Garcia vs. J.

Drilon and Garcia WON the CA erred in not finding that the law does
G. R. No. 179267, 25 June 2013 violence to the policy of the state to protect the
family as a basic social institution
Nature of the Case: Petition for Review of Republic WON the CA seriously erredin declaring RA 9262 as
Act (R.A.) 9262 invalid and unconstitutional because it allows an
undue delegation of judicial power to Brgy.
Facts: Officials.
Private respondent Rosalie filed a petition before
the RTC of Bacolod City a Temporary Protection Decision:
Order against her husband, Jesus, pursuant to R.A. 1. Petitioner contends that the RTC has limited
9262, entitled “An Act Defining Violence Against authority and jurisdiction, inadequate to tackle the
Women and Their Children, Providing for complex issue of constitutionality. Family Courts
Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing have authority and jurisdiction to consider the
Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes.” She constitutionality of a statute. The question of
claimed to be a victim of physical, emotional, constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
psychological and economic violence, being possible time so that if not raised in the pleadings,
threatened of deprivation of custody of her it may not be raised in the trial and if not raised in
children and of financial support and also a victim the trial court, it may not be considered in appeal.
of marital infidelity on the part of petitioner. 2. RA 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal
The TPO was granted but the petitioner failed to protection of the laws. Equal protection simply
faithfully comply with the conditions set forth by requires that all persons or things similarly
the said TPO, private-respondent filed another situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
application for the issuance of a TPO ex parte. The conferred and responsibilities imposed.
trial court issued a modified TPO and extended the In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workerkers’
same when petitioner failed to comment on why Union, the Court ruled that all that is required of a
the TPO should not be modified. After the given valid classification is that it be reasonable, which
time allowance to answer, the petitioner no longer means that the classification should be based on
submitted the required comment as it would be an substantial distinctions which make for real
“axercise in futility.” differences; that it must be germane to the
Petitioner filed before the CA a petition for purpose of the law; not limited to existing
prohibition with prayer for injunction and TRO on, conditions only; and apply equally to each member
questioning the constitutionality of the RA 9262 of the class. Therefore, RA9262 is based on a valid
for violating the due process and equal protection classification and did not violate the equal
clauses, and the validity of the modified TPO for protection clause by favouring women over men
being “an unwanted product of an invalid law.” as victims of violence and abuse to whom the
The CA issued a TRO on the enforcement of the Senate extends its protection.
TPO but however, denied the petition for failure to 3. RA 9262 is not violative of the due process
raise the issue of constitutionality in his pleadings clause of the Constitution. The essence of due
before the trial court and the petition for process is in the reasonable opportunity to be
prohibition to annul protection orders issued by heard and submit any evidence one may have in
the trial court constituted collateral attack on said support of one’s defense. The grant of the TPO
law. exparte cannot be impugned as violative of the
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but right to due process.
was denied. Thus, this petition is filed. 4. The non-referral of a VAWC case to a mediator
Issues: is justified. Petitioner’s contention that by not
WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition on allowing mediation, the law violated the policy of
the theory that the issue of constitutionality was the State to protect and strengthen the family as a
not raised at the earliest opportunity and that the basic autonomous social institution cannot be
petition constitutes a collateral attack on the sustained. In a memorandum of the Court, it ruled
validity of the law. that the court shall not refer the case or any issue
WON the CA committed serious error in failing to therof to a mediator. This is so because violence is
conclude that RA 9262 is discriminatory, unjust not a subject for compromise.
and violative of the equal protection clause. 5. There is no undue delegation of judicial power
WON the CA committed grave mistake in not to Barangay officials. Judicial power includes the
finding that RA 9262 runs counter to the due duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
process clause of the Constitution controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on any part of any branch of the
Government while executive power is the power
to enforce and administer the laws. The
preliminary investigation conducted by the
prosecutor is an executive, not a judicial,
function. The same holds true with the issuance of
BPO. Assistance by Brgy. Officials and other law
enforcement agencies is consistent with their duty
executive function.

The petition for review on certiorari is denied for