OVERVIEW OF GENDER RIGHTS IN 2016
unequal power relations between men and women
tracing the history of VAW as historically sanctioned
in many societies; (b) women are the usual and most
likely victims of violence; and (c) the existence of
gender bias and prejudice in society. Furthermore,
the Supreme Court stated that the enactment of R.A.
9262 aims to address the discrimination brought
about by biases and prejudices against women and
that, as emphasized by the CEDAW Committee,
addressing or correcting discrimination through
specific measures focused on women does not
discriminate against men. The Supreme Court, in
upholding the law’s constitutionality, reiterated
Justice Puno’s observation that “…the history of
the women’s movement against domestic violence
shows that one of its most difficult struggles was
the fight against the violence of law itself. If we keep
that in mind, law will not again be a hindrance to
the struggle of women for equality but will be its
fulfillment.”
In Anonymous Complainant vs. Ma. Victoria
P. Radam (19 December 2007)13 the Supreme Court
decided in favour of a woman who got pregnant
out of wedlock and was accused of immorality. The
Supreme Court distinguished public and secular
morality from religious morality, and ruled that
the woman’s pregnancy out of wedlock does not
constitute immorality. It further stated that “…for
a particular conduct to constitute disgraceful and
immoral behavior under civil service laws, it must be
regulated on account of the concerns of public and
secular morality,” and that “…it cannot be judged
based on personal bias, specifically those colored by
particular mores.”14 This ruling was been reiterated
in the case Leus vs. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove
and/or Sr. Edna Quiambao, OSB (28 January 2015),
15
wherein the Supreme Court stated that “viewed
against the prevailing norms of conduct, her conduct
cannot be considered as disgraceful or immoral;
such conduct is not denounced by public and secular
A.M. No. P-07-2333, December 19, 2007 (formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2510-P)
Citing Estrada v. Escritor
15
28 January 2015
16
Ibid.
13
14
7
morality. It may be an unusual arrangement, but it
certainly is not disgraceful or immoral within the
contemplation of the law.”16
Yet despite of these victories, in addition
to the national policies and legal mechansms in
place, the Commission continues to receive cases of
discrimination against women similar to the above.
There were cases of female students or teachers
dismissed because of out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
One case was initially refused by the Office of the
Ombudsman which and referred the employee to
the PCW. The PCW then referred the case to the
CHR. With the Commission’s assistance, the case was
brought back to the Office of the Ombudsman, as
the concerend respondents were employees of public
institutions.
Barangay compliance to the provisions of
R.A. 9262 and adherence to its standards are also
areas of concern. The CHR’s random monitoring of
barangay Violence Against Women (VAW) desks
revealed the lack of facilities and personnel training.
There are continuing challenges to the delivery
of gender sesitive and responsive services at the
community level. There are also reports of Punong
Barangays refusing to issue Barangay Protection
Orders (BPOs), or insisting on reconciliation and
mediatiation as modes of dispute resolution in
domestic violence which are not allowed under the
law.
The Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (R.A. 10354, or
the RPRH Law) is another law that continues to
meet challenges both in and out of the courtroom.
Its constitutionality was questioned soon after it
was enacted in 2012. In 2014, eight (8) of the law’s
key provisions were scrapped. The implications of
the Supreme Court’s decision in Imbong vs. Ochoa
for the RPRH were as follows: (a) strengthened