SLAPP Defense Not Available in Domestic Violence Cases: Protecting Due Process and Preventing Abuse of Remedie

The Supreme Court has clarified that the defense of Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) applies only to environmental cases and cannot be invoked in domestic violence cases under Republic Act No. 9262. In Mercado v. Lopeña (G.R. No. 230170, June 6, 2018), the Court dismissed a petition seeking to declare various criminal and civil cases as SLAPP, emphasizing that procedural rules cannot be stretched beyond their intended scope.

The Dispute Behind the Case

The case arose from a bitter domestic dispute between estranged spouses Ma. Sugar M. Mercado and Kristofer Jay I. Go. After Mercado obtained a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) against Go in February 2016, both parties filed numerous cases against each other. Mercado and her parents sought to have the cases filed against them declared as SLAPP, arguing that these were meant to harass and intimidate them into giving up custody of the children.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on both procedural and substantive grounds. The Court held that the petition was premature because the cases were still pending before lower courts, and petitioners had plain, speedy, and adequate remedies available—including participating in the cases and appealing unfavorable judgments.

SLAPP: Limited to Environmental Cases

The Court explained that the concept of SLAPP was introduced in the Philippines through the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC). Under these rules, a SLAPP refers to an action filed with intent to harass or stifle legal recourse in the enforcement of environmental laws or assertion of environmental rights.

The Court emphasized that RA 9262, which addresses violence against women and their children, is not among the laws covered by the environmental rules. The defense of SLAPP, being a privilege created by procedural rules, may only be exercised within the scope prescribed by the Court. It cannot be invoked in cases involving domestic violence.

Protection Orders Do Not Bar Prosecution

The Court also addressed a critical misconception: a PPO does not insulate a person from prosecution for acts committed in violation of the law. While the PPO enjoined Go from committing acts of abuse, it could not be construed to prevent public respondents—judges and prosecutors—from performing their official functions.

Neither does a PPO prevent the other party from seeking redress from the courts for alleged offenses. The Court stressed that the PPO is a directive addressed to the respondent in that case, but the respondent remains entitled to pursue legitimate legal remedies.

Due Process and the Rule of Law

The Court emphasized that public respondents were merely fulfilling their duties in the administration of justice when they took cognizance of the cases. There was no showing of grave abuse of discretion—a standard that requires capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to evasion of a positive duty.

Practical Takeaways

• SLAPP is not a general defense. It applies only to environmental cases under A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, not to domestic violence cases under RA 9262.
• A protection order does not grant immunity. A PPO protects against abuse by the respondent but does not prevent that person from filing legitimate cases against the protected party.
• Exhaust available remedies first. Parties must pursue remedies in lower courts before seeking relief from the Supreme Court, which is a court of last resort.
• Follow procedural rules strictly. Failure to state material dates and observe the hierarchy of courts can result in dismissal of a petition.
• Rule-making power is not invoked by private petition. The Court cannot be compelled through a Rule 65 petition to extend SLAPP protection to new areas.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.