1) Why this topic matters

Threats inside families often escalate quickly—especially when the victim lives in the same house or compound as the person making the threats. In the Philippines, many people instinctively go to the barangay for a “restraining order,” but the barangay’s authority to issue a Barangay Protection Order (BPO) is not universal. A BPO is a specialized remedy created under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Republic Act No. 9262, “RA 9262”). Because RA 9262 is relationship-based, questions immediately arise when the threat comes from relatives—such as in-laws, siblings, parents, uncles, or other household members.

This article explains what BPOs can and cannot do, what kinds of threats fall under VAWC (Violence Against Women and Their Children), when relatives can be reached by VAWC mechanisms, and what legal routes remain when the threatening relative is outside RA 9262’s coverage.

Important note: This is general legal information based on Philippine law principles and common practice. Outcomes vary depending on facts, evidence, and local implementation.

2) The legal framework in one view

A. RA 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act) is the backbone

RA 9262 addresses violence committed against:

a woman (adult or not), and/or
her child (legitimate or illegitimate), when the violence is committed by a person who has (or had) a specified intimate/family relationship with the woman (more detail below).

RA 9262 provides two major tracks of protection:

Criminal accountability (complaints leading to prosecution for defined acts such as physical, sexual, psychological, or economic abuse); and
Protection orders (fast, preventive, safety-focused orders that can exist even while criminal cases are pending—or even before a criminal case is filed).

B. Protection orders under RA 9262: BPO, TPO, PPO

Protection orders come in three primary forms:

Barangay Protection Order (BPO)

Issued by: the Punong Barangay (or an authorized barangay official if applicable)
Designed for: immediate, short-term protection
Usual duration: 15 days (short and urgent by design)
Nature: ex parte (issued without prior hearing of the respondent)
Relief: limited compared with court orders (generally “stop the violence/threats” and “stay away/no contact” types of directives)

Temporary Protection Order (TPO)

Issued by: the court
Duration: temporary but longer than a BPO
Relief: broader than BPO (may include custody, support, exclusion from dwelling, etc., depending on the court and facts)

Permanent Protection Order (PPO)

Issued by: the court after notice/hearing
Duration: longer-term; remains until modified or lifted
Relief: broadest set of protections and family-related directives

3) What counts as “threats” under VAWC?

Threats can matter in RA 9262 in at least three ways:

A. Threats as “psychological violence”

RA 9262 recognizes psychological violence—acts or omissions causing mental or emotional suffering. Threats often fall here, especially:

threats of bodily harm or death (“Papatayin kita,” “Sasaktan kita”)
threats to take the children away (“Kukunin ko anak mo at di mo na makikita”)
threats to ruin reputation or employment (public humiliation, exposure, harassment campaigns)
stalking or persistent intimidation
threats that force the woman to give money or property (linked to economic abuse)

The key idea: psychological violence is not “less real”; it is explicitly recognized and penalized.

B. Threats as grounds for urgent protective relief

Protection orders are preventive. The legal logic is: you do not need to wait for actual injury if there is credible risk of harm. A threat—especially repeated, specific, or escalating threats—can justify immediate protection.

C. Threats as separate crimes (outside RA 9262)

Even when RA 9262 does not apply (because the relationship requirement is not met), threats may be punishable under the Revised Penal Code (for example, “grave threats” and related offenses), and may be aggravated or supported by evidence such as messages, recordings, witnesses, and patterns of harassment.

4) Who is covered by RA 9262 (and why relatives create complexity)

A. Protected persons

RA 9262 protects:

the woman victim; and
her children (including children in her care under the law’s scope).

B. The relationship requirement (the most important gatekeeper)

RA 9262 is not a general family-violence statute for every kind of relative. It is designed around violence by a person who is (or was) in a specific relationship to the woman, commonly:

husband
former husband
a person with whom the woman has or had a dating relationship
a person with whom the woman has or had a sexual relationship
a person with whom the woman has a common child

Practical meaning:

The typical respondent is a current or former intimate partner (often male in application).
The law’s coverage is triggered by the relationship to the woman, not merely by being a household member.

This is why threats from a woman’s brother, uncle, father, cousin, mother-in-law, or sister-in-law can fall into a grey zone: those relatives may be dangerous, but they are not automatically within RA 9262’s intended respondent category.

5) Can a relative be the subject of a BPO under RA 9262?

A. The general rule: BPO is for RA 9262 situations

A BPO is a RA 9262 tool, so the respondent is generally the person whose conduct falls under RA 9262 and whose relationship meets RA 9262’s definition.

B. Typical outcomes by scenario

Scenario 1: The threatening person is the woman’s intimate partner (clear RA 9262 coverage)

Examples:

husband/boyfriend/ex threatens harm
father of her child threatens to kidnap the child
partner uses intimidation, stalking, harassment

Result: BPO is generally available (subject to local processing and evidence of urgency).

Scenario 2: The threatening person is the partner’s relative (e.g., in-laws)

Examples:

mother-in-law threatens the wife
brother-in-law harasses, intimidates, or threatens
relatives pressure the woman to leave, surrender the children, or give money/property

Result (general principle):

If the in-law alone is the aggressor and the intimate partner is not the aggressor, RA 9262 coverage is often legally difficult, because the in-law does not have the qualifying relationship to the woman.
If the intimate partner participates, directs, encourages, or uses the relatives as instruments, RA 9262 remedies may still be pursued against the intimate partner, and protection orders can be crafted to address direct and indirect contact (e.g., “no contact directly or indirectly”).

Important practical distinction:

A BPO directed at the intimate partner can prohibit indirect harassment (e.g., “do not cause others to contact or threaten”), but it does not automatically transform a third party into a respondent unless the law and the issuing authority recognize them as properly included.

Scenario 3: The threatening person is the woman’s own relative (parents/siblings/other kin)

Examples:

brother threatens her for inheritance issues
father threatens her about her relationship choices
cousin threatens her due to family conflict

Result: This is generally not RA 9262 unless the relative also falls into a qualifying relationship category (which is atypical and fact-sensitive). BPO is usually not the correct legal mechanism; other criminal or civil remedies should be considered.

Scenario 4: The victim is a child and the threatening person is a relative

If the threatening person is the father/stepfather (or the mother’s qualifying intimate partner), RA 9262 may apply. If the threatening person is an uncle, grandparent, older sibling, or other relative not within RA 9262’s relationship scope, remedies may more commonly involve child protection laws and the Revised Penal Code, depending on the acts and evidence.

6) What a BPO can order (and what it cannot)

A. Core protections commonly associated with BPOs

A BPO is intended to stop imminent harm. Typical directives include:

Stop committing or threatening violence
No contact / no harassment
Stay away from the victim’s residence, workplace, school, or other specified places (as stated in the order)

The key character: safety-first and rapid issuance.

B. What a BPO usually cannot fully resolve

Because BPOs are short-term and limited in scope, they are not designed to settle:

child custody disputes long-term
property partition or ownership conflicts
permanent eviction/exclusion (often more feasible through court-issued orders)
long-term financial support arrangements (usually court territory)

If the threat environment requires broader relief—especially where the offender and victim share a home, or where child custody/support is at stake—court protection orders (TPO/PPO) are often the more structurally capable remedy.

7) Procedure and practical handling at the barangay level

A. Where to apply

Common practice is applying at the barangay where the victim:

resides, or
where the incident occurred (implementation can vary, but the goal is accessibility and immediacy).

B. Ex parte issuance and urgency

A BPO is designed to be issued quickly based on the applicant’s statements and available corroboration (messages, witness accounts, blotter entries, visible injuries, etc.). The logic is emergency prevention.

C. Documentation that strengthens a BPO request

While a BPO is meant to be accessible even to victims with limited resources, the following frequently help establish urgency and credibility:

screenshots of threats (SMS, Messenger, email)
call logs, voice notes
witnesses (neighbors, household members, coworkers)
medical records/photos (if harm occurred)
prior barangay blotter entries or police reports
pattern evidence (repeated visits, stalking, repeated intimidation)

D. Barangay conciliation is not the default for VAWC

VAWC situations are commonly treated as not appropriate for mediation/compromise, because forced settlement dynamics can increase danger and coercion, and because the law treats violence as a public wrong with protective priorities.

8) Enforcement and consequences of violating a protection order

A. Violation is serious

Violating a protection order is not a “small barangay offense.” It can trigger:

criminal liability for violation of the protection order, and/or
contempt (particularly for court orders), and
additional criminal charges if violence or threats continue.

B. Real-world enforcement considerations

Enforcement hinges on:

having a copy of the order accessible,
prompt reporting of violations,
clear evidence of breach (messages, CCTV, witness accounts),
coordination with police/Women and Children Protection Desks.

If an order says “no contact,” even “apology” messages can be framed as contact. If it says “stay away,” “passing by” repeatedly can become evidence of stalking/harassment depending on circumstances.

9) When threats from relatives fall outside RA 9262: legal pathways that remain

When the threatening person is a relative not covered by RA 9262’s relationship requirement, the situation is not legally “hopeless”—it simply shifts to other legal tools.

A. Revised Penal Code remedies (threats, coercion, harassment-type conduct)

Depending on the wording and seriousness of the threat, Philippine criminal law can address:

threats to kill or harm
intimidation that compels acts against one’s will
harassment and related offenses (fact-dependent)

The more specific, immediate, and credible the threat (“I will kill you tonight,” with capability and proximity), the stronger the criminal posture tends to be.

B. If threats are digital/online

If threats are made through online channels, additional laws may come into play depending on the content:

online harassment mechanisms
cyber-related penalties when threats are transmitted through ICT channels (fact- and charging-dependent)

C. If the conduct is gender-based harassment in public or online spaces

Some gender-based harassment behaviors may be covered by laws addressing harassment in public spaces and online, depending on the nature of the acts (e.g., sexist, sexualized, or gender-targeted harassment), separate from RA 9262’s intimate partner framework.

D. If the victim is a child and the offender is a relative

Child-focused protective laws may be used where the acts constitute child abuse, psychological abuse, exploitation, or endangerment. Reporting channels often include:

DSWD/LCPC mechanisms
police WCPD
prosecutor’s office referral pathways

10) How to analyze “threats from relatives” under VAWC logic (a practical checklist)

Step 1: Identify the relationship to the woman victim

Ask: Is the threatening person the woman’s current/former:

spouse?
dating partner?
sexual partner?
person with whom she has a common child?

If yes, RA 9262 and BPO/TPO/PPO are conceptually available.

If no, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2: Determine whether the intimate partner is involved (even indirectly)

Ask:

Is the partner encouraging the relative?
Is the partner using the relative to pressure, monitor, threaten, or punish?
Are threats being transmitted “through” family members (indirect contact)?
Is the partner benefiting from, or coordinating with, the relative’s threats?

If yes, RA 9262 action against the intimate partner may still be viable, and the protective order can target direct and indirect contact dynamics.

If no, proceed to Step 3.

Step 3: Shift to non-RA 9262 remedies against the relative

Treat it as:

threats/coercion/harassment under criminal law, and/or
child-protection law if the victim is a minor, and/or
other protective mechanisms based on the nature of conduct (fact-dependent).

11) Common misconceptions (and why they cause danger)

Misconception 1: “The barangay can issue a BPO against any relative.”

A BPO is not a general restraining order for all disputes. It is anchored on RA 9262’s scope.

Misconception 2: “Threats aren’t violence until someone gets hit.”

Under RA 9262, threats and intimidation can constitute psychological violence and are legitimate grounds for protection.

Misconception 3: “Barangay mediation will fix it.”

Mediation can be unsafe where power imbalance, fear, coercion, or credible risk of harm exists. VAWC frameworks prioritize protection over compromise.

Misconception 4: “If the threatener is an in-law, RA 9262 is automatically available.”

Not automatically. The relationship requirement usually points to the intimate partner as the primary RA 9262 respondent, with the in-law handled through other legal routes unless specific facts tie the partner into the violence pattern.

12) Key takeaways

A Barangay Protection Order (BPO) is a rapid, short-term protection order under RA 9262, not a general barangay restraining order for all family conflicts.
Threats can qualify as psychological violence under RA 9262 and can justify urgent protective relief.
The relationship requirement is crucial: RA 9262 typically applies when the offender is the woman’s current/former spouse or intimate partner (or the father of her child under the law’s framework).
When threats come from relatives outside that relationship category, protection may need to rely on other criminal laws, and for child victims, child-protection laws, with the barangay playing a support/referral role rather than being the final source of a “BPO solution.”