Section 38 of R.A. 9262 (“The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004″), states that:

If the victim is an indigent OR there is an immediate necessity due to imminent danger or threat of danger to act on an application for a protection order, the court shall accept the application without payment of the filing fee and other fees and of transcript of stenographic notes.

In some courts, a woman who asks for a Temporary Protection Order because there is an “immediate necessity due to imminent dnager or threat of danger” which necessitates the need for the Court to act on an application for protection order, is NOT required to pay a filing fee.

But there are other courts who are not of the same view.

I tend to favor the first interpretation. Women who ask for a TPO should not be required to pay filing fees. Imagine this scenario: A woman and her kid run away from home to escape the physically abusive husband. Her finances are shot as she looks for a new place to rent, plonks down advance rental and two months deposit. While she may be employed, she cannot for the moment pay the filing fee for a TPO/PPO (which is actually about Php 4,500.00, or equal to a month’s rent.)

Some might say, she can avail of the benefits of the legal aid office. Under A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC (IRR), she can then be exempt from paying filing fees. However, she has to secure clearances and certificates from the barangay, she has to present certifications from the assessor that she has no property amounting to more than Php300,000.00. She has to secure a certification from the BIR that she is not an income earner, or has insufficient income. These will take a couple of days to prepare.

Meanwhile, the abusive husband has already tracked his wife, and is again harassing her, stalking her, sending her threatening and abusive massages. She is already in imminent danger of abuse by the husband.

This situation is frustrating, to say the least. I am now in a similar situation, and I have quoted Section 38 of RA 9262, in my motion for exemption of payment of filing fees, and cited the case of Algura, I have even submitted the affidavits and medico-legal certificates of teh victim, the certificate from the psychiatrist, the medical bills etc. And yet, the clerk of court refuses to even set the motion for hearing.

I hope the Supreme Court comes out with uniform Rules as to how to interpret Section 38 of RA 9262.

As defined, we do not qualify as pauper or indigent litigant, but it is the only way we can fight for our rights and bring to the attention of the Court our plight.

We will still try, of course with the help of humane lawyers, at least to buy us some time until we can find someone to HELP us. The exorbitant docket fees is the culprit why we have not yet made any major step.

We fit the description of not being able to provide for some basic necessities, we sometimes miss our meals and bills are piling on top of the other. We are out of work due to usurpation of powers, illegal termination of contract, etc.But this not the reason why we are in this predicament.

I hope the law will be more flexible as to apply a pro-rata evaluation in determining whether the petitioner is indeed a an indigent litigant. More particularly in our case, x x x we need quite a big amount to file an annulment of foreclosure sale amounting to 37M or cancellation of the issued title in the name of the bank. According to the clerk of court, filing fees will be in the tune of 900K to 1M. With our present business condition, that is not possible. Another case to file is Intestate proceedings and estate administration, again filing fees is higher than the case against the bank.

What I am really contemplating now is to file a criminal case, to save a little. My eldest son was not able to enroll this second semester and it breaks my heart so much.

I hope there are still humane lawyers, young enough to see us through, who can consider a full contigent engagement with assignment of assets. The ex-parte hearing for the Writ is on the 11th of December.

GODSPEED!