Email: check_baluma@yahoo.com

change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons and the consequences that will follow

Several months ago we printed an article concerning the failed attempt of a male petitioner to change the entry of his name and sex from male to female in order to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery. The Supreme Court in the case Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio vs. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007, held that there is no such special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects. It was emphasized that 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. 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 words “male” and “female” in everyday understanding do not include persons who have undergone sex reassignment. Furthermore, “words that are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Since the statutory language of the Civil Register Law was enacted in the early 1900s and remains unchanged, it cannot be argued that the term “sex” as used then is something alterable through surgery or something that allows a post-operative male-to-female transsexual to be included in the category “female.”

More than ten years ago our country had a promising young runner who had the potentials of becoming the next Lydia de Vega but because of her predominantly male features, she was not spared from the accusations of cheating. Later on it turned out that the athlete had two external sex organs, one male and the other female.

Just recently, the Supreme Court decided on the case Republic v. Cagandahan, GR No. 166676, September 12, 2008, which case this time involve a person diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, a rare medical condition where afflicted persons possess both male and female characteristics. The said case now pave the way for an individual to have her female name and gender changed to male.

As posted in the Supreme Court website, in a 13-page decision penned by Senior Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, the Court affirmed the January 12, 2005 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna granting the Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of Jennifer B. Cagandahan to change her name to Jeff Cagandahan and her gender to male.

Data from the same Supreme Court website indicate that the petitioner was born in 1981 and was registered as female and developed secondary male characteristics while growing up and was diagnosed to have CAH. At age 13, the petitioner’s ovarian structures had minimized there was no breast or menstrual development.

To support her petition, Cagandahan presented Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital, who explained that that Cagandahan “genetically is female but because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally, thus has organs of both male and female.”

The Court, in deciding the case, considered “the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial.” It noted that Cagandahan “thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen), there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male.” It stressed that Cagandahan has let nature take its course in her development to reveal more fully his male characteristics.

“[T]he Court will not dictate on respondent concerning a matter so innately private as one’s sexuality and lifestyle preferences, much less on whether or not to undergo medical treatment to reverse the male tendency due to CAH...We do no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an individual deals with what nature has handed out. In other words, we respect respondent’s congenital condition and his mature decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary person. We cannot but respect how respondent deals with his unordinary state and thus help make his life easier,” the Court said. The Court ruled that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons and the consequences that will follow.

The latest case decided by the Supreme Court without a doubt has altered to some extent the standard that the sex of a person is determined at birth, visually done by the birth attendant by examining the genitals of the infant and that the determination of a person's sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended by error, is immutable.