The #SupremeCourtPH has reiterated that what Republic Act No. 9262, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2004, criminalizes is not marital infidelity by itself but the psychological violence that goes with it causing mental or emotional suffering to the wife. In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division affirmed the conviction of a husband for violation of Section 5(i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, which penalizes the act of causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to a woman or her child. Married in 1999, the husband and wife’s marital problems began in 2009, when the husband started coming home late and grew distant from his family. In January 2010, the husband sent his wife text messages saying he would no longer return home, wanted to start a new life alone, and intended to seek the nullity of their marriage. The wife later discovered that her husband was living with another woman. The husband was charged with psychological violence before the Regional Trial Court. During trial, the wife claimed that her husband’s actions caused her severe mental and emotional suffering, and loss of self-esteem and dignity. She said she experienced depression and attempted to take her own life several times. The psychologist who evaluated the wife found signs of depression, including feelings of inferiority, sleep problems, difficulty concentrating, and problems relating with others. The psychologist linked these emotional difficulties to the wife’s conflict with her husband and his abandonment of the family for another woman. The SC affirmed in full the finding that the husband is guilty of psychological violence under the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, sentencing the husband to up to eight years in prison and ordering him to pay a PHP 100,000 fine and PHP 30,000 in moral damages to his wife. The SC also directed him to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment. The SC explained that, depending on the circumstances, an extramarital relationship may or may not cause mental or emotional anguish to the wife. Infidelity may be one of the acts through which psychological violence is committed, but the resulting mental or emotional suffering must still be proven. In this case, the SC held that the wife’s testimony, psychological evaluation, and other witness testimonies sufficiently proved that her husband’s acts caused her mental and emotional suffering. Read the full text of the Press Release at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17336…. Read the full text of the Decision: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/268619-x…. Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=16803…. Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-a….

The #SupremeCourtPH 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session on August 26, 2026, unanimously declared that Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution requires Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties, holding that Congress’ failure to do so for 39 years constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Court directed Congress to comply with its mandatory constitutional duty to enact an anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity, define political dynasties, and determine the scope of the prohibition. In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the Court 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 granted the consolidated petitions in G.R. Nos. 263934, 272370, and 279201 for certiorari and mandamus. The petitions challenged Congress’ prolonged failure to pass a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties. The Court strongly urged Congress to heed its constitutional duty with utmost urgency, as it declared that the latter has “the MANDATORY CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to enact the law on the constitutional prohibition against political dynasties as expressly provided for in Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution.” It stated that the Congress “MUST HENCEFORTH AND WITH UTMOST URGENCY ENACT THE APPROPRIATE ANTI-POLITICAL DYNASTY LAW AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY.” Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution provides that “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” The Court held that this provision is not merely an aspiration but a constitutional command. The use of the word “shall” makes clear that the State has a mandatory duty both to guarantee equal access to public service and to prohibit political dynasties. The Court also held that the phrase “as may be defined by law” does not give Congress the choice whether to prohibit political dynasties. Rather, it gives Congress the authority to define what constitutes a political dynasty and determine the scope of the prohibition. The Court further said that Congress’ prolonged failure to enact an anti-political dynasty law constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Court took judicial notice of the numerous anti-political dynasty bills filed but left unacted upon since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. It also considered studies on the prevalence of political dynasties and their relationship with socioeconomic conditions in the country. The Court noted that political dynasties have remained widespread and have extended even into the party-list system. Despite changes in the composition of Congress over the years, no comprehensive anti-political dynasty law has been enacted, implying either a lack of interest, avoidance for convenience, or service of self-interest. Although the Constitution does not set a deadline for Congress to enact the law, the Court held that this does not allow Congress to postpone its constitutional duty indefinitely. The Court found that 39 years is beyond a reasonable period to carry out the constitutional command. Congress’ continued inaction therefore constitutes a continuing violation of its constitutional duty. Read the full text of the Press Briefer at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17324…. Read the full text of the Decision at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17319…. Read Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen’s Concurring Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17319…. Read Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting Concurring Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17320…. Read Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda’s Separate Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17320…. Read Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao’s Separate Concurring Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17321…. Read Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh’s Separate Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17322… Read Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva’s Separate Concurring Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17323…. Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-a….