Note: Upon request of a judge in Las Pinas City, I have removed from this blog the biodata of the abovenamed judges of the city for security reasons. Those interested to know the professional and academic backgrounds of the judges of the city may google their names or visit the Supreme Court website (sc.judiciary.gov.ph) and its links.
Atty. Manuel Laserna Jr.
Jan. 3, 2011
Las Pinas City
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Justice Magdangal M. de Leon
I predict that in the near future Court of Appeals Associate Justice MAGDANAGAL M. DE LEON, one of the jurists and law professors/bar reviewers that I respect and revere in Metro Manila, will one day become a senior Supreme Court Associate Justice. May I share his bio-data, infra:
Educational Background:
Honors and Distinction:
JUSTICE MAGDANGAL M. DE LEON
Magdangal de Leon (“Dangal”) is a product of the Philippine public school system and was recognized for leadership and academic excellence throughout his student years.He obtained his Foreign Service degree in the University of the Philippines where he became Secretary General of the U.P. Foreign Service Corps and was selected as member of the Phi Kappa Phi International Honor Society and Pi Gamma Mu International Social Science Honor Society. He graduated from the U.P. College of Law, where he was among the top ten in his batch, aside from being chosen as most talented student. After a few years in private practice, starting with the law office of the prominent trial lawyer, Crispin Baizas, and later with Blanco Law Firm and Francisco Law Office, Dangal entered government service as a Trial Attorney in the office of the Solicitor General, the law firm of the Republic and its officials. Rising from the ranks, he was appointed Assistant Solicitor General (ASG) by President Aquino in 1991. Recently, he was appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals by President Arroyo.
As ASG, he had handled several significant cases, among which are the Bataan Petrochem, Manila Hotel, Petron privatization, Eastern Telecoms, Rolito Go and party List cases, and more recently, the PIATCO, Kuratong Baleleng, Photokina, LDP, Misuari, Agus Dwikarna, Dacer-Corbito and Rod Strunk cases. He was also the head of many task forces in the OSG, including those for the DepEd, CHED, BI, BOC, SEC, BOC, PNOC and PEA. Likewise, he was a member of the Inter-Agency Task Forces on Illegal Logging and Illegal Fishing. Presently, he is a faculty member and bar reviewer at the Ateneo Law School and Chairman of the Las Piñas City Bar Association. In the international scene, he is a member of the International Consultants Group, Rules and Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, sponsored by the American Law Institute. He has appeared and argued before the trial courts, including the Sandiganbayan, and also before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, both division and en banc.
.
Educational Background:
Elementary: Moises Salvador Elementary School, Manila, 1960
Secondary: Ramon Avanceña High School, Manila, 1964
Bachelor of Science In Foreign Service: University of the Philippines, 1968
Bachelor of Laws: University of the Philippines, 1972
Honors and Distinction:
Valedictorian, Elementary
First Honors, High School
Entrance Scholar, U.P., 1964
College Scholar, U.P., 1965 – 1967
Best Orator, U.P. College of Law, 1970
Most Talented Student, U.P. College of Law, 1971
Among the Top Ten, U.P. Law Class ‘72
Member, Phi Kappa Phi International Honor Society
Member, Pi Gamma Mu International Social Science Honor Society
Commissioner’s Citation from the Bureau of Immigration for “his distinguished service to the cause of Philippine Immigration”
Special recognition and commendation from the Commission on Audit for “exceptional devotion to duty, legal expertise and masterful handling of court cases where COA is a party, thus aiding COA in fulfilling its constitutionally mandated functions”
Special commendation from the Dangerous Drugs Board for his "dedication to duty and relentless efforts in the drive against drug abuse and illicit trafficking”
Outstanding Rotarian in Public Service, Rotary Makati-Paseo de Roxas
Outstanding Alumnus Award, DECS-Manila
Outstanding Graduate in the field of law, Ramon Avanceña High School
Battig Music Award from St. Scholastica’s College
Plaques of appreciation for being an MCLE Lecturer on “Oral Advocacy”
Plaques of appreciation from various groups for being a guest speaker on Filipino cultural values
Former Positions and Affiliations:
President, RAHS Supreme Student Government
Managing Editor, “The Avanceñan”
Secretary-General, U.P. Foreign Service Corps
President, U.P. ROTC Band
Vice-President, U.P. French Club
Chairman, UPSCA Electoral College
Member, U.P. Debate Workshop
Member, U.P. International Club
Member, Samahan ng mga Makabayang Mag-aaral ng Batas
Member, Sanduguang Kayumanggi
Member, U.P. Concert Chorus
Member, Philippine Madrigal Singers
Faculty Member, La Consolacion College
Laperal Music School
Associate, Baizas Alberto & Associates: 1973 – 74
Associate, Blanco Law Firm: 1974 – 75
Associate, Francisco De Castro & Zulueta: 1975 – 76
Trial Attorney, Office of the Solicitor General: 1976 – 78
Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor General: 1978 – 91
Assistant Solicitor General: 1991 – 2004
Worshipful Master, Araw Lodge No. 18, F. & A.M.
Present Positions and Affiliations:
Associate Justice, Court of Appeals
Faculty Member, Ateneo Law School and Bar Reviewer,
Ateneo Law School and other law schools
Chairman, Las Piñas City Bar Association
Trustee, Center for Restorative Justice in Asia
Member, International Consultants Group,
Rules and Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure
Member, Philippine Bar Association
Member, Philippine Society of International Law
Member, International Law Association
Work Experience:
Though several years in private practice, immediately after passing the bar in 1973, with the law office of the prominent trial lawyer, Crispin Baizas, and, successively, with the Blanco and Francisco Law offices, and more than twenty seven (27) years in the Office of the Solicitor General, the law firm of the Republic, as Trial Attorney, Solicitor and Assistant Solicitor General, he had handled many significant cases, including the Bataan Petrochem, Manila Hotel, Petron privatization, Eastern Telecoms, Rolito Go and Party List cases, and more recently, the PIATCO, Kuratong Baleleng, Photokina, Misuari, Agus Dwikarna, Dacer-Corbito and Rod Strunk cases, and had appeared and argued before the trial courts, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
He also headed the following:
OSG-DepEd Task Force
OSG-CHED Task Force
OSG-BOC Task Force
OSG-BI Task Force
OSG-SEC Task Force
OSG-PNOC Task Force
OSG-PEA Task Force
OSG-FPA Task Force
and was a member of the following:
Inter-Agency Task Force on Cancellation of Fake Titles Involving MIAA Properties
Inter-Agency Task Force on Illegal Logging Inter-Agency Task Force on Illegal Fishing
He is also an MCLE lecturer on “Oral Advocacy.”
Conferences Attended:
16th World Law Conference, Manila, October 1993
National Security Council Conference Workshop on Information Management and Global Competitiveness, Manila, October 1993
First ASEAN Attorneys General Conference, Jakarta, Indonesia, July 1995
17th World Law Conference, Montreal, Canada, August 1995
National Conference on the Rule of Law and Democracy in the Philippines, Makati, June 1997
Southeast Asian Justices’ Symposium:The Law on Sustainable Development, Manila, March 1999
Conference on Transnational Civil Procedure, sponsored by the American Law Institute, Singapore, June 1999
19th World Law Conference, Budapest, Hungary and Vienna, Austria, October 1999
First Follow-up Experts’ Conference on the International Criminal Court, Manila, October 2001
Second Follow-up Experts’ Conference on the International Criminal Court, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, October 2002
21st World Law Conference, Sydney and Adelaide, Australia, August 2003
Special Achievements/Talents:
Composer, Philippine Army March, Philippine Coast Guard Hymn, IBP March, PLEB March, Rotary Hymn, Davao Millennium March, OSG March, U.P. Law Graduation Hymn, Grand Lodge of the Philippines March, Demolay March, Demolay Prayer Hymn, Lingkod Bayan March, Golden Values School Song, among others
.
Choral arranger, Philippine Madrigal Singers, Metropolitan Theater Choir, etc.
.
Conductor, Malacañang, DOH NIA and other choral groups
.
Soloist, Inaugural Concert, National Arts Center, Los Baños, Laguna
.
Has been featured on stage, television and radio as a baritone
.
Has conducted both the Philippine Philharmonic Orchestra and Manila Symphony Orchestra
.
Has served as judge at the National Music Competition for Young Artists (NAMCYA) and Yamaha Guitar Competition
.
Plays the flute, guitar, piano and rondalla instruments
Personal Data:
Birthdate: August 19, 1948
Birthplace: Manila
Parents: Felipe Padilla de Leon, (nationalist composer, conductor, writer, National Artist for Music, composed first full-length Filipino opera, Noli Me Tangere)
Iluminada Bonus Mendoza, (concert pianist, piano teacher, granddaughter of Ladislao Bonus, the first Filipino opera composer)
.
Fifth of six children: three brothers – Felipe Jr., Bayani and Tagumpay; two sisters – Luningning and Marilag
Spouse: Patria A. Manalastas-de Leon, RTC Judge, Muntinlupa City, Br. 206 (now Executive Judge)
Children: Pantas – 1st year, UST College of Law; Alaya – 1st year, UP College of Law; Aldo – 1st year High School, St. Benedict College.
Note: PANTAS and ALAYA recently took the 2007 Bar Examinations last September 2007. I wish them success. The results will be released in March-April 2008.
Languages: Filipino, English, French
Source:
http://www.chanrobleslawnet.com/justicemagdangaldeleon.htm
Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda
LAS PINAS CITY BAR ASSOCIATION (LPBA), INC.
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Avenue
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1743, Philippines
Tel/Fax: (632) 8725443 & 8742539; Mobile: (0 63 920) 326 8824
Email: lcmlaw@gmail.com, lcmlaw@edsamail.com.ph
Website: http://groups.msn.com/laspinascitybarassociation
March 8, 2006
Hon. PRESBITERO VELASCO
Court Administrator
Supreme Court
Manila
RE : Judge BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA
Regional Trial Court, Branch 275
Las Pinas City;
Recommendation To The 2006
JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE AWARD
MABUHAY:
Enclosed is a copy of the self-explanatory PERFORMANCE REPORT, dated March 2, 2006, of Mrs. Leticia Agbayani, the OIC of Branch 275 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, under the hardworking Judge BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, detailing the statistical performance status of the said Branch.
As you know, Judge Maceda was the initiator and moving spirit behind the “2003 EXPRESS COURT: A 180-DAY JUSTICE SYSTEM OF LAS PINAS CITY” which was widely supported, in the form of a 2004 Memorandum of Agreement, by the Las Pinas City Bar Association and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) – Pasay Paranaque Las Pinas Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter.
I am writing this letter to formally recommend Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda for inclusion by your Office in the list of nominees to the 2006 JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE AWARD, which I strongly believe he deserves in the light of his judicial performance record and his dedication to judicial duties.
Please let our Bar Association know of your action hereon, for the record. God bless.
Sincerely,
Atty. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
Chairman, LPBA, 2005-2006
VP, IBP PPLM Chapter, 2005-2007
Cc: Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda
Executive Judge, RTC, Las Pinas City
IBP PPLM Chapter President
IBP National President
LPBA Vice Chair
LPBA President
Mayor Imelda Aguilar
Rep. Cynthia Villar
Judge Raul B. Villanueva
LAS PINAS CITY BAR ASSOCIATION (LPBA), INC.
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Avenue
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1743, Philippines
Tels (632) 8725443, 8742539, 8725446
Fax (632) 8742539
Email: lcmlaw@edsamail.com.ph
Website: http://groups.msn.com/laspinascitybarassociation
August 22, 2005
Hon. HILARIO G. DAVIDE JR.
Chief Justice
Supreme Court
Manila
RE : 2005 CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE AWARDS;
RECOMMENDATION IN FAVOR OF RTC JUDGE
RAUL B. VILLANUEVA, OF RTC LAS PINAS CITY
MABUHAY:
In my capacity as the Chairman of the LAS PINAS CITY BAR ASSOCIATION (LPBA), INC. and as the Vice President of the INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP) – Pasay Paranaque Las Pinas Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter, I have the honor to support and favorably endorse the pending nomination of Las Pinas City RTC Judge RAUL B. VILLANUEVA (Branch 255) as an Outstanding RTC Judge under the prestigious 2005 CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE AWARDS. (A copy of his resume is attached).
The Bar recognizes the dedication to duty, the hardworking and industrious performance, the integrity and honesty, the competence and professionalism, and the zeal and moral courage of Judge Villanueva, who, we understand, is one of the youngest RTC judges in the Philippines.
His youthfulness and idealism and his strong sense of duty as a serious, industrious and honest dispenser, administrator, promoter and defender of the Justice System must be duly recognized by the Supreme Court, as we in the Bar so recognize and commend.
Thanks and God bless.
Sincerely,
MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
Chairman, LPBA, 2005-2006
VP, IBP PPLM Chapter, 2005-2007
Professor of Law, FEU Inst. of Law
Cc : Hon. Raul B. Villanueva
Judge Joselito dj Vibandor
LAS PINAS CITY BAR ASSOCIATION (LPBA), INC[1].
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Avenue
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1743, Philippines
Tel/Fax: (632) 8725443 & 8742539; Mobile: (0 63 920) 326 8824
Email: lcmlaw@gmail.com,
Website: http://groups.msn.com/laspinascitybarassociation
May 21, 2007
Personal Delivery
Hon. REYNATO PUNO
Chief Justice
Supreme Court
Manila
Hon. CHRISTOPHER LOCK
Court Administrator
Supreme Court
Manila
RE :
HON. JOSELITO dj VIBANDOR
Former Executive Judge
Regional Trial Court
Branch 199
Las Pinas City
Mabuhay:
Peace!
In our previous letter to your good selves, dated March 7, 2007, as local Bar leaders in Las Pinas City, we favorably recommended, nominated and endorsed Judge Joselito dj Vibandor, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 199, of Las Pinas City, to the 2007 Judicial Excellence Awards.
This letter is intended to follow up and reiterate our aforecited letter because of our sincere belief and conviction that Judge Vibandor deserves to be recognized as a 2007 Judicial Excellence Awardee. In this connection, may we supplement our first letter by stating the following facts, for the record:
- In 2003, Former Las Pinas City Executive Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda nominated Judge Vibandor to the 2003 Judicial Excellence Awards. Judge Maceda, in his endorsement letter described Judge Vibandor as “innovative, versatile, competent, just, regal”.
- Recognized as a competent and fair professor of law, Judge Vibandor was recommended by the law students of Arellano Law Foundation, acting thru Ms. Caroline Exconde, to the 2003 Judicial excellence Awards.
- In 2004 the lawyers of Paranaque City, thru Atty. Jonnel Espaldon, nominated Judge Vibandor to the 2004 Judicial Excellence Awards.
- For three (3) consecutive years, that is, in 2005, 2006 and 2007, the Court Administrator, Hon. Christopher Lock, nominated Judge Vibandor to the Judicial Excellence Awards. He was described by the Court Administrator as a competent, effective, efficient, fair, honest and faithful jurist and dispenser of justice.
- Judge Vibandor was a participant in the 2007 Hague Forum for Judicial Expertise in the area of International Criminal Law.
- In 2005 and 2006 the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology recognized Judge Vibandor for his “inestimable contributions to the cause of the Bureau” and for his “significant accomplishments for the betterment of the jail service”.
At this point, we stress that we know for a fact that Judge Vibandor celebrates his birthdays inside the Las Pinas City Jail by conducting dialogues and sharing fellowship meals with the detention prisoners.
It is a mark of a selfless jurist with an apostolic and missionary spirit.
- In 2005, the Prison Ministry of the Couples for Christ Movement recognized Judge Vibandor for his “unequivocal support” to the prisoners of Las Pinas City in terms of dialogues, visits, facilitations, and jail decongestion efforts.
- From 2002 to 2003, Judge Vibandor was recognized by the Board and the Management of the Arellano Law Foundation as among its “top 10 professors” vis-à-vis the performance evaluation conducted among the law students of the said law school.
- In 2005 and 2006, Judge Vibandor was honored and recognized by the Las Pinas City Bar Association for his devotion to the promotion of the rule of law and the administration of justice in the City and for his selfless services to the Bar in terms of law lectures, participations in the local Bench and Bar Dialogues, and other justice-related programs in the City.
10.In 2003, Mayor Vergel Aguilar of Las Pinas City commended Judge Vibandor for his prompt and effective case disposal as a judge.
11.In 2005, the OCA performance evaluation on Judge Vibandor showed that he received a score of 94 (outstanding).
PREMISES CONSIDERED, as local Bar leaders of Las Pinas City, we humbly reiterate our nomination of Judge Joselito dj Vibandor to the 2007 Judicial Excellence Awards.
At your convenient time, please let us know of your action hereon.
May your day be blessed, happy, and liberated. Thank you.
Sincerely.
MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
Founder, LPBA, 2001
Director, LPBA, 2001-07
Past Vice Pres., IBP PPLM Chapter, 2005-07
Board Consultant, LPBA, 2007-08
Member of the Board of Directors of the
IBP PPLM Chapter, 1995-2007
Professor of Law, FEU, 1985-2006 (ret.)
MYRNA C. MERCADER
Chairperson, LPBA, 2006-07
Co-Founder, LPBA, 2001
Director, LPBA, 2001-07
Board Consultant, LPBA, 2007-08
Auditor, IBP PPLM Chapter, 2005-07
Member of the Board of Directors
Of the IBP PPLM Chapter, 1995-2007
Professor of Law, FEU, 1985-2006 (ret.)
Cc: Hon. Joselito dj Vibandor
File
[1] LPBA motto: “INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE.” Author of the motto is Atty. Rodelo Poltan, as paraphrased from a speech of Nobel Peace Prize Awardee Martin Luther King.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Sex change; petition denied.
In the very recent case of ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007, the Supreme Court held that the law does not recognize “the changes made by a physician using scalpel, drugs and counseling with regard to a person’s sex”, and that a person may not successfully petition for “a change of name and sex appearing in the birth certificate to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery. This is a landmark ruling.
On November 26, 2002, petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8. Petitioner alleged in his petition that he was born in the City of Manila to the spouses Melecio Petines Silverio and Anita Aquino Dantes on April 4, 1962. His name was registered as “Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio” in his certificate of live birth (birth certificate). His sex was registered as “male.” He further alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is, “anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts as a female” and that he had always identified himself with girls since childhood. Feeling trapped in a man’s body, he consulted several doctors in the United States. He underwent psychological examination, hormone treatment and breast augmentation. His attempts to transform himself to a “woman” culminated on January 27, 2001 when he underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, Thailand. He was thereafter examined by Dr. Marcelino Reysio-Cruz, Jr., a plastic and reconstruction surgeon in the Philippines, who issued a medical certificate attesting that he (petitioner) had in fact undergone the procedure. From then on, petitioner lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married. He then sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from “Rommel Jacinto” to “Mely,” and his sex from “male” to “female.”
During trial, petitioner testified for himself. He also presented Dr. Reysio-Cruz, Jr. and his American fiancé, Richard P. Edel, as witnesses.
On June 4, 2003, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, which held, inter alia, thus:
Petitioner filed the present petition not to evade any law or judgment or any infraction thereof or for any unlawful motive but solely for the purpose of making his birth records compatible with his present sex.
The sole issue here is whether or not petitioner is entitled to the relief asked for.
The [c]ourt rules in the affirmative.
Firstly, the [c]ourt is of the opinion that granting the petition would be more in consonance with the principles of justice and equity. With his sexual [re-assignment], petitioner, who has always felt, thought and acted like a woman, now possesses the physique of a female. Petitioner’s misfortune to be trapped in a man’s body is not his own doing and should not be in any way taken against him.
Likewise, the [c]ourt believes that no harm, injury [or] prejudice will be caused to anybody or the community in granting the petition. On the contrary, granting the petition would bring the much-awaited happiness on the part of the petitioner and her [fiancé] and the realization of their dreams.
Finally, no evidence was presented to show any cause or ground to deny the present petition despite due notice and publication thereof. Even the State, through the [OSG] has not seen fit to interpose any [o]pposition.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the petition and ordering the Civil Registrar of Manila to change the entries appearing in the Certificate of Birth of [p]etitioner, specifically for petitioner’s first name from “Rommel Jacinto” to MELY and petitioner’s gender from “Male” to FEMALE.
The Republic of the Philippines (Republic), thru the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. It alleged that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration.
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the Republic. It ruled that the trial court’s decision lacked legal basis. There is no law allowing the change of either name or sex in the certificate of birth on the ground of sex reassignment through surgery. Thus, the Court of Appeals granted the Republic’s petition, set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered the dismissal of SP Case No. 02-105207.
In sum, the petitioner essentially claims that the change of his name and sex in his birth certificate is allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court and RA 9048.
The Supreme Court held that the State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification. A change of name is a privilege, not a right. Petitions for change of name are controlled by statutes. In this connection, Article 376 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 376. No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority.
This Civil Code provision was amended by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law). In particular, Section 1 of RA 9048 provides:
SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname. – No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.
RA 9048 now governs the change of first name. It vests the power and authority to entertain petitions for change of first name to the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general concerned. Under the law, therefore, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged with the aforementioned administrative officers. The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied. It likewise lays down the corresponding venue, form and procedure. In sum, the remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first name are primarily administrative in nature, not judicial.
RA 9048 likewise provides the grounds for which change of first name may be allowed:
SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. – The petition for change of first name or nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases:
(1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
(2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community; or
(3) The change will avoid confusion.
Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first name was his sex reassignment. He intended to make his first name compatible with the sex he thought he transformed himself into through surgery. In this regard, the Supreme Court held that 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 reassignment. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing petitioner’s first name for his declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil registry and the public interest.
The Court added that before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change. In addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. In this case, he failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true and official name.
The determination of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue and the court must look to the statutes. In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 412. No entry in the civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order.
Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by RA 9048 in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. The correction or change of such matters can now be made through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. In effect, RA 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register.
Section 2(c) of RA 9048 defines what a “clerical or typographical error” is:
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) “Clerical or typographical error” refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth or the like, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or records: Provided, however, That no correction must involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner. (emphasis supplied)
The Court stressed that under RA 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code:
ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register.
ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register:
(1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of name.
The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil Code include even those that occur after birth. However, no reasonable interpretation of the provision can justify the conclusion that it covers the correction on the ground of sex reassignment, the Court held.
To correct simply means “to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from” while to change means “to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute.” The birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. All entries therein, including those corresponding to his first name and sex, were all correct. No correction is necessary.
Article 407 of the Civil Code authorizes the entry in the civil registry of certain acts (such as legitimations, acknowledgments of illegitimate children and naturalization), events (such as births, marriages, naturalization and deaths) and judicial decrees (such as legal separations, annulments of marriage, declarations of nullity of marriages, adoptions, naturalization, loss or recovery of citizenship, civil interdiction, judicial determination of filiation and changes of name). These acts, events and judicial decrees produce legal consequences that touch upon the legal capacity, status and nationality of a person. Their effects are expressly sanctioned by the laws. In contrast, sex reassignment is not among those acts or events mentioned in Article 407, according to the Court. Neither is it recognized nor even mentioned by any law, expressly or impliedly.
“Status” refers to the circumstances affecting the legal situation (that is, the sum total of capacities and incapacities) of a person in view of his age, nationality and his family membership.
The status of a person in law includes all his personal qualities and relations, more or less permanent in nature, not ordinarily terminable at his own will, such as his being legitimate or illegitimate, or his being married or not. The comprehensive term status… include such matters as the beginning and end of legal personality, capacity to have rights in general, family relations, and its various aspects, such as birth, legitimation, adoption, emancipation, marriage, divorce, and sometimes even succession. (emphasis supplied)
A person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. It is a part of a person’s legal capacity and civil status. In this connection, Article 413 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 413. All other matters pertaining to the registration of civil status shall be governed by special laws.
The Court emphasized that “there is no such special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects”, which is fatal to petitioner’s cause.
Moreover, Section 5 of Act 3753 (the Civil Register Law) provides:
SEC. 5. Registration and certification of births. – The declaration of the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or, in default thereof, the declaration of either parent of the newborn child, shall be sufficient for the registration of a birth in the civil register. Such declaration shall be exempt from documentary stamp tax and shall be sent to the local civil registrar not later than thirty days after the birth, by the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or by either parent of the newborn child.
In such declaration, the person above mentioned shall certify to the following facts: (a) date and hour of birth; (b) sex and nationality of infant; (c) names, citizenship and religion of parents or, in case the father is not known, of the mother alone; (d) civil status of parents; (e) place where the infant was born; and (f) such other data as may be required in the regulations to be issued.
xxx xxx xxx (emphasis supplied)
Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate is a historical record of the facts as they existed at the time of birth. Thus, the sex of a person is determined at birth, visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by examining the genitals of the infant. The Court held, further that “considering that there is no law legally recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended by error, is immutable”.
The Court touched the issued on marriage. It held that even the trial court itself found that the petition was but petitioner’s first step towards his eventual marriage to his male fiancé. However, marriage, one of the most sacred social institutions, is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman. One of its essential requisites is the legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female. It ruled that to grant the changes sought by petitioner will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on marriage and family relations. It will allow the union of a man with another man who has undergone sex reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative transsexual). It added that there are various laws which apply particularly to women such as the provisions of the Labor Code on employment of women, certain felonies under the Revised Penal Code and the presumption of survivorship in case of calamities under Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, among others. These laws underscore the public policy in relation to women which could be substantially affected if petitioner’s petition were to be granted.
As to the argument that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that “[n]o judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law.”, the Court held that it is not a license for courts to engage in judicial legislation. The duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law, not to make or amend it. According to the Court, in our system of government, “it is for the legislature, should it choose to do so, to determine what guidelines should govern the recognition of the effects of sex reassignment”.
Digested by:
Atty. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
LCM Law, Las Pinas City, Philippines
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)