Silverio v. Republic
PARTIES:
- Petitioner: Rommel Jacinto
Dantes Silverio
- Respondent: Republic of the
Philippines
FACTS:
·
Silverio filed a petition for change of his
first name and sex in his birth certificate (RTC Manila) – Civil Regisrar of
Manila as respondent
·
Alleges that he is a male transsexual – “anatomically
male but thinks and acts like a female,” that he always identified with girls since
childhood
·
Went to the US to consult doctors, undergo psychological
examinations, hormone treatments and breast augmentation.
·
January 27, 2001
– went to Thailand to undergo sex reassignment surgery (attested and
issued a medical certificate by Dr. Marcelino Reysio-Cruz, a plastic and
reconstruction surgeon in the Philippines)
·
Silvero is engaged to be married to an
American fiancé, Richard P. Edel.
·
Initial hearing was published in the People’s
Journal Tonight for three consecutive weeks.
·
Copies were sent to the OSG and Civil
Registrar of Manila.
·
Silverio, Dr. Reysio-Cruz and Edel were
witnesses
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
- June 4, 2003 – RTC ruled in
favor of Silverio
- Finds that the
petition was made not to evade any law or judgment or any other unlawful motive
but solely for the prupose of making his records consistent with his present
sex.
- Finds that
grant the petition is in line with principles of justice and equity.
- Says that it is
not the petitioner’s
- February 23,
2006 – CA rendered a decision in favor of the OSG’s appeal alleging that there
is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of
sex alteration.
·
RTC decision lacked legal basis; no law
allowing change of either name or sex in the birth certificate on the ground of
sex reassignment or surgery.
·
A change of name is a privilege not a right.
·
A change of name does not alter one’s legal
capacity or civil status.
·
RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first
name on the ground of sex assignment.
·
Before a person can legally change his name,
he must present a compelling reason for justifying such change; he must show
that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name.
·
Not within the jurisdiction of the trial
court; petition must have been filed at the Civil Registrar
·
This is not a judicial remedy; it was administrative
à proper venue was
in the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila where his birth certificate is
kept.
RELEVANT LAWS AND
PROVISIONS
·
Article 376 (Civil Code) – “No person can
change his name or surname without judicial authority.”
·
Amended by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law) -- now
governs the change of first name.
·
Sec. 5 of Act 3753 (Civil Registrar Law) – sex
of a person is determined a birth, done by examination of midwife.
RATIONALE:
·
“Clerical or
typographic error” – refers to a mistake committed in the
performance of clerical work. No correction must involve the change of
nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner.”
·
A person’s sex is essential factor in marriage
and family relations; it is a part of a person’s legal capacity and civil
status.
·
No special law in the Philippines governing
sex reassignment and its effects.
·
The changes sought by the petitioner will have
serious and wide-ranging legal and public policy consequences.
·
In order to contract marriage, must be male
and female. (Legal capacity)
·
Article 9: “No judge or court shall decline to
render judgment based on the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law.” à it is not the
duty of the court to engage in judicial legislation.
·
Statutes define who may file petitions for
change of first name or correction. If the legislature intends to confer on a
person who has undergone sex reassignment the privilege to change his name,
they shall enact a law to that effect.
·
The Court recognizes that there are people
whose preferences do not fit into the commonly recognized parameters of social
convention. However, the remedies petitioners seek involve questions of public
policy which shall be addressed solely by the legislature, not the courts.
JUDGMENT: Petition DENIED.
No comments:
Post a Comment