At Large : Testing the limits of the law
First posted 03:57am (Mla time) Jan 08, 2006 By Rina Jimenez-DavidInquirer
Editor's Note: Published on page A11 of the January 8, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
THE "scandal" involving Marie Roxanne "Plinky" Recto and her estranged lover, lawyer Magdaleno Pena, has been splashed all over the media—from the news pages and newscasts to show-biz talk shows—and one would think nothing could surprise the public anymore about this running story.
After all, Recto and Pena have traded accusations of cruelty and instability and thrown mud and sleaze at each other since Recto first went public with her story.
But the latest development in the case is still worth commenting on, as it puts to test a new law that has been touted as a powerful tool for the protection of women and children and the promotion of their rights.
The Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (RA 9262) is meant to address the most serious aspects of violence against women, particularly domestic violence and partner-battering. By its very title, the new law provides protection for women and their children-only-and yet the latest wrinkle in the Recto-Pena case would seem to mock the very nature of this law.
Recently, Recto went to the media decrying the "kidnapping" of her 15-month-old son by Pena. The boy was taken from his caregivers in Recto's condominium unit in Mandaluyong, by the sheriff of Bago City (in Negros Occidental) who was accompanied by police from the Pasig CIDG.
The sheriff and police were armed with a "temporary protection order" (TPO) issued by Bago RTC Judge Henry Trocino, who also ordered Recto to put up a bond of P1 million, and who specified that the Pasig CIDG effect Pena's "custody" of the boy.
Rowena "Bing" Guanzon, Recto's lawyer, says she has already filed an administrative case against Judge Trocino with the Supreme Court and, alleging bias on the judge's part, she will also file tomorrow a motion to inhibit Judge Trocino from further hearing the case.
* * *
"WALANG judge na matino ang gagawa nito (No judge in his right mind would do this)," Guanzon said in a phone interview.
The TPO is one of the more innovative and important features of RA 9262. The TPO and the barangay protection order (BPO) were included in the law providing protection to women and their children, even as they pursue charges against the alleged batterer or perpetrator. A primer on the new law, written by Guanzon, states that the protection orders are meant to "safeguard the victim from further harm, minimizing any disruption in her daily life, to help her to independently regain control over her life."
A court can issue a TPO, which is effective for 30 days pending the issuance of a permanent protection order (PPO), based on a petition citing any of the punishable acts of physical, psychological, emotional or sexual violence and economic abuse enumerated in the law.
Under a TPO, the judge can order the accused to, among other things: stay away from the woman and/or her child or any family or household member specified in the order, and from specific places such as the woman's workplace, club, church or the children's school; give the custody of minor children to the woman; give support to the wife and minor children; leave the marital abode regardless of who owns it; and file a bond to "keep the peace."
* * *
A LOT of people, especially men, may question the coverage of the law since it provides protection only to women and children. But while the law is in effect, it's the responsibility of everyone, especially officers of the court like a judge, to follow and implement the spirit and letter of the law.
Which is why I think Judge Trocino's TPO is fundamentally flawed since it seeks to provide the protection of the law to someone who is not entitled to it, at least not under RA 9262. Guanzon says that "a judge cannot lawfully issue a TPO in favor of a man, because only women and their children are protected by (the law)."
Even if Pena had alleged that his boy was being abused by Recto, says Guanzon, "the TPO is still not the proper remedy." Indeed, in an ongoing procedure, the RTC of Mandaluyong has already issued a TPO in favor of Recto, though a petition for an extension of the TPO was pending when Pena filed his own motion for custody in Bago City. "No two TPOs can be issued to the same parties," Guanzon told reporters.
* * *
THE DISPUTE between Recto and Pena may have hit the headlines mainly because of Recto's work in entertainment and her being the sister of a senator.
But it's also become a matter of public interest, especially for women, because of the way the case is testing the limits as well as the practicability and relevance of the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act.
Could such a law, considered in these parts as a major breakthrough for women's rights, really bring an end to a major epidemic of violence directed at women and children?
This is not just rhetoric, because the law has an impact on so many Filipinos. The findings of a survey conducted by the Social Weather Stations show that two million women over 18 years old have reported experiencing physical harm once or several times in their lives, the majority of them at the hands of husbands, partners and boyfriends. Domestic violence is the most prevalent form of gender-based violence in this country, followed by rape. The SWS survey also shows that more men admitted to having abused their wives or girlfriends.
As happens so often in this country, there is a very real possibility that this law could instead end up being twisted and corrupted so that it would be used instead to punish the very people whom it was meant to protect. If that should come to pass, then we might as well throw all our laws into a paper shredder, for they would not be worth much more than mulch.