What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm Saturday 10am - 3pm

https://www.facebook.com/159958493877390/

Namalata Tamala Japos Law and Partners, 3rd Floor, VNN Building, Jose Rivera Street, Corrales Avenue, Barangay 30, Cagayan de Oro (2026)

03/10/2026

The has voided a couple’s marriage after finding that they falsely claimed five years of cohabitation to avoid obtaining a marriage license.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition of the Republic of the Philippines which sought to declare a couple’s marriage valid despite the absence of a marriage license.

The couple had lived together as husband and wife since December 2003. In 2006, the husband left for Israel to work and returned in 2009 to marry his wife. To facilitate their marriage without the required license, the couple executed an 𝘈𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, claiming they had lived together for six years and were thus exempt from the marriage license requirement under the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

In 2013, the husband filed a petition to declare the marriage void, arguing the 𝘈𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 they executed was false because he was in Israel for most of the period it covered.

The SC explained that while Article 3(2) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 provides that one of the formal requisites of a marriage is a valid marriage license, Article 34 of the same provides an exception to this requirement for couples who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and have no legal impediment to marry each other.

Citing the 2000 case of 𝘕𝘪ñ𝘢𝘭 𝘷. 𝘉𝘢𝘺𝘢𝘥𝘰𝘨, the SC stressed that the five-year cohabitation period is counted back from the marriage date. The couple must have lived together continuously and exclusively, without interruption or a third party.

In this case, the SC said that the testimony of the husband showed the couple had not lived together continuously for five years, making their 𝘈𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 to the solemnizing officer false. His testimony also supported the finding that they failed to meet the five-year requirement.

The SC found that from 2001 to 2004, before the husband left for Israel, they lived separately and only occasionally shared a rented room with relatives. From 2005 to 2009, while the husband was in Israel, there was no evidence that they presented themselves as spouses or that he intended to return to the Philippines to live with his wife.

The SC thus ruled that there was not enough evidence to prove that the couple continuously and exclusively cohabited as husband and wife for a period of five years immediately preceding the celebration of their marriage.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174170.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168047.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

29/09/2026

𝐍𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐓𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐚 𝐉𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐰 & 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 is proud and grateful to be part of the Serbisyo Caravan held in celebration of the 124th Civil Service Month Anniversary.

Together with the 𝐑𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐥𝐮𝐛 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐲𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞 𝐎𝐫𝐨 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭, 𝐑𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐥𝐮𝐛 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐅𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩, 𝐑𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐥𝐮𝐛 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐩𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐂𝐃𝐎, 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐁𝐏 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐬 𝐎𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫, we are grateful for the opportunity to serve our hardworking portworkers and their families through Tambag Legal.

It was a privilege to share our time and legal service with the community.

29/09/2026

Presiding Judge Janice L. Andrade-Udarbe of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Lucena City, Quezon, and Acting Presiding Judge of Pasig City RTC Branch 161, discusses the use of online chat logs and videos as evidence vis-à-vis the right to privacy in 𝐄𝐩𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐝𝐞 𝟏𝟑𝟔: 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐋𝐨𝐠𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭. Judge Andrade-Udarbe is also a Professorial Lecturer at the Philippine Judicial Academy, an MCLE Lecturer, a law professor, Bar reviewer, and author of law books.

• 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯'𝘴 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘤𝘺?

• 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘦𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘴, 𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘮𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and the website.

LISTEN to the FULL episode of this Podcast on

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3HuDktLKbdJjycBCQG6vSB?si=hIhZEJDFSVWyHePsaXNSjQ

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/supreme-court-ph-podcast/id1852172756?i=1000791593771

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1EJib6T4j3/

YouTube: https://youtu.be/Y6SNhYJA8Bo

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

25/09/2026

📣 𝐈𝐌𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓𝐀𝐍𝐓 𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓

Nilagdaan na ni Pangulong Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. ang Republic Act No. 12326.

AN ACT FIXING THE TERM OF OFFICE OF BARANGAY OFFICIALS AND MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG KABATAAN TO FIVE (5) YEARS, AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 12232 OR "AN ACT SETTING THE TERM OF OFFICE OF BARANGAY OFFICIALS AND MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG KABATAAN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”

👉 5-year term for all Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Officials
📆 November 13, 2028 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections

Dahil dito, ang Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections sa November 2, 2026 ay hindi na itutuloy. Kinakansela na rin ng COMELEC ang Calendar of Activities, kasama na ang Filing of Certificates of Candidacy mula September 28 hanggang October 5, 2026, pati na rin ang mga kaugnay na Prohibitions on Disbursement of Public Funds, Transfer, Appointment, Promotions, Suspensions, atbp, at ang nakatakdang Election Period simula October 3, 2026.

𝗔𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗯𝘂𝗯𝘂𝗸𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗶 𝗻𝗴 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗻𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗴𝘀𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗮 𝘀𝗮 𝗶𝗸𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗻𝗴 (𝟮𝗻𝗱) 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗴𝗼 𝗻𝗴 𝗡𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲.

18/09/2026

The has reiterated that what Republic Act No. 9262, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2004, criminalizes is not marital infidelity by itself but the psychological violence that goes with it causing mental or emotional suffering to the wife.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division affirmed the conviction of a husband for violation of Section 5(i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, which penalizes the act of causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to a woman or her child.

Married in 1999, the husband and wife’s marital problems began in 2009, when the husband started coming home late and grew distant from his family. In January 2010, the husband sent his wife text messages saying he would no longer return home, wanted to start a new life alone, and intended to seek the nullity of their marriage. The wife later discovered that her husband was living with another woman.

The husband was charged with psychological violence before the Regional Trial Court. During trial, the wife claimed that her husband’s actions caused her severe mental and emotional suffering, and loss of self-esteem and dignity. She said she experienced depression and attempted to take her own life several times.

The psychologist who evaluated the wife found signs of depression, including feelings of inferiority, sleep problems, difficulty concentrating, and problems relating with others. The psychologist linked these emotional difficulties to the wife’s conflict with her husband and his abandonment of the family for another woman.

The SC affirmed in full the finding that the husband is guilty of psychological violence under the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, sentencing the husband to up to eight years in prison and ordering him to pay a PHP 100,000 fine and PHP 30,000 in moral damages to his wife. The SC also directed him to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC explained that, depending on the circumstances, an extramarital relationship may or may not cause mental or emotional anguish to the wife. Infidelity may be one of the acts through which psychological violence is committed, but the resulting mental or emotional suffering must still be proven.

In this case, the SC held that the wife’s testimony, psychological evaluation, and other witness testimonies sufficiently proved that her husband’s acts caused her mental and emotional suffering.

Read the full text of the Press Release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173362.

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/268619-###-vs-people-of-the-philippines/.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168031.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

15/09/2026

Nagpasya ang na ang pagiging mukhang lasing, pangangamoy-alak, o makitang malapit sa mga walang lamang bote ng alak ay hindi sapat para mapatunayang lumabag sa Election Liquor Ban.

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, pinawalang-sala ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema si Mcgill Esquillo Omandam (Omandam) matapos mabigo ang prosekusyon na patunayan ang kanyang guilt beyond reasonable doubt na uminom siya ng alak sa loob ng ipinagbabawal na panahon sa ilalim ng Section 261(dd)(1) ng Omnibus Election Code o ang COMELEC Liquor Ban.

Inaresto si Omandam bisperas ng halalan matapos rumesponde ang mga pulis sa mga ulat ng kaguluhan. Ayon sa mga umarestong pulis, tila lasing si Omandam, nangangamoy-alak, bulol magsalita, at matamlay ang kanyang pagkilos. Nakakuha rin ang mga pulis ng dalawang walang lamang bote ng Tanduay Rhum malapit sa lugar ng insidente.

Paliwanag ng Korte Suprema, ipinagbabawal ng OEC ang pag-inom ng nakalalasing na alak habang umiiral ang Election Liquor Ban na sumasaklaw sa araw bago ang halalan at mismong araw ng halalan. Kailangang patunayan ng prosekusyon na aktuwal na uminom ng alak ang akusado sa nasabing panahon.

Gayunman, sa kasong ito, wala ni isa sa mga umarestong pulis ang nakakita kay Omandam na umiinom. Dumepende lang ang prosekusyon sa circumstantial evidence.

Bagama’t maaaring maging batayan ng hatol ang circumstantial evidence, binigyang-diin ng Korte na ang mga pangyayari, kapag pinagsama-sama, ay dapat magpatunay sa pagkakasala nang lampas sa makatuwirang pagdududa (guilt beyond reasonable doubt) at mag-alis sa anumang makatuwirang paliwanag na nagpapakitang walang sala ang akusado.

Napatunayan ng Korte na hindi naabot ng prosekusyon ang pamantayang ito. Ibinatay lamang nito ang kaso sa mga obserbasyon sa hitsura at kilos ni Omandam at sa iba pang mga pangyayaring walang sapat na patunay.

Binigyang-diin nito na karaniwang hindi ginagawa nang palihim ang naturang paglabag at madali sanang mapatutunayan sa pamamagitan ng mga paraang madaling makuha gaya ng field sobriety test, breath analyzer, o chemical test. Gayunman, wala sa mga ito ang isinagawa ng mga pulis, at hindi rin sila kumuha ng mga litrato o video para maidokumento ang sinasabing pagkalasing ni Omandam.

Bagama’t dalawang walang lamang bote ng alak ang nakuha, hindi sinuri ng mga pulis ang mga ito para sa fingerprints o nagsagawa ng forensic tests para matukoy kung hinawakan ni Omandam ang mga ito.

Sinabi ng Korte na nagpahina sa kawastuhan at pagiging patas ng imbestigasyon ang mga pagkukulang na ito. Kapag pinagsama-sama, nagdulot ang mga ito ng pagdududa sa pagiging maaasahan at kasapatan ng circumstantial evidence.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173139.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173133.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

09/09/2026

Consent lang ba ang tanging basehan para mag-proseso ng personal information?

Ang aking kasagutan ay… HINDI PO ATEEE!

Dapat malinaw kung kailan lang pwede mag-process ng data at kung ano ang legal basis bago ito gawin, lalo na kung sensitive personal information ang hawak, dahil mas mahigpit ang proteksyon dito.

Alamin ang mga basis ng personal information processing ayon sa Data Privacy Act of 2012.

09/09/2026

The (SC) clarified that the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has no jurisdiction over a dispute unless both parties involved are indigenous peoples (IP) from the same group.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division dismissed a petition to compel a judge to set aside its decision in an ejectment case against the spouses claiming to be members of the IP community. The spouses had claimed that under Republic Act No. 8371 or the 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘙𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1997 (IPRA), customary laws and practices should govern in resolving disputes involving them.

The case stemmed from an unlawful detainer case filed by Kristoffer R. Co Uy (Co Uy) against Elvin and Jocelyn Sending (the Sendings), seeking to have them vacate a property registered in his name.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals (CA) all ruled in favor of Co Uy and ordered the Sendings to vacate the property.

After attaining finality, and during the enforcement of the decision, the Sendings questioned the jurisdiction of the MCTC. They claimed that they were members of the IP group 𝘓𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘥 𝘒𝘒𝘒-𝘈𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘏𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦. They asserted, for the first time, that customary laws, traditions, and practices should be used to resolve the property dispute, in accordance with IPRA. Under the IPRA, the NCIP has jurisdiction over disputes involving the rights of IPs.

The spouses brought the case to the SC after their motion to suspend the ex*****on of decision was denied by the MCTC. They argued that the Higaonon Tribe and the Dadantulan Tribal Court, not the MCTC, should have jurisdiction over their case.

The SC disagreed and clarified that under Section 66 of IPRA, the NCIP has jurisdiction over disputes involving IP rights only when all parties belong to the same indigenous group. If any party is not a member of the same IP community, jurisdiction belongs to the regular courts.

Here, Co Uy was not a member of any indigenous group. The SC explained that subjecting him to the customary laws of an IP community violates the fundamental principles of fair play and due process.

The SC also noted that the Sendings simply claimed they were IPs but failed to provide supporting evidence. They did not explain their customs, political structures, institutions, decision-making processes, or any other proof showing they were truly members of an IP community.

The SC stressed that a final judgment cannot be easily set aside, especially when the parties were given opportunity to present their side, and the decision was reached after careful review of the case.

The SC found that the petitioners invoked the NCIP’s authority simply to avoid the ex*****on of the final judgment against them. They raised their claim of being IP members only during the ex*****on stage, despite having participated in the barangay proceedings and the courts, casting doubt on the credibility of their claim.

The SC ordered the spouses to vacate the subject property within 30 days from receipt of the Decision.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172796

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/271354-spouses-elvin-sending-datu-gibo-and-jocelyn-sending-bae-orange-vs-kristopper-rahda-co-uy-atty-jocelyn-pesquera-henry-p-canete-jr-and-hon-ameli-amor-r-estrada-presiding-judge-of-t/

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/271354-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

01/09/2026

Nagpasya ang na ang affidavit of desistance, o isang sinumpaang salaysay na nag-uurong ng reklamo, ay lubhang kahina-hinala kapag ginawa ng isang biktima ng pananamantala at hindi maaaring gamiting batayan para isantabi ang kasong trafficking.

Sa Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, pinagtibay ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang hatol sa isang babae sa qualified trafficking in persons na kinasasangkutan ng isang menor de edad. Hinatulan ang babae ng pagkabilanggo habambuhay, pinagmulta ng PHP 2,000,000, at pinagbabayad ng PHP 600,000 bilang danyos.

Kapitbahay ng menor de edad ang babae na humikayat sa biktima na magbigay ng serbisyong seksuwal sa isang lalaki kapalit ng pera. Tumanggap ang biktima ng PHP 15,000 mula sa lalaki na kinuha din ng babae kalaunan. Binilhan ng babae ang biktima ng selpon at binigyan siya ng PHP 3,000.

Nagsampa ng reklamo laban sa babae ang ina ng menor de edad matapos malaman ang insidente. Tumestigo ang biktima sa korte pero kalaunan ay pumirma siya ng affidavit of desistance para iurong ang kaso.

Inamin ng menor de edad sa cross-examination na tumanggap siya ng PHP 30,000 kapalit ng pagpirma sa affidavit na inihanda ng abogado ng babae. Nang tanungin ng trial court, iginiit ng menor de edad na totoo ang kanyang naunang testimonya.

Sa pagpapatibay ng hatol na nagkasala ang babae sa kasong qualified trafficking in persons sa ilalim ng Republic Act No. 9208, o ang Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na hindi dapat isantabi ang mga kasong human trafficking batay lamang sa mga affidavit of desistance na ginawa ng mga biktima o ng kanilang mga magulang o legal na tagapag-alaga.

Paliwanag nito, dapat maging maingat sa pagtanggap sa mga affidavit of desistance na ginawa ng mga biktima ng pananamantala dahil maaaring bunga ang mga ito ng pamimilit, panggigipit, o undue influence. Lalo itong mahalaga kapag mga bata ang mga biktima na maaaring hindi lubos na nauunawaan ang mga epekto ng pagbawi sa kanilang testimonya.

Binigyang-diin nito na kapag naisampa na sa korte ang isang kasong kriminal, hindi na maaaring ang nagrereklamo ang magpasya kung dapat ituloy ang kaso. May interes ang Estado na usigin ang krimen at ito ang naaapektuhan kapag isinantabi ang kasong kriminal. Hindi sapat na dahilan para isantabi ang kaso dahil lang sa isang affidavit of desistance, lalo na kung ginawa habang nililitis ang kaso.

Basahin ang press release sa //sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172431.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167240.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

01/09/2026

💡𝐃𝐈𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐊𝐍𝐎𝐖? 𝐁𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐀𝐘 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐓𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐄𝐑 (𝐁𝐏𝐎)

𝐔𝐧𝐬𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐲 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 (𝐁𝐏𝐎)?

Ang Barangay Protection Order (BPO) usa ka mando nga gihatag aron pugngan ang usa ka tawo sa pagbuhat o paghulga og pisikal nga kapintasan batok sa usa ka babaye o sa iyang anak ubos sa Anti-VAWC Law. Gituyo kini aron mahatagan dayon og proteksyon ang biktima batok sa dugang nga kadaot.

𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐨𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐠 𝐨𝐠 𝐁𝐏𝐎?

Ang Punong Barangay ang mahimong mohatag og BPO. Kung wala ang Punong Barangay, ang Barangay Kagawad nga available mahimong mohatag og aksyon sa aplikasyon.

𝐊𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐬-𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐏𝐎?

Ang BPO dapat ihatag sa samang adlaw nga gisumite ang aplikasyon. Ang Punong Barangay o Barangay Kagawad motan-aw ug motino kung adunay igo nga basihan ang aplikasyon. Dili kinahanglan nga anaa o maabisohan daan ang respondent sa dili pa ihatag ang BPO.

𝐔𝐧𝐬𝐚 𝐤𝐚 𝐝𝐮𝐠𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐏𝐎?

Ang BPO epektibo sulod sa kinse (15) ka adlaw gikan sa adlaw nga nadawat kini sa respondent. Kini usa ka temporaryo nga proteksyon aron mapanalipdan dayon ang biktima batok sa dugang nga kapintasan.

𝐔𝐧𝐬𝐚 𝐧𝐠𝐚 𝐦𝐠𝐚 𝐛𝐮𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐡𝐮𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐚𝐠𝐢 𝐬𝐚 𝐁𝐏𝐎?

Ang BPO mahimong magsugo sa respondent nga mohunong sa:

-Pagbuhat og pisikal nga kadaot batok sa babaye o sa iyang anak; ug
-Pagpanghulga nga magbuhat og pisikal nga kadaot batok sa babaye o sa iyang anak.

𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐝 𝐬𝐚 𝐁𝐏𝐎 𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐝𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭?

Ang Punong Barangay o Barangay Kagawad kinahanglan personal nga mohatod sa BPO ngadto sa respondent. Mahimo usab silang mosugo sa laing opisyal sa barangay nga personal nga mohatod niini.

𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐨-𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫?

Ang mga mosunod mahimong mo-apply alang sa protection order:
-ang biktima;
-iyang mga ginikanan o guardian;
-pipila ka mga paryente sulod sa ikaupat nga civil degree;
-mga social worker sa DSWD o LGU;
-mga police officer;
-ang Punong Barangay o Barangay Kagawad;
-abogado, counselor, therapist, o healthcare provider; ug
-duha (2) ka responsable nga mga lungsoranon sa siyudad o lungsod diin nahitabo ang kapintasan, nga adunay personal nga kahibalo sa nahitabong paglapas.

𝐀𝐬𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐭 𝐢-𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐬𝐲𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐚 𝐁𝐏𝐎?

Ang aplikasyon i-file sa barangay nga adunay hustong jurisdiction o sakop sa lugar diin nahitabo ang insidente.

𝐔𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐛𝐮𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐤𝐮𝐧𝐠 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐚 𝐨𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐤𝐬𝐲𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐢𝐤𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐚 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐞 (𝟏𝟓) 𝐤𝐚 𝐚𝐝𝐥𝐚𝐰?

Ang biktima mahimong mo-apply og Temporary Protection Order (TPO) o Permanent Protection Order (PPO) sa hustong korte. Ang TPO usa ka proteksyon nga gimando sa korte ug mahimong adunay mas daghang klase sa proteksyon kaysa sa BPO.

𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬:

-Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004
-Guidelines on the Operationalization of the Barangay Violence Against Women (VAW) Desk (2023)

Namalata Tamala Japos Law and Partners

03/10/2026

29/09/2026

29/09/2026

25/09/2026

18/09/2026

15/09/2026

09/09/2026

09/09/2026

01/09/2026

01/09/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm
Saturday	10am - 3pm