Republic v Cagandahan

Topic: Life, Liberty (Pursuit of Happiness), Property Rights; Kinds of Hierarchy of Rights

The RTC of Siniloan, Laguna granted the respondent’s petition for correction of entries in birth certificate concerning the
change in his gender—from female to male—and his name—from Jennifer to Jeff.
The respondent had been living as a female but was diagnosed with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a
condition where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics. Due to her overproduction of androgen,
she had underdeveloped female organs. She then alleged that her appearance is one of a male, and in mind and in emotions,
she is a male person.
In support of her petition, she presented Dr. Michael Sionzon of Department of Psychiatry, UP-PGH, who testified that her
condition is permanent and he recommended the change of gender because
respondent has made up her mind, adjusted to her chosen role as male, and the gender change would be advantageous to her.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) file the present petition to reverse the RTC’s ruling.

The issue is whether or not the petition to change her gender from female to male should be granted.

The Court held that it should be. The Court recognized the existence of CAH and its biological effects on the respondent—it
caused his body system to produce high levels of male hormones and because of this, the respondent had ambiguous
genitalia. In this case, the Court held that 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.

In this case, the respondent let nature took its course. He did not undergo any treatment to force his body to conform to
either male or female mold. In the absence of any law on the matter, the Court held that it does not have the authority to
interfere with respondent’s lifestyle and sexuality preferences and his choice on how he lives his life. The respondent has the
human right to the pursuit of happiness and health; he has the right to choose. There is no evidence to show that his personal
choice is detrimental to others and that he is incompetent in making such choice.