Petitioner Silverio underwent sex change
Male and Female in Marriage
Silverio vs Republic G.R. 174689 | October 22, 2007
ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, petitioner,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Petitioner filed to change his first name from “Rommel Jacinto” to “Mely” and sex from male to female in RTC of Manila. The petitioner underwent procedures to transform himself to a full-fledged “woman.” On June 2003, the trial court ruled in favor of Silverio for 3 reasons: (1) His body resembles female physique (2) no harm will happen to the Republic, (3) affirming his petition will make their side happy. On Aug 2003, the Republic, thru the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, alleging that there is no law allowing a change of sex in birth certificate by reason of sex alteration. On Feb 2006, the CA ruled in favor of the Republic, reversing the trial court’s decision and denied the application for reconsideration. Petitioner claims that his petitions are supported by Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court, and RA 9048.
Can a person’s first name and sex be changed on the grounds of sex reassignment?
No, there is no law that allows change of first name and sex on grounds of sex reassignment. The Petition for reconsideration is DENIED. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
The laws mentioned provide grounds for change of first name but change due to sex reassignment was not implied. It’s not in the court’s jurisdiction to enact a new basis. Section 5 of Act 3753 (Civil Register Law) provides the immutable way to determine the sex of a person, that is, visually examining the genitals of the infant at birth.
In addition, the Supreme Court disagrees against the “no harm” reasoning used by the trial court. Affirming Silverio’s petition will actually destroy the nation and produce serious consequences, serving as a “tip of the spear” and bringing in more elements that will destroy the morals guarded by the Constitution, such as, the sanctity of marriage and family. In foresight, the Court cites future problems, “Should transgenders be then allowed to officially marry in the country?” “Could this be considered a rampant sacrilege against the conscience of the people?” “Will those that performed sex reassignments also avail rights women’s rights under the law?”