24/04/2026
HINDI LANG NANAY ANG MAY KARAPATAN MAG-VAWC.” THE SUPREME COURT JUST MADE THIS CLEAR.
For years, many Filipinos have believed this:
“VAWC is only for women.”
Randy Michael Knutson, an American citizen, married private respondent Rosalina Sibal, a Filipina. In 2011, they lived in the Philippines. But the couple became estranged after petitioner discovered his wife’s extra-marital affairs.
Their minor daughter, Rhuby Sibal Knutson was left under the care of Rosalina but petitioner continued to support them. Petitioner discovered that Rosalina spent weeks in gambling dens and incurred large debts from casinos. Worse, she left Rhuby under the care of strangers.
Rosalina continued with her vices and illicit affairs. She also neglected and mistreated Rhuby. One time, she pointed a knife at Rhuby and threatened to kill her. She even maltreated her own mother in the presence of Rhuby. She also sent petitioner her naked pictures with a message that he would not see her body again.
Petitioner reported the matter to the police but the authorities explained that they cannot assist him in domestic issues. In 2017, petitioner, on behalf of Rhuby, filed against Rosalina a petition under Republic Act No. 9262 for the issuance of Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders before the RTC.
The RTC dismissed Randy’s petition on the ground that remedies under R.A. No. 9262 are not available to the father because he is not a “woman victim of violence.” It cited Ocampo v. Arcaya-Chua in ruling that a protection order cannot be issued in favor of a husband against his wife.
A father, Randy Knutson, stepped forward not for himself but for his children.
He claimed that their own mother, Rosalina Knutson, committed acts of violence against them acts that fall under psychological and emotional abuse, which are clearly punishable under RA 9262.Faced with this, he did what any parent would do He sought protection from the court He filed for a Protection Order under the VAWC law
But instead of addressing the alleged abuse, the case took a different turn.
The mother challenged the very foundation of his action.
She argued:
“You cannot use VAWC. You are a man. The law is not for you.”
And for many this argument sounded convincing.
After all, the law is titled “Violence Against Women and Their Children.”
BUT THE SUPREME COURT SAID: THAT INTERPRETATION IS WRONG
The Court did not look at the title alone.
It looked at the purpose of the law.
And the purpose is clear, To protect victims of abuse especially children.
The Supreme Court categorically ruled:
1. Children are direct victims under RA 9262
2. The law punishes violence committed against children by a parent or partner
3. A father can file a case not as a victim but as a protector of the child
THE MOST IMPORTANT DISTINCTION AND THIS IS WHERE MANY GET IT WRONG
Let’s be precise:
❌ The father is NOT the victim under VAWC
✔ The child IS the victim
✔ The father is merely the one enforcing the child’s rights
This is not about expanding the law.
This is about properly understanding who the law protects.
Under Section 3 of RA 9262, violence includes:
* Physical abuse
* Psychological violence
* Emotional abuse
* Economic abuse
And importantly, these acts can be committed:
“Against a woman or her child”
The phrase “her child” does not limit protection only when the mother is the victim.
Instead, the law recognizes that children can be abused within the same relationship the law seeks to regulate.
The Supreme Court emphasized that:
RA 9262 must be interpreted liberally to achieve its purpose protection.
Because in real life:
* Not all mothers are victims
* Not all fathers are abusers
* And sometimes, the roles are reversed
If the law refuses to recognize that reality, then it fails the very people it is meant to protect.
REALITY CHECK: THE LAW DOES NOT TAKE SIDES IT TAKES ACTION
RA 9262 was never meant to create imbalance.
It was meant to address violence within intimate and family relationships.
And when a child is involved, the law becomes even more protective.
BOTTOMLINE
1. A father cannot file VAWC for his own abuse
2. But a father can file VAWC to protect his child
3. The child is the recognized victim under the law
4. The Supreme Court has already affirmed this doctrine
