Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

G.R. No. 179267 GARCIA v.


G.R. No. 179267
June 25, 2013
699 SCRA 352

FACTS: Petitioner Jesus Garcia (husband) admitted having an affair with a bank
manager. His infidelity emotionally wounded private respondent which spawned several
quarrels that left respondent wounded. Petitioner also unconscionably beat up their
daughter, Jo-ann.

The private respondent was determined to separate from petitioner. But she was afraid
he would take away their children and deprive her of financial support. He warned her
that if she pursued legal battle, she would not get a single centavo from him. After she
confronted him of his affair, he forbade her to hold office. This deprived her of access to
full information about their businesses. Hence, no source of income.

Thus, the RTC found reasonable ground to believe there was imminent danger of violence
against respondent and her children and issued a series of Temporary Protection Orders
(TPO) pursuant to RA 9262.

Republic Act No. 9262 is a landmark legislation that defines and criminalizes acts of
violence against women and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by women's intimate

Petitioner hence, challenged the constitutionality of RA 9262 on making a gender-based


ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9262 is discriminatory, unjust, and violative of the equal
protection clause.

RULING: No. The equal protection clause in our Constitution does not guarantee an
absolute prohibition against classification. The non-identical treatment of women and
men under RA 9262 is justified to put them on equal footing and to give substance to the
policy and aim of the state to ensure the equality of women and men in light of the
biological, historical, social, and culturally endowed differences between men and

RA 9262, by affording special and exclusive protection to women and children, who are
vulnerable victims of domestic violence, undoubtedly serves the important governmental
objectives of protecting human rights, insuring gender equality, and empowering women.
The gender-based classification and the special remedies prescribed by said law in favor
of women and children are substantially related, in fact essentially necessary, to achieve
such objectives. Hence, said Act survives the intermediate review or middle-tier judicial
scrutiny. The gender-based classification therein is therefore not violative of the equal
protection clause embodied in the 1987 Constitution.