Musings on violence

Fresh from the Supreme Court press is its decision on the law against violence versus women and children, or Republic Act No. 9262.  In a unanimous decision, showing that the male justices did not have any qualms voting against their brother man, the court upheld the constitutionality of the law, and ruled that the law did not violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.

The case was brought by a Jesus Garcia, who had been served a Temporary Protection Order, or a TPO by the regional trial court of Tacloban, after his wife had filed a case against him.  Mrs. Garcia had claimed she was a victim of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse, and on the basis of her allegations, the court had issued a TPO.

As is wont with lawyers seeking means and ways to defend their client, the route became, not about the merits of whether there was really violence employed against the wife, but whether the law that allowed the issuance of the TPO was valid.  And so the lawyers of Mr. Garcia instituted the case that had, for its foundation, the theory that the Anti Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004 was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

I don't even want to read the briefs filed by counsel for the husband.  Predictably, they will have argued that the law gives special privileges to women, and does not give that  same privilege to men.  (After all, men may likewise be the subject of domestic violence, right? Especially henpecked husbands who quake at the sight of their better halves.)  Therefore, it does not give equal protection.

The briefs will also have probably argued that the law targets men, who are the deemed perpetrators of violence, and doesn't target machete-wielding wives a la Lorena Bobbitt.  Therefore, it is discriminatory.

Unfortunately, our Supreme Court didn't see it that way.  Drawing on statistics, the court noted that it was a fact that women are the usual and  likely victims of violence.  If this was a fact, then our legislators could use this as a valid basis to draw up legislation to then address such fact.

Equal protection means that two persons similarly situated must be treated equally. Since men were not similarly situated as women, (as borne out by the statistics on violence) it was possible for them to be treated differently.  In the words of the court, “the Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be treated in law as though they were the same.  The equal protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different”.

The court noted that there is an “unequal power relationship between men and women”.   (Which means men have greater power than women? Duck!). Therefore the law “is based on a valid classification”, and men can indeed be treated differently by the law.

That lays to rest the question of whether this law is unconstitutional, but to my mind, it doesn't address the question that other victims of violence can then raise.

What if Andres de Saya, our mythical henpecked papa, is beaten to a bloody pulp by the wife from hell?  And this goes on on a regular basis, until he suffers from the Battered Spouse syndrome? What law does he use to protect himself?  Or what if two live-partners of the same sex have a nuclear falling out, and husband 1 inflicts severe emotional torture on husband 2 by not only lacerating his flawless face, but also cutting up his designer wardrobe?  And then stalking him way past when the relationship has ended?  Shouldn't these forms of violence deserve some form of relief as well?

This law obviously will not afford the male victims the protection they need, seeing as it only shields the “woman victim of violence”.  These questions, the Supreme Court or our legislators should have looked at and considered.  But perhaps, until the statistics even out, and men are equally victims, then there is still some leg for the decision to stand on.

So men, don't beat up your women.  And while you're at it, maybe just allow them to beat you up once in a while.