Why
is it that the alleged wife beating of Davao City police director Vicente Danao
did not generate as much indignation as the “hipon” joke of Ramon Bautista?
I
posed that question on my Facebook status wall. A former classmate of mine
commented. He said that the difference between the two is that Bautista’s case
happened in public, while Danao’s case is purely a private matter which should
be best left for the family to resolve.
Taking
that argument to its extreme, it would seem that violence against women is
justified as long as it happened inside the house. Indeed, domestic violence,
because it is domestic, is often seen as purely a private matter. Thus, cases
of wife beatings and other forms of violence against women often go unreported.
But the
case of Marivic Genosa, a battered woman herself, made the people realize the
obvious-domestic
violence may be domestic, but it is violence nevertheless. They started to see
domestic violence in a different light. They no longer stopped at the domestic
aspect of domestic violence, but now they placed more emphasis on the violence.
Marivic
Genosa was convicted of parricide for killing her husband. Her case reached the
Supreme Court. There, she argued that she did it only to defend herself. She
anchored her defense on “Batttered Woman Syndrome.” The Supreme Court was not
altogether convinced.
The Court said, “She is not entitled to complete
exoneration because there was no unlawful aggression-no
immediate and unexpected attack on her by her batterer-husband at the time she
shot him” (People v. Genosa, GR 135981, January 15, 2004).
But because of the unique circumstances of her case, the
death penalty imposed on her was reduced. The Court said, “The acute battering she suffered
that fatal night in the hands of her batterer-spouse, in spite of the fact that
she was eight months pregnant with their child, overwhelmed her and put her in
the aforesaid emotional and mental state, which overcame her reason and
impelled her to vindicate her life and her unborn child’s.”
In her dissent, however, Justice
Consuelo Ynares-Santiago said Marivic Genosa must be acquitted. She said, “The danger posed or created in her mind by the latter's
threats using bladed weapons, bred a state of fear, where under the
circumstances, the natural response of the battered woman would be to defend
herself even at the cost of taking the life of the batterer.” Three more
justices, including then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., joined in her
dissenting opinion.
Barely two months after the
Supreme Court promulgated the Genosa case, Congress passed R.A. 9262, the
Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (Anti-VAWC) of 2004.
The Anti-VAWC Act made into law the
Baterred Woman Syndrome as a defense. Section 26 provides, “Victim-survivors
who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not
incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of
the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code.”
The law repudiates the notion
that domestic violence, which is just one form of violence against women, is a
private matter. Ample provisions of the law actually allow outsiders to
intervene even if the parties involved are spouses, or are in a sexual or
dating relationship.
For instance, Section 9 allows,
among others, “At least two (2) concerned responsible citizens of the city or
municipality where the violence against women and their children occurred and
who has personal knowledge of the offense committed” to file a petition for
protection order.
Section 25 provides, “Violence
against women and their children shall be considered a public offense which may
be prosecuted upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal
knowledge of the circumstances involving the commission of the crime.”
In Section 30, one of the duties
imposed upon the Barangay Officials and Law Enforcers is to “respond
immediately to a call for help or request for assistance or protection of the
victim by entering the dwelling if necessary whether or not a protection order
has been issued and ensure the safety of the victim/s.”
And in Section 34, the law
exempts persons intervening from any liability: “In every case of violence
against women and their children...any person, private individual or police
authority or barangay official who, acting in accordance with law, responds or
intervenes without using violence or restraint greater than necessary to ensure
the safety of the victim, shall not be liable for any criminal, civil or
administrative liability resulting therefrom.”
Despite the passage of the
Anti-VAWC Act, however, there are those who still cling to the long discredited
idea that domestic violence is a private matter. Indeed, defenders of Danao say
that the incident between him and his wife−a video of which wasuploaded on YouTube−was merely “away mag-asawa.” One should not meddle with it.
That smacks of insensitivity. To
dismiss domestic violence as a private matter despite evidence to the contrary
deserves more the civilized society’s contempt than Ramon Bautista’s “hipon”
joke. As Rowena V. Guanzon argued, “violence against women in the context of
intimate relations is a serious human rights violation; it is not a private
matter, it is a crime.”
I can't help feeling worried that he who should enforce the Anti-VAWC Law is he who violated it.