NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
Lesbian Relationships Covered By Anti-VAWC Act
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has reiterated its previous ruling that Republic Act 9262, also known as the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children (VAWC) Act, extends protection to all women, including those in lesbian relationships.
The ruling came as the Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Sandra Jane Gagui Jacinto, who sought to challenge the orders of Branch 73, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Antipolo City, which denied her motion to quash charges filed against her under the Anti-VAWC Act.
The case stems from an Information filed against Jacinto in 2018, accusing her of assaulting her live-in partner, Maria Eloisa Sarmiento Fouts, and causing her physical injuries. Jacinto moved to quash the charges, arguing that the Anti-VAWC Act does not apply to lesbian relationships and therefore the charges did not constitute an offense.
The RTC rejected Jacinto's motion to quash, and subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting her to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
In a 10-page Decision penned by Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the Supreme Court's Third Division not only denied Jacinto's petition but also emphasized the broad scope of the Anti-VAWC Act. The Court referenced its previous ruling in the case of Garcia v. Drilon, where it stated that the Act may be committed "against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship." The Court clarified that the use of the gender-neutral term "person" in the law encompasses even lesbian relationships.
The Court firmly established that its pronouncement in Garcia v. Drilon was not a mere obiter dictum, as it specifically addressed the issue of whether the Anti-VAWC Act was discriminatory in singling out husbands or fathers. This clarification allowed the Court to apply the ruling to Jacinto's case, affirming the applicability of the Act to her situation.
Additionally, the Supreme Court emphasized that Jacinto's recourse to the Court was improper. The denial of a motion to quash an Information is considered an interlocutory order, which is not appealable and cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari. Instead, the Court stated that Jacinto's appropriate course of action would be to proceed to trial and, if necessary, appeal any adverse judgment rendered by the RTC.
Furthermore, the Court noted that even if it were to treat Jacinto's petition as one filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, it would still be dismissed for disregarding the judicial hierarchy of courts.
The Supreme Court's decision serves as a landmark reaffirmation of the Anti-VAWC Act's intent to protect all women, regardless of their sexual orientation, from violence and abuse. By clarifying its stance on the matter, the Court ensures that lesbian women in relationships can avail themselves of the legal safeguards provided by the Act.
The ruling came as the Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Sandra Jane Gagui Jacinto, who sought to challenge the orders of Branch 73, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Antipolo City, which denied her motion to quash charges filed against her under the Anti-VAWC Act.
The case stems from an Information filed against Jacinto in 2018, accusing her of assaulting her live-in partner, Maria Eloisa Sarmiento Fouts, and causing her physical injuries. Jacinto moved to quash the charges, arguing that the Anti-VAWC Act does not apply to lesbian relationships and therefore the charges did not constitute an offense.
The RTC rejected Jacinto's motion to quash, and subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting her to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
In a 10-page Decision penned by Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the Supreme Court's Third Division not only denied Jacinto's petition but also emphasized the broad scope of the Anti-VAWC Act. The Court referenced its previous ruling in the case of Garcia v. Drilon, where it stated that the Act may be committed "against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship." The Court clarified that the use of the gender-neutral term "person" in the law encompasses even lesbian relationships.
The Court firmly established that its pronouncement in Garcia v. Drilon was not a mere obiter dictum, as it specifically addressed the issue of whether the Anti-VAWC Act was discriminatory in singling out husbands or fathers. This clarification allowed the Court to apply the ruling to Jacinto's case, affirming the applicability of the Act to her situation.
Additionally, the Supreme Court emphasized that Jacinto's recourse to the Court was improper. The denial of a motion to quash an Information is considered an interlocutory order, which is not appealable and cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari. Instead, the Court stated that Jacinto's appropriate course of action would be to proceed to trial and, if necessary, appeal any adverse judgment rendered by the RTC.
Furthermore, the Court noted that even if it were to treat Jacinto's petition as one filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, it would still be dismissed for disregarding the judicial hierarchy of courts.
The Supreme Court's decision serves as a landmark reaffirmation of the Anti-VAWC Act's intent to protect all women, regardless of their sexual orientation, from violence and abuse. By clarifying its stance on the matter, the Court ensures that lesbian women in relationships can avail themselves of the legal safeguards provided by the Act.
May 17, 2023
