Kung makakukuha ng suportang pampinansiyal sa asawa na sinampahan ng kasong pang-aabuso

DR. PERSIDA V. RUEDA-ACOSTA / MAGTANONG KAY ATTORNEY

Dear Chief Acosta,

Sinampahan ko ng kaso hinggil sa pagla­bag sa Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Wo­men and Children Act) ang aking asawa na dating kawani ng gob­yerno. Ako ay binigyan ng kaukulang Temporary Protection Order (TPO) ng hukuman hinggil dito, gayundin, sinabi ng korte na kalahati sa kanyang pensiyong natatang­gap ay dapat mapunta sa aming mag-iina bilang suporta, suba­lit, sinabi niyang ipi­nagbabawal daw ng batas hinggil sa kan­yang pensiyon na maibigay sa ibang tao ang halagang ito. Higit sa lahat, siya raw ay taong-gobyerno at pera mula sa government funds ang kan­yang pensiyon kaya hindi ito maaaring galawin. May laban kaya ako para maipa­tupad ang ipinag-uutos ng hukuman para sa kapakanan naming mag-iina?—Wilma

Dear Wilma,

Para sa inyong ka­ala­man, ayon sa Korte Suprema, ang Pension and Gratuity Management Center (PGMC) et al. vs. AAA et al. (G.R. No. 201292, 1 August 2018) na isinu­lat ni Mahistrado Ma­ria­no del Castillo, ang inyong sitwasyon ay akmang-akma na matu­tugunan ng mga sumu­su­nod na deklarasyon:

“The lone substantive issue for resolution in this suit —which would settle the case once and for all -is whether petitioner may be validly ordered by the court to withhold half of BBB’ s pension for direct remittance to respondent. The Court declares that it can; the issue has already been settled in a previous case -one involving the very same petitioner in this case.

Thus, in Republic vs. Yahon, the Court held that PGMC may be ordered to automatically deduct a portion from the retirement benefits of its member-recipients for direct remittance to the latter’s legal spouse as and by way of support in compliance with a protection order issued by the trial court, pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 9262 (RA 9262) or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of2004. The Court declared therein that RA 9262 —which is a special law; a later enactment; support enforcement legislation and one that addresses one form of violence, which is economic abuse against women and children—should be construed as laying down an exception to the general rule that retirement benefits are exempt from execution. The Court therein noted that RA 9262 itself explicitly authorizes the courts to order the withholding of a percentage of the income or salary of the defendant or respondent by the employer, which shall be remitted directly to the plaintiff —other laws to the contrary notwithstanding.” [Binig­yang-diin at sinalunggu­hitan.]

Maliwanag sa na­banggit na kaso na maaaring mapanagot, maisama o mai-attach ng kaukulang hukuman ang pensiyon ng sinu­mang tao kaugnay ng probisyon sa R.A. No. 9262 sapagkat ang nasabing batas ay itinu­turing na eksepsiyon sa pagbabawal sa paggalaw ng anumang pensiyon na matatanggap ng retiree bilang ito ay nag­mula sa pinakahuling pagsasabatas o legislation.

Gayundin, ipinaha­yag ng Korte Suprema na ang aplikasyon ng salitang employer sa Section 8 (g) ng R.A. 9262 ay sumasaklaw sa sinumang employer kabilang ang gobyerno:

“Section 8 (g) of RA. No. 9262 used the general term “employer”, which includes in its coverage the military institution, S/Sgt. Ya­hon’s employer. Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish.

Thus, Section 8(g) applies to all employers, whether private or government. It bears stressing that Section 8(g) providing for spousal and child support, is support enforcement legislation. In the United States, provisions of the Child Support Enforcement Act allow garnishment of certain federal funds where the intended recipient has failed to satisfy a legal obligation of child support. As these provisions were designed ‘to avoid sovereign immunity problems’ and provide that ‘moneys payable by the Government to any individual are subject to child support enforcement proceedings, ‘the law is clearly intended to’ create a limited waiver of sovereign immunity so that state courts could issue valid orders directed against Government agencies attaching funds in their possession.”

Base sa mga na­bang­git, maaari nin­yong mai­paglaban ang naging pasya ng hu­kuman hing­gil sa inyong karapatan sa bahagi ng pensiyon ng inyong asawa para sa kapakanan ninyo at ng inyong mga anak.

Nawa ay nasagot namin ang inyong mga katanungan. Nais na­ming ipaalala sa inyo na ang opinyong ito ay nakabase sa inyong mga naisalaysay sa inyong liham at sa pag­kaka­intindi namin dito. Maaaring maiba ang opinyon kung mayro­ong karagdagang im­pormasyong ibibigay. Mas mainam kung personal kayong sasang­guni sa isang abogado.