Sadsad Tamesis Legal and Accountancy Firm
A psychological evaluation is not indispensable in proving the infliction of psychological violence under RA 9262 because it is not one of the elements of the crime.
A nuisance candidate is one whose candidacy was lodged merely to create confusion or whose candidacy mocks or causes disrepute to the election process, hence, there is patently no intention to run for office. A candidate without the machinery of a political party or the finances to mount the nationwide campaign “cannot be lumped together with another candidate who was found to have mocked or caused disrepute to the election process.
Can a candidate be declared a nuisance for lacking campaign funds? | G.R. No. 258449 Read More »
Trigger warning: This blog mentions physical and sexual violence against women and children. In the 2024 Women and Men Fact Sheet released by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), results showed a disturbing number of 19,228 women aged 15-49 have experienced various forms of physical and sexual violence. This 2022 National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) by the PSA tells of an alarming fact that violence against women and children (VAWC) persists in the Philippines. As of February 2024, there was a total of 16.9% increase in the cases reported to the Philippine National Police Crime Information, Reporting and Analysis System (PNP CIRAS) from 11,307 cases in 2022 to 13,213 cases in 2023. A number of 7,161 cases in 2022 and 7,764 in 2023 (8.4% increase) are violations against Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. Additionally, 2,191 cases (1,575 girls and 616 boys) of child abuse or violence against children were reportedly served by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in 2023. This is a 39.4% decrease from the previous 3,616 cases in 2022, however, the point stands that this is still a serious problem in the country. “Violence against women (VAW) appears as one of the country’s pervasive social problems,” said the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW), the government-mandated agency at the center of women’s and children’s rights supervision, enforcement, and protection. As such, this Women’s Month and the upcoming celebration of Girl Child Week per Proclamation No. 759, s. of 1996, awareness of women’s and children’s rights and the laws that protect them is once again underscored. Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (RA 9262) The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, or simply the Anti-VAWC Act, seeks to recognize and address the need to protect the family and its members particularly women and children, from violence and threats to their safety and security. According to the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women in 1993, VAW is “any act of gender-based violence that results in or is likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public and private life. Gender-based violence is any violence inflicted on women because of their sex.” Following this and other international human rights instruments to which the Philippines is a party, the Anti-VAWC Act defines ‘violence against women and children’ as any act or a series of acts committed by any person which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse What is considered VAWC under the Anti-VAWC Act? VAWC includes: Likewise, Section 5 of the Act clarifies which acts qualify as a crime of VAWC. These include the following: Penalties against violations and crimes under Anti-VAWC Act The penalties of committing an act listed in RA 9262 vary and depend on the severity of the act. Act of Violence Duration of Penalty Attempt to harm the victim 1 month and 1 day – 6 months Place the victim in fear of imminent physical harm 1 month and 1 day – 6 months Threaten to or does self-harm to control the victim’s actions or decisions 1 month and 1 day – 6 months Restrict the victim from doing something through force or intimidation 6 months and 1 day – 6 years Force the victim into doing something through force or intimidation 6 months and 1 day – 6 years Attempt to or do any form of sexual violence on the victim 6 years and 1 day – 12 years Cause emotional or psychological distress to the victim through behaviors such as stalking, destroying the victims property, etc. 6 years and 1 day – 12 years Cause mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to the victim 6 years and 1 day – 12 years If the acts are committed while the woman or child is pregnant or committed in the presence of her child, the penalty to be applied shall be the maximum period of penalty prescribed in the section. In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall pay a fine of not less than P100,000.00, but not more than ₱300,000.00. He or she must also undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court. Protection Orders While a victim can file a case against his or her perpetrator for his or her act of violence, it doesn’t guarantee with certainty that the perpetrator won’t endanger the victim again. To prevent this from happening, the victim can apply for a protection order. A protection order prevents further acts of violence against a woman or her child. It also provides these victims other forms of necessary relief. A protection order aims to safeguard the victim from further harm, minimizes disruption in the victim’s daily life, and facilitates the victim’s opportunity and ability to independently regain control over her life. There are three types of protection orders that may be issued under this Act: the barangay protection order (BPO), temporary protection order (TPO) and permanent protection order (PPO). Barangay Protection Orders, or BPOs, refer to the protection order issued by the Punong Barangay ordering the perpetrator to desist. A Punong Barangay shall issue the protection order to the applicant on the date of filing. If the Punong Barangay is unavailable to act on the BPO application, the application shall be acted upon by any available Barangay Kagawad. BPOs are effective for fifteen days. Temporary Protection Orders, or TPOs, refer to the protection order issued by the court on the date of filing of the application. They are effective for thirty days. The court shall also schedule a hearing on the issuance of a PPO prior to or on the TPO’s expiration date. Permanent Protection Orders, or PPOs, refer to protection orders issued by the court after a notice and hearing. The court
What is the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 Read More »
Facts On 16 October 2019, David filed the Petition for Habeas Corpus, praying that an order be issued directing respondents to produce the bodies of his and Harryvette’s two minor children, Rocco and Zahara. Sometime in 2012, David, an Italian citizen, met Harryvette in La Union, and they began a romantic relationship. Later, they flew to Santa Fe, Bantayan Island in the Province of Cebu. Sometime in 2015, David and Harryvette’s marital relations crumbled. Haryvette alleged that David would physically abuse her, leading to their eventual separation. In 2018, Harryvette left for Paris, France to find work. A year later, Harryvette returned to the Philippines with her new partner. Afterward, Harryvette again left for France and turned over the custody of their minor children to David. In July 2019, Harryvette returned to the Philippines. During that time, she and her mother, Joselyn, learned that David went to Thailand for 12 days and left their children in the care of some couple in Bantayan, Cebu, without Harryvette’s knowledge and consent. Later on, Harryvette then executed a notarized document dated September 4, 2019, authorizing Joselyn to act as the guardian of her children upon her return to Paris. On 7 October 2019, David visited Rocco and Zahara and demanded their custody from Joselyn. However, Joselyn refused his plea and insisted that she had a better right of custody than David pursuant to the authority granted her by Harryvette. The RTC denied David’s petition and granted Harryvette exclusive parental authority over the minors and allowed only visitation rights to David. The CA partly granted David’s appeal, declaring that he and Harryvette have joint parental authority over their minor children. Nonetheless, it upheld the RTC’s award of provisional custody to Joselyn and the grant of visitation rights to David. Hence, this Petition. In his Petition, David argues that the CA should have awarded them joint custody over the children as Article 213 of the Family Code does not explicitly confer to the mother sole parental authority or sole custody. David likewise contends that Harryvette should be considered “absent” within the contemplation of Art. 212 of the same Code for being away from her place of usual residence. Ruling On the issue of custody, The SC affirms the award of sole custody over the minor children to respondent Harryvette. Contrary to David’s claims, Harryvette cannot be considered “absent” in contemplation of Art. 212 of the Family Code. In line with the case of Espiritu, it does not follow that the parent who is in close proximity to the minor child is the most suitable to be entrusted with their care. As applied here, the mere fact that a parent is an overseas Filipino worker does not deprive them of their right to exercise parental authority or sole custody. Respondent has not been remiss in exercising her right to parental authority and custody over their minor children despite being overseas. Respondent makes a continuous effort to communicate with their children and watch them through a CCTV system. She is also able to financially support them. Respondent Harryvette is likewise able to exercise sole custody through the grant of provisional custody to respondent Joselyn. This springs from the respondent’s right under Art. 213 of the Family Code as their mother, and thus, is effective only while she is away. Between respondent Joselyn and Petitioner, it is Joselyn who can better give her full and undivided attention to the minor children and provide them with an environment most conducive to their development. This is as opposed to the latter, who was deemed unfit, being a habitual drinker and smoker, and who has previously exhibited violent tendencies.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2025, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) released a statement backing the Senate Bill (SB) No. 2897 which sought to amend Republic Act (RA) No. 11313, otherwise known as the Safe Spaces Act or the Bawal Bastos law, to strengthen and widen its scope. The SB 2897 aims to widen the scope of ‘public spaces’ (Sec. 3 (g)) to include: in addition to: The bill likewise expands gender-based online sexual harassment to include artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies; and introduces the concept of ‘grooming’ as sexual harassment. According to a 2020 post by the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW), 58% of harassments occurs outside and 70% of them happen during broad daylight. In the 2021 Lloyd’s Register Foundation-Gallup polls survey, as cited by the Women Workers United, around 1 in 5 Filipino workers experience harassment in the workplace—22% of which are women and 18% are men who have experienced workplace violence and harassment. Meanwhile, in the 2024 Campaign to End Violence Against Women (VAW), the PCW released the reported VAW Cases statistics from 2016 to 2023, with 1,031 cases being violations against the Safe Spaces Act. The Safe Spaces Act, as well as the SB 2897, underscores the persisting problem of harassment against any persons, but especially women, children, and members of the LGBTQIA+ community, and the need to continually address and improve the protection against gender-based and sexual harassment. Here’s what you need to know about the Safe Spaces Act and SB 2897. What is the Safe Spaces Act (Bawal Bastos Law)? Signed into law in 2019, the Safe Spaces Act or the Bawal Bastos Law aims to define and punish catcalling and other forms of gender-based sexual harassment (GBSH). Its Declaration of Policy states that it “recognizes that both men and women must have equality, security and safety not only in private, but also on the streets, public spaces, online, workplaces and educational and training institutions.” Under the Safe Spaces Act, GBSH is classified into: Gender-based Streets and Public Spaces Sexual Harassment The crimes under this classification are committed through any unwanted and uninvited sexual actions or remarks against any person regardless of the motive for committing such action or remarks (Sec. 4). They include: ‘Verbal’ GBSH 1st offense Twelve (12) hours community service inclusive of Gender Sensitivity Training (GST) and PHP 1,000 fine 2nd offense Imprisonment of 6 -10 days or PHP 3,000 fine 3rd offense Imprisonment of 11 – 30 days and PHP 10,000 fine ‘Gestural and ‘Demonstrated’ GBSH 1st offense Twelve (12) hours community service inclusive of GST and PHP 10,000 fine 2nd offense Imprisonment of 11 – 30 days or PHP 15,000 fine 3rd offense Imprisonment of 1 month and 1 day to 9 months and PHP 20,000 fine GBSH through stalking, and physical advances such as any touching, pinching, or brushing against the genitalia 1st offense Imprisonment of 11 – 30 days or a fine of PHP 30,000 provided that it includes attendance in a GST to be conducted by PNP in coordination with LGU and PCW 2nd offense Imprisonment of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months or PHP 50,000 fine 3rd offense Imprisonment of 4 months and 1 day to 6 months or PHP 100,000 fine Additional if the perpetrator is a driver or operator of a PUV Cancellation of license of the driver by the Land Transportation Office (LTO) Suspension or revocation of franchise by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). This sanction may be imposed upon order by the proper court OR upon order of LTO/LTFRB in an administrative proceeding If the perpetrator is a minor The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) shall take necessary disciplinary measures as provided for under Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006″. List of penalties for gender-based sexual harassment (GBSH) in streets and public spaces under RA 11313 Article I, Sec. 11(a)(b)(c); format from Philippine Commission on Women (PCW). Where can victims of GBSH in streets and public spaces reach out for help? In all cases Local Government Unit via local Anti-Sexual Harassment (ASH) hotlineNearest police precinct through their Women and Children’s Protection DesksLocal Social Welfare and Development OfficePublic Attorney’s Office subject to PAO’s Persons Qualified for Legal Assistance Streets, roads, alleyways, parks Local traffic enforcer PUVs by a driver or operator of PUV Local Traffic Enforcer, LTO, LTFRB Close proximity to the LGU Hall Anti-Sexual Harassment (ASH) Desk Officer of the LGU (Provincial, Municipal, City, or Barangay) Malls, Bars, Public Establishments ASH Officer designated by operator of Malls, Bars, Public Establishments(e.g. security officers) List of authorities a victim can reach in case of GBSH in streets and public spaces according to RA 11313; format from Philippine Commission on Women (PCW). Gender-Based Online Sexual Harassment The crimes under this classification include acts that use information and communications technology in terrorizing and intimidating victims through: In general Corrective prison (prision correccional) in its medium period or a fine of not less than PHP 100,000.00 but not more than PHP 500,000.00, or both, at the discretion of the court If the perpetrator is a juridical person License or franchise shall be automatically deemed revoked, and the persons liable shall be the officers thereof, including the editor or reporter in the case of print media, and the station manager, editor and broadcaster in the case of broadcast media If the perpetrator is a foreigner (alien) Subjected to deportation proceedings after serving sentence and payment of fines. List of penalties for perpetrators of online GBSH according to RA 11313 and PCW. Where can victims of online GBSH reach out for help? The PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNPACG) as National Operational Support Unit of the PNP, in collaboration with the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT), is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of Philippine laws on cybercrime. They receive complaints about GBSH and develop online mechanisms for reporting real-time online GBSH and apprehending the perpetrators. Victims can
What You Need to Know about the Safe Spaces Act or the Bawal Bastos Law Read More »
A woman to herself, a lawyer, a boss, an entrepreneur, and a mom—all these things define her. To her, it’s because women have endless possibilities and she chooses to do and have it all for her happiness, even if society may think otherwise. Graduated in the top 5 from the University of Santo Tomas (UST) Faculty of Civil Law and with a Master’s Degree in Entrepreneurship from the Ateneo Graduate School of Business, Atty. Kathrina Mishael C. Sadsad-Tamesis specializes in litigation, specifically civil and criminal litigations, with a focus on family law, adoption, guardianship, nullity of marriage and legal separation, and judicial recognition of foreign divorce. Known as Atty. KCS to the firm, Sadsad-Tamesis is a Partner of Sadsad Tamesis Legal and Accountancy Firm (STLAF) and the CEO of Metro.KST Enterprises, Corp., (MKST), the flagship company of her two operating businesses: the Massagedaily.ph and Metrobaby.ph. “For me, it’s just [about] finding the right balance,” she said in an interview. “It’s basically how you see your happiness and how you balance it. […] Life is hard and it’s hard to balance [responsibilities] but at the end of the day, you will [be the one to] choose. Ikaw yung pipili. Choose your happiness and accept the consequences of your choices.” Women in Law One of her sources of happiness comes from the fulfillment of helping people and winning cases for her clients as a lawyer, which has always been her dream job. After passing the Bar Examination in 2013, she worked as a corporate lawyer of several groups of companies, then practiced in PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Philippines, an audit and tax firm. However, it is only in her third job where she practiced litigation as a junior associate that she truly enjoyed her work. “I enjoy meeting people, going to court, appearing before the judges and solving other people’s cases. When I win a case, I’m very happy,” said Sadsad-Tamesis. “Whether I’m for the accused or the complainant, for me, it’s like a puzzle. You solve it, you look into the details. Tignan mo kung ano yung defenses mo, or saan yung mga matters na malakas ka and you solve it. I love the challenge and I enjoy doing it the most.” In 2016, Sadsad-Tamesis and fellow Partners formed a law firm in Bulacan—the De Guia, Tamesis & Sadsad Law Firm, which was more of a part-time job to them. When she got pregnant and had a hard time going to her then-job, she resigned and focused her efforts towards their law firm. Around 2019, she and her husband, Atty. Chris Tamesis decided to open another law firm in Quezon City—the STLAF. “Why? Because that’s what I wanted to do. Dun ako nag-e-enjoy. That’s the job that motivates me to wake up in the morning […] That’s what inspires me the most.” This is especially true when it comes to family law cases, her specialization. “Favorite ko yung family law because it gives you a sense of fulfillment once you resolve the case,” she beamed. “For me kasi, lawyering is not just about getting money, it’s about helping other people [too].” For her, it’s the connection with the clients that matter. “It’s full of emotions. Mas masaya, actually. Iba yung connection sa client in family law cases because you get to know them,” explained Sadsad-Tamesis, specifically pertaining to annulment and adoption cases. “Nase-serve yung purpose ko as a lawyer, as a woman.” Lawyering, like other careers, is not just for men; it hasn’t been for a long time now, she emphasized. For her, the legal industry has evolved to not only recognize but also showcase women’s excellence. “When I was in law school, mas marami nang babae […] Before kasi diba, parang pag lawyer, mostly lalaki. But for me, ngayon, nagiging pantay na,” she recalls. “Sa MTC, RTC, ang dami nang babaeng judges. So talagang pantay na for me. Lawyering is really [not just] for men, it’s also for women and maraming nag-e-excel na mga babaeng lawyers. Women in Business A respected lawyer in the firm, Sadsad-Tamesis is also an entrepreneur and CEO of the fast-growing company MKST. MKST houses Massagedaily.ph (MDPH), a home service spa with 39.5k followers on Facebook and Instagram, and its events division, the Luxe Lounge by MDPH. “I really love massages since college. I also grew up kasi na merong nagho-home service sa bahay namin for my lola,” told Sadsad-Tamesis, recalling her memories. “[Although], before di ako fan ng home service; I go to the spa mismo. Then may isang beses, we tried home service and really liked it since you don’t have to travel home after getting your massage.” According to her, it’s convenient and effort-efficient. However, because of demand, her favorite home service spa was always fully booked, so she thought, why not take advantage of it? “Parang naisip ko, ‘Edi ako na lang mag-p-provide’. Naisip ko, ako na lang magbu-buo ng business na yon. I’ll build my own home service spa,” she chuckles. “Feeling ko meron [kasing] malaking market na hindi nase-serve…” On navigating leadership and decision-making As a Partner lawyer and CEO of a business, Sadsad-Tamesis approaches leadership and decision-making with professional finesse, consideration, and proficiency. Between the top-to-bottom and bottom-to-top strategy, she prefers the former. “For me kasi mas mabilis yung top-to-bottom, communication is more direct and efficient but at the same time, I am still making sure that the decision is okay with everybody, hindi yung I’ll decide and impose. I do not want to impose on my people kung anong gagawin nila, I want to still give them the freedom to suggest and I honestly listen to those suggestions.” Sadsad-Tamesis greatly values her people’s perspectives and inputs. To her, they are the heart of an organization. “People [who] compose our organization, I believe, is the heart of the organization, not the leader. Kumbaga, ikaw leader ka, kung wala ka namang tao, wala kang followers, how can you lead right?” She points out, “[V]ery important sa akin yung mga tao sa
Atty. Kathrina Mishael C. Sadsad-Tamesis: The Woman In the Scenes Read More »
Doctrine A co-owner has the right to alienate his pro indiviso share in the co-owned property even without the consent of the other co-owners. But such alienation is limited only to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership under the principle of nemo dat quod non habet (No one can give what he does not have). Facts Julian and Marcela died, leaving nine children, including Isidoro. The heirs executed a “Partihan at Bilihan nang Kalahating Bahagi ng Lupang Tirahan sa Labas ng Hukuman,” and sold half of the subject property to Anastacio. The remaining quarter was occupied by Vitaliano’s children, namely, the petitioner and Fermin, while the other quarter was sold by Isidoro to respondent Spouses Garcia. Thereafter, respondent Spouses Garcia filed an ejectment case against Fermin for the ¼ of the subject property. Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of ownership, quieting of title and annulment of deed of sale against the spouses Garcia alleging that the Deed of Sale is void since Isidoro is not the true and real owner of the subject property which originally belongs to Julian’s estate. On the other hand, Spouses Garcia argued that the heirs had already agreed to divide the property among themselves when they allowed a portion of the property to be occupied by the heirs of Vitaliano. ISSUE: Whether or not Isidoro, as co-heir, can alienate his pro indiviso share of the co-owned property. Ruling Yes. It is undisputed that the subject property belongs to Julian and that upon the demise of Julian and his wife Marcela, the heirs executed a Partihan at Bilihan nang Kalahating Bahagi ng Lupang Tirahan sa Labas ng Hukuman, which sold half of the subject property to their co-heir Anastacio. As to the remaining half of the subject property, the same remains in the estate of Julian and Marcela. Nonetheless, a co-owner may alienate an inchoate portion of the subject property that belongs to him or her. Article 493 of the Civil Code provides for the rights of co-owners over co-owned property. Thus, Isidoro, as one of Julian and Marcela’s heirs, has the right to alienate his pro indiviso share in the co-owned property even without the consent of the other co-heirs. However, as a mere part owner, he cannot alienate the shares of the other co-owners. Nemo dat quod non habet. No one can give what he does not have. Hence, as correctly ruled by the courts a quo, Isidoro’s sale of the remaining half of the subject property will only affect his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale. The spouses Garcia will only get Isidoro’s undivided share in the subject property. However, Reynaldo Reyes’ recourse should have been a division of the common property. To demand a partition or division of the common property is in accord with Article 494 of the Civil Code, that is, no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership and that each co-owner may demand at any time partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his or her share is concerned. The spouses Garcia, as co-owners of the 231.5 sqm subject property by virtue of the deed of sale dated August 16, 1989, executed by Isidoro in their favor, cannot claim a specific portion of the subject property before its partition. With the subsistence of co-ownership, the spouses Garcia only own Isidoro’s undivided aliquot share of the subject property. The spouses Garcia and all the co-owners cannot adjudicate to himself or herself title to any definite portion of the subject property until its actual partition by agreement or judicial decree.
Can a co-owner sell their share without the consent of others? | G.R. No. 225159 Read More »
According to the 2024 World Economic Forum (WEF), the Philippines is the most gender-equal country in Asia with a gender parity score of 77.9% (0.779 out of 1) and ranking 25th out of 146 countries. Along with New Zealand, it is the only country from East Asia and the Pacific to have made the global top 10 due to its sustained efforts in adopting and enacting legal frameworks that aim to safeguard and empower women’s rights in Philippine society. One such legal framework, the holy grail of women’s rights law in the Philippines, is Republic Act 9710, better known as the Magna Carta of Women (MCW). Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed it into law on August 14, 2009. What is the Magna Carta of Women (MCW)? Entitled the “Magna Carta of Women” and not “Magna Carta for Women” to highlight women’s participation and ownership of the bill, the MCW is the Philippines’ affirmation of the protection and empowerment of women in the country who continue to be marginalized and discriminated against in our society. Its Declaration of Policy (Sec. 2) states that “the State affirms the role of women in nation building and ensures the substantive equality of women and men. It shall promote empowerment of women and pursue equal opportunities for women and men and ensure equal access to resources and to development results and outcome,” and that “the State realizes that equality of men and women entails the abolition of the unequal structures and practices that perpetuate discrimination and inequality.” The MCW upholds the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and other international instruments consistent with Philippine law in condemning and eliminating discrimination against women and underscoring women’s rights as human rights. What is discrimination against women? Sec. 4, Chapter II defines ‘discrimination against women’ as: (1) any gender-based distinction, exclusion, or restriction which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field; (2) any act or omission, including by law, policy, administrative measure, or practice, that directly or indirectly excludes or restricts women in the recognition and promotion of their rights and their access to and enjoyment of opportunities, benefits, or privileges; (3) a measure or practice of general application that fails to provide for mechanisms to offset or address sex or gender-based disadvantages or limitations of women, as a result of which women are denied or restricted in the recognition and protection of their rights and their access to and enjoyment of opportunities, benefits, or privileges; or women, more than men are shown to have suffered the greater adverse effects of those measures or practices; and (4) discrimination compounded by or intersecting with other grounds, status, or condition, such as ethnicity, age, poverty, or religion. MCW safeguards women from discrimination by having the State fulfill its duties through law, policy, regulatory instruments, administrative guidelines, and other appropriate measures, including temporary special measures. What are the women’s rights under MCW? Under Chapter IV, the following are the rights of women to be enjoyed without discrimination: What are the rights of women in marginalized sectors? Meanwhile, Chapter V outlines the rights of women in marginalized sectors. The MCW defines ‘marginalization’ as “a condition where a whole category of people is excluded from useful and meaningful participation in political, economic, social, and cultural life,” and consequently, the ‘marginalized’ as “the basic, disadvantaged, or vulnerable persons or groups who are mostly living in poverty and have little or no access to land and other resources, basic social and economic services such as health care, education, water and sanitation, employment and livelihood opportunities, housing, social security, physical infrastructure, and the justice system” such as: Women in these sectors are guaranteed all civil, political, social, and economic rights recognized, promoted, and protected under existing laws including, but not limited to, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, the Urban Development and Housing Act, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the Fisheries Code, the Labor Code, the Migrant Workers Act, the Solo Parents Welfare Act, and the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act. According to the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW), under the MCW women in marginalized sectors are entitled to: Implementation of MCW Because the law is the Philippines’ commitment to the rights of our women, the Government, its agencies, and other government-owned and controlled bodies, as well as private sectors and individuals shall not only contribute but also adhere to the recognition, respect, and promotion of women’s rights and abide by the rule of law. At the core of this law is the PCW, formerly called the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women, which is tasked with the overall monitoring and supervision of the MCW’s implementation. It is the primary policy-making and coordinating body for women and gender equality concerns in the Philippines. (Sec. 36 & 38) In consonance with the MCW and the PCW, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is the Gender and Development Ombud that ensures the promotion and protection of women’s human rights. (Sec. 39) The Commission on Audit (COA) is tasked to conduct an annual audit on the use of the Gender and Development (GAD) budget to determine its judicious use and the efficiency, and effectiveness of interventions in addressing gender issues toward the realization of the objectives of the country’s commitments, plans, and policies on women empowerment, gender equality, and GAD. (Sec. 36(a)) Violation of MCW No one is above MCW and anyone who violates it shall be held liable under its mandate and provisions. According to the PCW, the Commission on Human Rights shall recommend sanctions under administrative law, civil service, or other appropriate laws to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). For instance, in the case
Safeguarding Women’s Rights: Magna Carta of Women Read More »
Facts One afternoon, AAA, who was twelve (12) years old then, was asked by her father, XXX, if she had already eaten lunch. When AAA said that she did not eat yet, XXX got angry. XXX cursed at her while asking why she did not eat yet, and then he proceeded to hit AAA with a wooden rod embedded with a nail, hitting her on the back, right arm, and right thigh. This caused AAA to cry in pain as the nail hit her with every strike. Then, in another instance, XXX saw AAA holding a one-hundred (100) peso bill. XXX asked AAA where she got the money and she said that she got it from her Hello Kitty sling bag. At home, XXX counted the money inside AAA’s coin bank. XXX confronted AAA and her brother, BBB, who was ten (10) years old at that time, asking why the amount inside the coin bank was less than his estimation. XXX threw the coin bank at them and ordered them to go upstairs to look for any money that they might be hiding in their closet. While they were upstairs, XXX began scolding and hurting both AAA and BBB. XXX pulled AAA’s hair, kicked her, and hit her head. XXX struck BBB with the handle of a dustpan on his left and right sides. XXX only stopped by AAA and BBB gave him the rest of their money. AAA and BBB left the house and proceeded to the home of CCC, their mother. ISSUE: Is XXX guilty of child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610? Ruling YES, XXX is guilty of child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. When the infliction of physical injuries against a minor is done at the spur of the moment or intended to discipline or correct the wrongful behavior of the child, it is imperative that the specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human be established. In the absence of this specific intent, the offender cannot be held liable for child abuse but only for other crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code, provided that all the elements of the latter are present. pay4d In this regard, to determine the presence or absence of this specific intent, the Court may consider the circumstances of the case and the manner in which the offender committed the act complained of, such as when the offender’s use of force against the child was calculated, violent, excessive, or done without any provocation. Such intention can also be derived from the disciplinary measures employed by the offender, such as when such measures are not commensurate with or reasonable to address or correct the child’s misbehavior. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that XXX committed acts that debased, degraded, or demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of AAA and BBB as human beings. Hitting AAA several times with a wooden rod embedded with a nail was certainly not commensurate or reasonably necessary to discipline her just because she had not eaten her lunch. In the same vein, XXX used excessive force when he pulled AAA’s hair, kicked, hit her head, and struck BBB with a dustpan multiple times just because the money saved in their coin banks was lacking. Although XXX, as a parent, has the right to instill discipline in his minor children, still, the disciplinary measures he employed, in this case, were excessive, violent, and completely disproportionate to correct the alleged misconduct or misbehavior of his children. His abusive acts may be considered extreme measures of punishment not commensurate with the discipline of his 12-year-old and 10-year-old children. Given these circumstances, it can be reasonably inferred that his act of laying hands on his children was done with the specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean their intrinsic worth and dignity as human beings. RELATED ARTICLE: Is pointing a gun at a child an act of abuse? | Case No. 236628
Discipline or child abuse? | G.R. No. 268457 Read More »