BPO vs TPO vs PPO: VAWC Protection Orders Compared

The law does not require a particular order. A woman can go to the barangay for a BPO, go straight to court for a TPO and PPO, or do both. Section 8 says a BPO, or a pending application for one, does not stop her from applying for, or the court from granting, a TPO or PPO.

The orders differ in speed and reach:

• BPO: the fastest and closest, because it is issued at the barangay on the day of filing. But it covers only the acts in Section 5(a) and (b): causing physical harm, or threatening to cause physical harm, to the woman or her child. It lasts 15 days. More in our BPO glossary entry.
• TPO: issued by the court on the day of filing, without hearing the respondent first. It can include any of the reliefs below and lasts 30 days. The court sets the PPO hearing before or on the day the TPO expires (Section 15).
• PPO: issued after notice and hearing. The court tries to finish the hearing in one day; if it cannot, it keeps renewing the TPO for 30 days at a time until final judgment (Section 16).

Section 8 lists the reliefs. A TPO or PPO can, among others:

• stop the respondent from threatening or committing any act of violence under Section 5, personally or through another person;
• stop him from harassing, calling or otherwise contacting the woman, directly or indirectly;
• remove him from her residence "regardless of ownership of the residence", temporarily, or permanently where no property rights are violated;
• order him to stay away at a set distance from her, her family, home, school or workplace;
• give her temporary or permanent custody of the children;
• order support for the woman and/or her child "if entitled to legal support", with a percentage of his salary withheld by his employer and sent directly to her (see How much is child support?);
• order him to surrender any firearm or deadly weapon;
• order him to pay actual damages, such as medical expenses, property damage and lost income.

These reliefs may be granted even without a decree of legal separation, annulment or nullity of marriage (Section 8). A protection order can also extend the 10-day paid leave for victims "when the necessity arises as specified in the protection order" (Section 43); see VAWC leave.

Not only the woman. Under Section 9, a petition may be filed by:

• the offended party;
• her parents or guardians;
• ascendants, descendants or collateral relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity;
• officers or social workers of the DSWD, or social workers of local government units;
• police officers, preferably those in charge of women and children's desks;
• the Punong Barangay or a Barangay Kagawad;
• her lawyer, counselor, therapist or healthcare provider;
• at least two concerned responsible citizens of the city or municipality where the violence happened who have personal knowledge of it.

The application must be in writing, signed and verified under oath (Section 11). If the applicant is not the victim, he or she attaches an affidavit on the abuse and on the victim's consent. If revealing the victim's address would put her in danger, the application can say so and give a mailing address instead. Barangay officials and court personnel must help applicants prepare the application.

For a BPO, RA 9262 does not mention a fee. In court, Section 38 says the application is accepted without filing fees, other fees and transcript costs if the victim is indigent, or if there is immediate necessity because of imminent danger or threat of danger. Court fees in other cases were not covered here.

If the woman asks for a lawyer because she cannot afford one, the court directs the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) to represent her (Section 13). Not having access to family or conjugal money, for example because the abuser controls it, qualifies her for PAO representation. See free legal help.

In Garcia v. Drilon (2013), the full Court upheld RA 9262. It held that issuing a BPO is an executive function of the Punong Barangay, not an exercise of judicial power, and that an ex parte TPO does not violate due process, because the respondent is notified and may oppose it afterwards.

In Tua v. Mangrobang (2014), a husband challenged a TPO issued against him without a prior hearing. Applying Garcia, the Court upheld the TPO and ordered the trial court to resolve the petition for a PPO with dispatch.

These are made-up examples to show how the rules work. They are not advice for any real case.

Joy goes to the barangay. Joy and her live-in partner Mark have a young son. At 9 p.m., Mark slaps Joy and threatens to hit her again. The Punong Barangay where Joy lives issues a BPO the same day after hearing only Joy, valid for 15 days, and has it served on Mark (Section 14).

Joy goes to court. Before the BPO ends, Joy files a verified petition in the Family Court of her city. The judge issues a TPO the same day, valid for 30 days, ordering Mark out of the house even though it is in his name, and sets the PPO hearing (Sections 8, 10 and 15).

Mark skips the hearing. Mark does not appear despite proper notice. The court hears Joy's evidence alone and issues a PPO that includes support for their son, withheld from Mark's salary by his employer and sent directly to Joy (Sections 8 and 16).

Joy's sister files for her. If Joy were in hospital, her sister, a relative within the fourth civil degree, could file the petition, attaching an affidavit on the abuse and Joy's consent (Sections 9 and 11).

A protection order is separate from a criminal case for VAWC. A lawyer can help with the petition, the PPO hearing, and a criminal complaint; see How to file a VAWC case. If you cannot afford one, see free legal help.