Time is of the essence

Under Republic Act No. 9262 or the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Children” Act of 2004, women-victims of abuse, violence and maltreatment by their husbands or partners have the right to obtain a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against said husband or partner. Can the TPO be issued to a wife even before hearing the side of her husband? This is answered in this case of the married couple Al and Amy.

After just seven years of marriage and living together as husband and wife with three children, Al and Amy’s marital relationship turned sour, forcing Amy and the three children to leave Al and to file a petition for legal separation. Later on Amy was also forced to file a verified Petition for a TPO against Al before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

Amy alleged in her affidavit attached to the Petition for a TPO: that one time, Al went to her room and cocked his gun and pointed its barrel at his head to convince her not to proceed with the legal separation case which scared her although she hid her fears; that at another instance, Al fed her children with the fried chicken which her youngest daughter had chewed and spat out; that he also threatened their son with a belt to stop him from crying; that when she asked him to stop coming to the house as often as he wanted, or else she would apply for a TPO because she felt unsafe and insecure, Al got furious, held her by the nape, pushed her to lie flat on the bed and threatened to withhold his financial support; and that one time when she was at work Al and his companions went to her new home and forcibly took the children and refused to give them back to her.

The RTC granted the application for a TPO and ordered Al to stop committing and threatening to commit personally or through another, physical, verbal and emotional harm or abuse against Amy and other family and household members; and to refrain from harassing, annoying, texting, telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with Amy whether directly or indirectly or engaged in any psychological form of harassment.

Al questioned the issuance of the TPO claiming that he was not afforded the chance to be heard, thus violating his constitutional right to due process of law. Is Al correct?

No. The Court of Appeals as subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that there is no violation of Al’s constitutional right to due process. Under R.A. 9262, the court is authorized to issue a TPO ‘ex parte’ (meaning even without notice and hearing the adverse party). When the life, the limb or the property of the victim is in jeopardy and there is reasonable ground to believe that the TPO is necessary to protect the victim from the immediate and imminent danger of violence or to prevent such violence, which is about to recur, then the court must act immediately. Time is of the essence in cases of violence against women and children to prevent further violence.  The victim may suffer harrowing experiences in the hands of her tormentor, and possibly even death, if notice and hearing were required before such acts could be prevented. In such cases, the ordinary requirements of procedural due process must yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests, among which is protection of women and children from violence and threats to their personal safety and security (Ralph P. Tua vs. Hon. Cesar A. Mangrobang and Rosanna Honrado-Tua, G.R. No. 170701, January 22, 2014).

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected].