Tessa Prieto’s VAWC case and what the law says about lesbian relationships 

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Tessa Prieto sued her ex-girlfriend for physical abuse. Are lesbian relationships covered by the anti-violence against women and their children law?

MANILA, Philippines – Socialite and internet personality Tessa Prieto filed a complaint of Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC), or Republic Act (RA) 9262, against her ex-girlfriend, Angel Chua. 

According to a report by PEP.ph, Prieto submitted her complaint-affidavit before the Makati Prosecutor’s Office in July 2024. 

In an interview with PEP.ph, Prieto recounted the instances when Chua would become violent toward her — the most severe incident allegedly occurring in July 2023. 

The socialite said it started out with Chua cussing her out, until she eventually became physical. 

“I didn’t want to aggravate her because I knew our fights were already getting more and more violent,” Prieto told PEP.ph. 

Prieto also mentioned another incident, where she said that she was usually able to calm Chua down whenever she would go into a fit of rage, but this time, she didn’t. She said Chua got a hold of her phone and began hitting her on video. She then alleged that Chua pinned her down, then proceeded to strangle her and force her fingers into her mouth, all while the recording was still ongoing. 

Are lesbian relationships covered by the anti-VAWC law?

Prieto said she pursued the case against Chua despite knowing that the anti-VAWC law in the Philippines mainly covered instances where the perpetrator is a male. 

However, it’s worth noting that in May 2023, the Supreme Court (SC) affirmed that the anti-VAWC law also applies to lesbian relationships. This was upheld when the High Court’s Third Division denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by an individual named Sandra Jane Gagui Jacinto.

The petition was an attempt to challenge the orders of Antipolo City Regional Trial Court Branch 73, as Jacinto was being charged for violating the anti-VAWC law. 

Jacinto allegedly attacked her live-in partner, Maria Eloisa Sarmiento Fouts, and caused her physical injuries, prompting the case to be filed in 2018. 

The law states that VAWC “refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.” 

When they denied Jacinto’s motion to quash the case against her, the High Tribunal referenced the same principle they used to arrive at their decision in the 2013 Garcia v. Drilon case.

It emphasized the use of the term “person” in the law — indicating that the only grounds that need to be met are the victim being female. The perpetrator does not necessarily have to be male. 

“VAWC may likewise be committed ‘against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship.’ Clearly, the use of  the gender-neutral word ‘person’ who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships,” the ruling stated.

According to the Philippine Commission on Women, those who are proven guilty of committing VAWC may be imprisoned from one month and one day up to 20 years. They may also be required to pay P100,000 to P300,000 in damages, and undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

In September 2024, the Makati Prosecutor’s Office charged Chua with violating Section 5a of RA 9262: causing physical harm to the woman or her child, with the video she recorded on Prieto’s phone serving as a crucial piece of evidence.

As of January 30, according to PEP.ph, there is a pending petition to review the fiscal’s decision to charge Chua with violating Section 5a of RA 9262. – Rappler.com