In a surprising turn of events, the Supreme Court (SC) has made a groundbreaking ruling, acquitting a former ship worker who was previously convicted for allegedly failing to financially support his wife. The case, which sparked widespread debate, involved the interpretation of Republic Act (RA) 9262, also known as the Violence Against Women and Their Children law.

Justice Samuel Gaerlan penned the decision, highlighting a crucial aspect of the law that seemed to have been overlooked. The SC ruled that the obligation to provide support is a shared responsibility between spouses, debunking the notion that it is solely the husband’s duty to support his wife. In a society where gender roles have long been questioned, this ruling sent shockwaves through the legal system.

The case, docketed as GR 255877, has attracted immense attention since its release online on Thursday. The SC carefully explained that a husband’s failure or inability to provide financial support should not automatically lead to criminal prosecution under the law on violence against women. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the law does not intend to place a heavier burden on husbands or criminalize them for lacking financial support.

“The obligation to provide support is imposed by the law mutually upon both spouses. The obligation is not a one-way street for the husband to support his wife,” read the groundbreaking decision. It shattered the widely held belief that husbands were exclusively responsible for their wives’ financial well-being.

This landmark ruling reversed a previous decision by the Court of Appeals (CA), which had affirmed a trial court’s order imposing a two- to six-year prison term on the husband for violating RA 9262. While the law was enacted to protect women, the Supreme Court emphasized that it does not diminish women’s capacity to provide for themselves.

“The law cannot presume that women are weak and disadvantaged victims. The wife was a person fully capable of providing for herself. She was gainfully employed as a massage therapist and owner of a sari-sari (retail) store. She was not a destitute victim who had no choice but to depend on her husband’s money to live,” declared the SC.

Moreover, the Supreme Court firmly stated that interpreting and applying the law in a manner that perpetuates gender disparities would be a grave error. This ruling was a powerful message in the ongoing fight for gender equality, signaling that the courts refuse to perpetuate antiquated norms.

The case itself involved a former couple who tied the knot in 2002. In 2004, the husband left the country to work abroad. However, after a few months, he stopped remitting money to his wife and advised her to live with her parents in the province. The wife subsequently filed a lawsuit in 2016, alleging psychological violence and economic abuse, as the husband had abandoned her and refused to provide financial support.

The husband argued that he was coerced into the marriage and had to halt the remittances due to his parents’ battle with cancer. Although he found work upon his return in 2007, he admitted to not contacting his wife or offering financial support.

In 2017, the trial court found the husband guilty, imposing a fine of PHP100,000 and requiring psychological counseling. The Court of Appeals denied the husband’s appeal in 2019, emphasizing the emotional suffering caused by the lack of financial support and communication.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, cast serious doubt on the wife’s claim for financial support, as she had not made any effort to seek it prior to filing the criminal case. They questioned whether her need for financial assistance was genuine, suggesting that if she truly required support, she would have taken steps to obtain it.

This precedent-setting decision has sparked both applause and controversy across the nation. It serves as a powerful reminder that societal norms and legal interpretations are continually evolving to reflect the changing dynamics between spouses. As the battle for equality marches forward, the Supreme Court’s ruling marks a significant milestone in challenging traditional gender roles and reshaping the landscape of spousal obligations.

Only time will tell how this decision will reverberate through the legal system and shape future cases. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly a turning point that will be remembered as a catalyst for progress in the pursuit of gender equality.