of the party’s right to be present at the hearing of the case.
A PPO is issued by the court after notice and hearing, tantamount to a court’s to a decision on the merits in a civil proceeding. Its issuance marks the end of the process of determination of the Court. The intent of the law is to make the PPO binding on the parties for as long as the person in whose favor it was issued deems it necessary for her and her children’s protection, and may only be amended or revised upon her application for its revocation. Any challenge to the executory nature of a PPO is prohibited, such that a pleading filed after its issuance with the intent of modifying, amending, or revising it should be dismissed outright by the court as it undermines the very nature of PPO and defeats the purpose of its permanency.
The well-founded consideration afforded by law to victim-survivor does not diminish the right of the party aggravated by the issuance of a PPO to appeal. Any aggrieved party may file a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the final order or judgment within fifteen days from notice and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. But this does not stay the enforcement of the PPO as this is immediately executory. A party contesting a PPO may only be granted relief upon final reversal of such order. Where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled on appeal or otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant under the circumstances.
Barangay Protection Order
In addition to filing a criminal case and a petition for PO in Court, the Anti-VAWC Act also provides for the filing for an application for a PO with the Barangay. The Barangay Protection Order (BPO) is one issued by the Punong Barangay or any available Barangay Kagawad, ordering the perpetrator to desist from causing or threatening to cause physical harm to the woman or her child. It is an innovative remedy put forth in the law as the Barangay is the most immediate local government unit able to give protection to the victim-survivor. Although not exclusive to the other remedies provided by the Anti-VAWC Act, the BPO may be considered an alternative to judicial remedies, which are more resource-consuming. Sadly, the experience of clients, paralegals and partner social counselors in availing of BPOs tell us that these have not been properly utilized in providing assistance and protection to women.
The victim-survivor needs only to file her application for a BPO according to the requisites of the Anti-VAWC Act, i.e., it should be in writing, signed, and in a language understood by her. The Punong Barangay or Kagawad must act on the application, prioritizing it over all other proceedings. Determination of its merits must be done ex parte – without notice and hearing to the respondent. If the application is meritorious, the BPO must be issued on the same day of application, immediately upon the conclusion of the ex parte proceedings. Despite the clear provisions of law, ex parte issuance of the BPO does not happen. There are instances when the Punong Barangay would actually require hearing and give notice to the respondent, prolonging the process of application.
Immediately after the issuance of an ex parte BPO, the Punong Barangay or Kagawad shall personally serve a copy of the same on the respondent, or direct any barangay official to effect personal service. The BPO is deemed served upon receipt thereof by the respondent or by any adult at the respondent’s address, or by leaving a copy at that address in the presence of at least two witnesses if the BPO is refused acceptance. Unfortunately, some barangay officials refuse to issue and serve BPOs, especially when they have close ties with the respondent. Personal reasons are no excuse for the service of the BPO. The erring official must be reported to the Sanggunian for failure to perform his/her duty and made liable for gross neglect of duty or misfeasance.
A BPO is effective for fifteen days. Within 24 hours after its issuance, the Punong Barangay or Kagawad shall assist the victim-survivor/petitioner in filing an application for a TPO or PPO with the nearest court in her place of residence. The absence of a provision on automatic renewal/extension of a BPO upon its expiration causes some problems, as victim-survivors are sometimes required to refile the BPO application with the Barangay, and at times are even disallowed renewal for the reason that it should only be availed of once. This lack also makes possible the recurrence of the act of abuse or violence during the interim of the effectivity of BPOs.
VAWC, like other criminal acts, should not be subject to compromise. The Punong Barangay or Kagawad shall not order, direct, force or in any way unduly influence the applicant to compromise or abandon any of the reliefs sought in the application for protection order. Failure to comply shall render the official administratively liable. In actuality, there are cases which are compromised by barangay officials because of the “Kumpare System” prevailing in the community, or when an application outright because the official knows the perpetrator.
The only requirements for a BPO application are that it must be in writing, signed by the victim-survivor/petitioner, and in a language understood by her, making it easier for a victim-survivor apply for such. In fact, a mere oral report to a barangay official of an act of VAW is acceptable. However, barangay officials ask for other requirements from the victim-survivors/ petitioners such as filing fees, medico-legal reports and affidavit and personal appearance of the victim-survivor/petitioner, casting needless strain on the applicant who needs immediate and urgent legal protection.
BPOs are sometimes reduced to mere scraps of paper as they are easily violated. Violation of a BPO is punishable by imprisonment of thirty days without prejudice to any other criminal or civil action that the offended party may file. If the barangay official fails or neglects to perform her/his duty, the proper case may be filed against her/him. A BPO which involves physical abuse generally orders the perpetrator to immediately cease and desist from causing or threatening to cause physical harm to the victim-survivor, or may require his removal from the petitioner’s residence and be directed to stay away from her. However, this removal oftentimes does not take place, resulting in the abuser’s continuous access to the person of the woman. In some cases, even when the barangay official has personal knowledge that an act of abuse was committed, she/he does not arrest the abuser, even absent the requirement of a warrant under the law.
One of the protections that the law explicitly provides to persons intervening in cases of VAWC, such as barangay officials, is exemption from any civil, criminal or administrative liability. The law also provides that the privacy, identity as well as the location of the service providers, including non-government organizations and people’s organizations, shall not be disclosed. These safeguards are not sufficient as service providers have no protection orders to guard them against harassment or any act of retaliation. The only recourse available to them is to file appropriate cases against the perpetrator.
An Advocacy Beyond Legislation
The enactment of the Anti-VAWC Act is a legal milestone in the advocacy against VAW as it contributes to women’s empowerment by providing specific remedies by which women can be free from the bondage of abusive domestic and intimate relationships. Armed with their rights under the law, more and more women are coming out to put an end to the abusive situations they were made to suffer. Our advocacy to end domestic violence, however, does not end with the passage of the Anti-VAWC Act. Our experience in handling VAWC cases, and that of our partners and paralegals, has been full of legal obstacles which threaten to defeat the very purpose for which the law was enacted. The issues and challenges presented in this paper are but a few of the legal absurdities we faced. Indeed, there is a need to improve implementation of the law either through greater awareness of those responsible for its proper execution, or through subsequent legislation amending problematic provisions of the law.
Since most of the problems encountered in handling and litigating VAWC cases are due to the ignorance and indifference of those tasked by the law to implement the same, ensuring that concerned officials are properly trained and equipped with the necessary knowledge of the law as well as gender-sensitive values is vital and indispensable in the delivery of services provided for in the law. Likewise, initiatives from respective government agencies, inter-agency cooperation, and NGO-PO involvement in the development of subsequent policies that will aid the effective implementation of the law, are crucial in ensuring that the purpose for which the law was enacted triumphs.
The enactment of the Anti-VAWC Act is an important step in the struggle to end VAW. However, it is only the first step. The struggle continues as advocates against VAW are now faced with an equally difficult task of making sure that the letters of the law are given life, so that the protection given to women victims and survivors of VAW cease to be empty words and instead be the actual freedom and power to finally live their lives in peace.
*The summary of the paper “Strengthening Responses to Violence Against Women: Overcoming Legal Challenges in the Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act” was written by Ms. Alaya De Leon of SALIGAN. For copies of the entire paper, you can visit or call SALIGAN-BICOL office (Address: 104 Abonal-Soria Bldg., Mayflower St., Magsaysay Ave., Naga City; Telephone Nos. (054)4731235 Telefax: (054)8111310 Website: www.saligan.org)
