Facts:
In 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate before RTC Siniloan, alleging that she was born on January 13, 1981, registered as a female, but while growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics and was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics. She further alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy in her early years and at age six, underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered that she has small ovaries. At age thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had minimized, she has stopped growing and she has no breast or menstrual development. She then alleged that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion, she has become a male person. Thus, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender be changed from female to male and her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff.
In 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate before RTC Siniloan, alleging that she was born on January 13, 1981, registered as a female, but while growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics and was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics. She further alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy in her early years and at age six, underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered that she has small ovaries. At age thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had minimized, she has stopped growing and she has no breast or menstrual development. She then alleged that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion, she has become a male person. Thus, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender be changed from female to male and her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff.
To prove her claim, respondent presented Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, UP-PGH, who issued a medical certificate stating that respondent is genetically female but her body secretes male hormones, has two organs of which the female part is undeveloped and that she has no monthly period.
The RTC granted her petition. However, the Office of the Solicitor General appealed to the SC arguing that the petition is fatally defective because it did not implead the local civil registrar, an indispensable party under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.
The RTC granted her petition. However, the Office of the Solicitor General appealed to the SC arguing that the petition is fatally defective because it did not implead the local civil registrar, an indispensable party under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.
Issues:
1. Was the petition fatally defective for failure to implead the civil registrar?
2. Should the court allow the change of name and gender?
2. Should the court allow the change of name and gender?
Held:
1. No. There is substantial compliance with Rule 108 when respondent furnished a copy of the petition to the local civil registrar. Rule 1 of the Rules of Court states that courts shall construe the Rules liberally to promote their objectives of securing to the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of the matters brought before it.
2. Yes. 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.
In the instant case, if we determine respondent to be a female, then there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. But if we determine, based on medical testimony and scientific development showing the respondent to be other than female, then a change in the subjects birth certificate entry is in order.
Biologically, nature endowed respondent with a mixed (neither consistently and categorically female nor consistently and categorically male) composition. Respondent has female (XX) chromosomes. However, respondents body system naturally produces high levels of male hormones (androgen). As a result, respondent has ambiguous genitalia and the phenotypic features of a male.
Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex, the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex.
Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he has already ordered his life to that of a male. Respondent could have undergone treatment and taken steps, like taking lifelong medication, to force his body into the categorical mold of a female but he did not. He chose not to do so. Nature has instead taken its due course in respondents development to reveal more fully his male characteristics.
In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on respondent concerning a matter so innately private as ones sexuality and lifestyle preferences. Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial choice of what courses of action to take along the path of his sexual development and maturation. (Republic v. Cagandahan, GR No. 166676, September 12, 2008)
2. Yes. 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.
In the instant case, if we determine respondent to be a female, then there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. But if we determine, based on medical testimony and scientific development showing the respondent to be other than female, then a change in the subjects birth certificate entry is in order.
Biologically, nature endowed respondent with a mixed (neither consistently and categorically female nor consistently and categorically male) composition. Respondent has female (XX) chromosomes. However, respondents body system naturally produces high levels of male hormones (androgen). As a result, respondent has ambiguous genitalia and the phenotypic features of a male.
Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex, the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex.
Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he has already ordered his life to that of a male. Respondent could have undergone treatment and taken steps, like taking lifelong medication, to force his body into the categorical mold of a female but he did not. He chose not to do so. Nature has instead taken its due course in respondents development to reveal more fully his male characteristics.
In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on respondent concerning a matter so innately private as ones sexuality and lifestyle preferences. Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial choice of what courses of action to take along the path of his sexual development and maturation. (Republic v. Cagandahan, GR No. 166676, September 12, 2008)
0 Comments
Post a Comment