JESUS C. GARCIA VS, HON. RAY ALAN T.

DRILON
G.R. NO. 179267 JUNE 25, 2013
PERLAS-BERNABE, J

FACTS:

On March 23, 2006, Rosalie Jaype-Garcia (private respondent) led, for herself and in
behalf of her minor children, namely Jo-Ann J. Garcia, 17 years old a natural child of
the petitioner but whom the private respondent adopted; Jessi Anthony J. Garci, 6
years old; and Joseph Eduardo J. Garcia, 3 years old; a veri ed petition (Civil Case
No. 06-797) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City for the issuance of a
Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Jesus C. Garcia (petitioner),
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. Private respondent
described herself as a dutiful and faithful wife, whose life revolved around her husband.

On the other hand, petitioner, Jesus Garcia, who is of Filipino-Chinese descent, is

dominant, controlling, and demands absolute obedience from his wife and children. He
forbade private respondent to pray, and deliberately isolated her from her friends.

The petitioner was guilty of infidelity and physical and emotional abuse against his wife
and children. In one of their quarrels, petitioner grabbed private respondent on both
arms and shook her with such force that caused bruises and hematoma. At another
time, petitioner hit private respondent forcefully on the lips that caused some bleeding.
Petitioner sometimes turned his ire on their daughter, Jo-Ann, who had seen the text
messages he sent to his paramour and whom he blamed for squealing on him. He beat
Jo-Ann on the chest and slapped her many times

The RTC was able to issue several Temporary Protection Orders against the complied
by the latter. Jesus Garcia, herein, petitioner, challenged the constitutionality of RA
9262, alleging that said law is violative of the due process and equal protection clause
of the Constitution.

ISSUES:

WON:

1) R.A. 9262 IS DISCRIMINATORY, UNJUST, AND VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL

PROTECTION CLAUSE.

2) THE ISSUANCE OF RA 9262 TPO VIOLATES THE PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO

DUE PROCESS
RULING:

1) No, R.A. 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of the Constitution.
Since, the guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the
application of the laws upon all citizens of the state. It is not, therefore, a requirement, in
order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality, that every man, woman
and child should be affected alike by a statute. Hence, it guarantees equality, not
identity of rights.

The equal protection clause simply requires that all persons or things similarly
situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed, and the enactment of the RA 9262 aims to address discrimination brought
about by biases and prejudices against women, because there have been unequal
power relations between men and women which led to domination over discrimination
against women by men. Hence, the equal protection of the laws clause of the
constitution through a gender-based classification and special remedies provided by law
under RA 9262 should be sustained.

2) No, RA 9262 did not violate the due process clause of the constitution, most
especially in the issuance of Protection owner against the petitioner since, the said law
states that the TPO’s purpose is to prevent further acts of violence against a woman or
her child. The circumstances surrounding the utilization thereof are often attended by
urgency; thus, women and child victims must have immediate and uncomplicated
access to the same. Thus, Republic Act No. 9262 and its implementing regulations were
enacted and promulgated in the exercise of that pervasive, sovereign power of the State
to protect the safety, health, and general welfare and comfort of the public (in this case,
a particular sector thereof), as well as the protection of human life, commonly
designated as the police power.