Juliet invoking the provisions of the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children filed with the RTC designated as a Family Court a petition for issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Romeo. The Family Court issued a 30-day TPO against Romeo. A day before the expiration of the TPO, Juliet filed a motion for extension. Romeo in his opposition raised, among others, the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) arguing that the law authorizing the issuance of a TPO violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 1987 Constitution. The Family Court judge, in granting the motion for extension of the TPO, declined to rule on the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The Family Court judge reasoned that Family Courts are without jurisdiction to pass upon constitutional issues, being a special court of limited jurisdiction and R.A. No. 8369, the law creating the Family Courts, does not provide for such jurisdiction. Is the Family Court judge correct when he declined to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262? (3%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, the Family Court judge is incorrect in declining to resolve the constitutional issue.
Under the Constitution and settled jurisprudence (e.g., Garcia v. Drilon), Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) possess jurisdiction to resolve constitutional questions. Family Courts are RTCs designated by law (R.A. No. 8369) to try family cases, and such designation does not divest them of their inherent judicial power to pass upon the constitutionality of a statute when properly raised.
Here, the Family Court judge erred in ruling that Family Courts lack jurisdiction over constitutional issues. As a branch of the RTC, the Family Court retains full judicial authority to determine the constitutional validity of R.A. No. 9262 when raised in the proceedings before it.
Therefore, the Family Court judge was wrong to decline resolving the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262 based on lack of jurisdiction.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Do Family Courts created under R.A. No. 8369 have jurisdiction to resolve constitutional issues?
Family Courts are branches of the Regional Trial Court and retain inherent power to pass upon constitutional issues.
What is the landmark case where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262?
In Garcia v. Drilon, the Supreme Court ruled that R.A. No. 9262 is constitutional and does not violate equal protection.
Why does R.A. No. 9262 not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution?
R.A. No. 9262 satisfies equal protection because women and children face higher risks of domestic abuse.
Does the ex parte issuance of a Temporary Protection Order under R.A. No. 9262 violate procedural due process?
Ex parte issuance of protection orders is a valid emergency measure that does not violate due process.
What should a trial court judge do when the constitutionality of a statute is properly raised as lis mota?
Trial courts must resolve constitutional questions when properly raised and indispensable to the judgment.
Learn more about these topics
1. Family Court Jurisdiction
Under Republic Act No. 8369, Family Courts are designated Regional Trial Courts possessing jurisdiction over family cases. Designation as a special court does not diminish or divest a Regional Trial Court of its inherent judicial authority under the Constitution. A Family Court retains the full judicial power of a Regional Trial Court, including the authority to pass upon constitutional questions when properly raised by a party during litigation. Declining jurisdiction over constitutional issues on the ground of being a special court is legally erroneous.
2. Judicial Review Power
The power of judicial review is vested in the Supreme Court and all lower courts, including Regional Trial Courts. When the constitutionality of a statute, such as Republic Act No. 9262, is directly challenged as a defense in a case, trial courts are bound to resolve the constitutional issue if it is the very lis mota of the controversy. Courts cannot evade resolving constitutional challenges properly brought before them simply because the law involved falls under a specialized subject matter.
3. Constitutionality of VAWC
In Garcia v. Drilon, the Supreme Court squarely upheld the constitutional validity of Republic Act No. 9262, ruling that the law does not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the Constitution. Gender-based statutory protection is based on substantial distinctions, as women and children are historically more vulnerable to domestic violence. Furthermore, the ex parte issuance of temporary protection orders is a valid exercise of state police power designed to prevent further harm.