Silverio vs. Republic

Philippine law does not permit a person who has undergone sex reassignment surgery to change their name and sex as recorded in their birth certificate to align with their new physical characteristics, as there is no statute that recognizes or governs the effects of such a procedure.

Petitioner Rommel Silverio, born anatomically male, identified as a female from childhood and felt "trapped in a man's body." After consulting with doctors, he underwent hormone therapy, breast augmentation, and ultimately, a sex reassignment surgery in Thailand. Living as a female and engaged to be married to a man, he sought to have his public records, specifically his birth certificate, reflect his new identity and physical state by changing his first name and sex entry.

• Petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio was born in Manila on April 4, 1962, and was registered as male in his certificate of live birth.
• Feeling he was a female trapped in a male's body, he underwent psychological examinations, hormone treatments, and breast augmentation in the United States.
• On January 27, 2001, he underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, Thailand.
• Following the surgery, he lived as a female and became engaged to be married to a man, Richard P. Edel.
• On November 26, 2002, he filed a petition in the RTC of Manila to change his first name to "Mely" and his sex to "female" in his birth certificate to make his records compatible with his post-operative sex.

• The changes sought in the birth certificate are allowable under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court, and Republic Act No. 9048.
• The petition was filed solely for the purpose of making his birth records compatible with his present sex and not to evade any law or for any unlawful motive.
• Granting the petition aligns with principles of justice and equity, as his "misfortune to be trapped in a man's body" was not his own doing and should not be held against him.
• Allowing the changes would cause no harm, injury, or prejudice to anyone and would bring happiness to him and his fiancé.

• There is no law in the Philippines that allows for the change of entries in a birth certificate on the ground of sex reassignment surgery.
• A change of name is a privilege, not a right, and is strictly governed by statutes which do not include sex reassignment as a valid ground.
• The petition for a change of first name was an improper remedy, as RA 9048 vests primary jurisdiction over such petitions with the local civil registrar through an administrative process.
• Granting the petition would have serious and wide-ranging legal and public policy consequences, particularly concerning the laws on marriage, which is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and other statutes that apply specifically to women.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petition filed in the RTC was the proper remedy to change a first name, considering the enactment of Republic Act No. 9048.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a person who has undergone sex reassignment surgery is entitled to change the entries for their first name and sex in their birth certificate to reflect the results of the surgery.

• Procedural:
  • No, the petition filed in the RTC was an improper remedy for the change of the first name. Under Republic Act No. 9048, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is primarily administrative and lodged with the local civil registrar. A judicial remedy under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court is only available after an administrative petition is first filed and denied.
• Substantive:
  • No, a person cannot change their name and sex in their birth certificate on the ground of sex reassignment. The Court ruled that a birth certificate is a historical record of the facts at the time of birth, and a person's sex is determined at birth. Since the original entries were correct, there is no error to be corrected. The Court found no legal basis in the Civil Code, the Rules of Court, or any special law to justify such a change. The Court emphasized that creating a law to recognize the effects of sex reassignment is a matter of public policy that falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature, not the judiciary.

• Statutory Construction — The Court applied the principle that when words in a statute are not defined, they are to be given their common and ordinary meaning. The terms "sex," "male," and "female" as used in the Civil Register Law were interpreted in their conventional biological sense, which does not include individuals who have undergone sex reassignment.
• Separation of Powers — The Court strictly adhered to this doctrine by stating that its duty is to apply or interpret the law, not to make or amend it. It refused to engage in "judicial legislation" by creating a legal framework for recognizing sex reassignment, deeming it a policy question for Congress to resolve.
• Change of Name as a Privilege, Not a Right — The Court reiterated that a change of name is a privilege granted by the state, not an inherent right. Petitions for such are controlled by statutes, and the petitioner failed to present a ground recognized by law, as sex reassignment is not listed as a valid reason under RA 9048.
• Immutability of Birth Certificate Entries — The Court held that a birth certificate is a historical record of facts existing at the time of birth. Therefore, the sex of a person is determined at birth, and this entry in the civil register is considered immutable if it was not erroneous when made.

• "The duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law, not to make or amend it."
• "However, the remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of public policy to be addressed solely by the legislature, not by the courts."

• Wang v. Cebu City Civil Registrar — Cited to establish that the State has an interest in the names of individuals for identification purposes and that a change of name is a privilege, not a right.
• Lee v. Court of Appeals — Referenced to explain that RA 9048 removed the correction of clerical or typographical errors from the scope of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which now applies only to substantial changes in civil registry entries.
• Co v. Civil Register of Manila — Used to discuss the scope of entries in the civil register that can be corrected under the Civil Code and the Rules of Court.
• Republic v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that a change of name does not alter a person's legal capacity or civil status.

• Civil Code, Article 376 — This article, which requires judicial authority for a change of name, was cited to show the statutory nature of the process, which has been amended by RA 9048 concerning first names.
• Civil Code, Article 412 — This provision, requiring a judicial order to change or correct an entry in the civil register, was discussed in relation to Rule 108 and its limitation to substantial changes not covered by RA 9048.
• Civil Code, Articles 407 and 408 — These articles enumerate the acts, events, and decrees affecting civil status that must be recorded. The Court held that sex reassignment is not among those listed.
• Republic Act No. 9048 (Clerical Error Law) — The Court relied heavily on this law to rule that the petitioner used the wrong remedy (judicial instead of administrative) for the change of first name and that sex reassignment is not one of the grounds permitted under the Act.
• Rules of Court, Rule 108 — The Court clarified that this rule for correcting entries in the civil registry applies only to substantial changes and cannot be used to alter a correct entry (sex at birth) based on a subsequent event like sex reassignment.
• Family Code, Articles 1 and 2 — Cited to underscore the public policy on marriage being a union between a man and a woman, which would be fundamentally altered if the petitioner's request were granted.