MOTHERS who abuse their children can be offenders under the Anti- Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act, and fathers can apply for remedies under the law on behalf of the abused children.
Thus, ruled the Supreme Court En Banc in an 18-page Decision penned by Justice Mario V. Lopez, granting the Petition for Certiorari filed by Randy Michael Knutson on behalf of his minor daughter.
The petition challenged the ruling of the Taguig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) which had dismissed Knutson’s petition under Republic Act 9262, or the VAWC Act, for the issuance of Temporary and Protection Orders against Rosalina Knutson (Rosalina), the mother of his daughter.
The High Court also granted a permanent protection order in favor of the daughter.
On December 7, 2017, Knutson petitioned the Taguig City RTC for Temporary and Protection Orders against Rosalina, alleging that Rosalina placed their daughter in a harmful environment deleterious to the latter’s physical, emotional, moral, and psychological development.
The RTC dismissed Knutson’s petition on the ground that protection and custody orders under the VAWC Act could not be issued against a mother who allegedly abused her own child.
The RTC added that the remedies under the law were not available to Knutson, the father, because he was not a “woman victim of violence.”
Knutson moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, but was also denied by the RTC, prompting him to file a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC.
In granting Knutson’s petition, the Supreme Court ruled that while the VAWC Act excludes men as victims, this does not mean the law denies a father of its remedies solely because of his gender or the fact that he is not a “woman victim of violence.”
The Court held that Section 9(b) of the VAWC Act explicitly allows “parents or guardians of the offended party” to file a petition for protection orders. This provision was further incorporated in the law’s implementing rules as well as in A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC or the Rule on Violence Against Women and Children, the Court said.
The Court further explained that the law speaks in clear language when it used the word “parents” pertaining to the father and the mother of the woman or child victim. The law did not qualify on who between the parents of the victim may apply for protection orders, held the Court.
In the case of Knutson, it is clearly stated in the title of his petition for issuance of a protection order that he is acting on behalf of his minor daughter.
“There is no question that the offended party is [the daughter], a minor child, who allegedly experienced violence and abuse. Thus, [Knutson] may assist [his daughter] in filing the petition as the parent of the offended party,” ruled the Court.
