TL;DR

The Philippine Supreme Court affirmed that Republic Act No. 9262, the Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC) Law, applies to lesbian relationships. In Agacid v. People, the Court ruled that a woman can be charged with VAWC for acts of violence against her female partner. The decision clarifies that the law’s protection extends to all women in intimate relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, and that the term “any person” in the law includes women as offenders. This ruling ensures that victims of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships receive the same legal protection as those in heterosexual relationships, reinforcing the law’s intent to protect women from violence in all forms of intimate partnerships. The Court emphasized that VAWC is a power issue, not solely a gender issue, and that the law aims to address violence in intimate relationships irrespective of the genders involved.

When Love Knows No Gender: VAWC Law’s Reach Extends to Same-Sex Relationships

Can a woman be prosecuted under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (RA 9262) for committing violent acts against her female partner? This was the central question in Roselyn Agacid y Dejanio v. People of the Philippines and Maria Alexandria Bisquerra y Nueva. Petitioner Agacid argued that RA 9262 was designed to protect women from male abusers, not from other women, and therefore, the charges against her should be dismissed. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, firmly establishing that the VAWC law’s protective mantle extends to women in lesbian relationships, ensuring no victim of domestic violence is left behind, regardless of the gender of their abuser.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Maria Alexandria Bisquerra against her former partner, Roselyn Agacid. Bisquerra alleged that Agacid physically assaulted her during a meeting after their breakup. Agacid was subsequently charged with violation of Section 5(a) of RA 9262. In response, Agacid filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that as a woman, she could not be charged under the VAWC law, which she claimed was intended to protect women from abuse by men. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion, relying on the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Garcia v. Drilon, which touched upon the gender-neutral language of RA 9262. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, leading Agacid to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s analysis was the interpretation of Section 3(a) of RA 9262, which defines “violence against women and their children.” The law states that VAWC refers to acts committed “by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship…” The Court emphasized the phrase “any person,” noting its gender-neutral nature. According to the Court, this explicit wording indicates that the law does not limit the perpetrators of VAWC to men alone. The Court found no ambiguity in the statutory language, thus negating the need for extensive statutory construction or delving into legislative intent, although it did so nonetheless to further bolster its conclusion.

The Supreme Court referenced its earlier ruling in Garcia v. Drilon, where it had already observed that “the use of the gender-neutral word ‘person’ who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships.” While Agacid argued that this statement in Garcia was mere obiter dictum (an opinion not essential to the judgment), the Supreme Court clarified that this pronouncement was indeed a resolution of an issue raised in Garcia concerning the law’s supposed discriminatory nature. Furthermore, the Court cited Jacinto v. Fouts, a case directly involving a lesbian relationship, where the Court explicitly applied Garcia and affirmed that RA 9262 covers violence in same-sex partnerships.

The Supreme Court underscored the legislative intent behind RA 9262 by referencing the Bicameral Conference Committee meetings. During these meetings, legislators explicitly discussed and affirmed that the law’s protection should extend to women in lesbian relationships. This legislative history further supported the Court’s interpretation that “any person” includes women as offenders, and that the law aims to protect women from violence in all intimate relationships, regardless of the partners’ genders. The Court quoted excerpts from these meetings where legislators clarified their intent to cover woman-to-woman relationships under the VAWC law.

Moreover, the Court addressed the broader policy considerations behind RA 9262. It emphasized that the law is rooted in the State’s commitment to valuing women’s dignity and protecting them from violence. To exclude women in lesbian relationships from the law’s protection would be discriminatory and undermine the law’s purpose of eradicating violence against women. The Court highlighted that intimate partner violence is fundamentally a power issue, not solely a gender issue, and that women in same-sex relationships are equally vulnerable to abuse. Drawing from sociological perspectives, the Court acknowledged that while historical power imbalances between men and women are often cited in discussions of violence against women, the dynamics of power within intimate relationships can manifest in various forms, irrespective of gender.

In its decision, the Supreme Court echoed the RTC’s insightful observation that the distinctiveness of VAWC lies in its occurrence within “domestic, private, hidden and invisible relationships.” The Court agreed with the lower court’s reasoning that the need to protect women from violence is equally compelling whether the perpetrator is male or female. To exclude lesbian relationships from the ambit of RA 9262 would create an arbitrary and unjustifiable distinction, leaving a segment of domestic violence unaddressed and unprotected by the law. The Supreme Court concluded that RA 9262 is a progressive law designed to protect all women from intimate partner violence, and its interpretation must reflect this broad protective intent, ensuring equal protection under the law for all women, regardless of their relationship dynamics.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Agacid v. People, G.R. No. 242133, April 16, 2024