CRUZ, LOURDES ERIKA C. Atty. Rodel V.

Capule
2019-0753 lourdeserikacruz211@gmail.com

Legal Medicine
Arellano University School of Law
May 19, 2020
Quiz

1. 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. Aptly stated by the Supreme Court there is
no law which allows correction or change of the entries in the birth
certificate after undergoing sex reassignment. However, the Supreme Court
allowed a correction or change of entries in the birth certificate in a person
having Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia even if such condition is not one of
those stated in the law as a ground for correction or change of entries in the
birth certificate. Reconcile the seemingly contradictory rationalization of
the Court.

Answer: Although the decision of the Supreme Court contradicts the provisons of
the existing laws, it is in consonance with the principles of justice and equity.
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) is a rare condition where a person is born
with intersex variations, wherein he/she possesses both male and female
reproductive organs. In this case, a distinction between natural and unnatural
change in gender. There are two distinct cases which can give light to the issue at
hand, to wit:

A. In the case of Silverio vs. Republic, the petitioner underwent a sexual

reassignment surgery in Bangkok, Thailand. Thereafter, he wishes to
change her name and gender in the birth certificate. He initially won in
the decision of the lower court but was subsequently reversed by the OSG
ruling that there is no law that allows change of name and gender by
virtue of sexual reassignment. Allowing her to do so would alter
established laws on marriage and family relations;

B. However, in the case of Republic vs. Cagandahan, the scenario was

different. Herein petitioner was diagnosed with a rare disease which is
CAH. The Supreme Fourt allowed the change of name and gender in the
birth certificate holding that Philippine statutes compels that a person be
claddified as either male or female but the court is not controlled by mere
appearances when nature itself negates such rigid classification. He has
simply let nature take its course and he has not undertaken unnatural
steps to arrest or interfere with what he is born with. Thus, to him should

1
 belong the primirdial consideration of what courses of action to take
along the oath of his sexual development and maturation.

Based from the foregoing cases, the former involves sex reassignment though
artificial means, unlike the latter which involves sex reassignment through natural
means. I affirm the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Cagandahan case. While it is not
one of those enumerted as a ground for correction or change of entries in the birth,
it is only fair to recognize peculiar circumstances such as a rare congenital disease.
One cannot live in perpetual uncertainty. It is everyone’s natural right to have a self-
defined gender as it is integral to one’s personality, dignity and freedom.

2. Upon issuance of the certificate of registration, Juan dela Cruz opted to have
a professional identification card. After paying the appropriate amount, he
was told by PRC to comeback after 30 days. During the waiting period, Juan
started to see patients in his clinic. Is Juan practicing medicine without a
license?

Answer: NO, Juan is considered licensed pending the issuance of the professional
identification card. According to Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 2382, no person shall engage in
the practice of medicine in the Philippines unless he is at least twenty-one years of
age, has satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board Examination, and is a holder
of a valid Certificate of Registration duly issued to him by the Board of Medical
Examiners. Relatedly, according to Sec. 7 (e) of R.A. No 8981, the certificate of
registration/professional license bearing the regustrant’s name, picture and
registration number, signed by all the members of the Board and the Commission
shall serve as the authority to practice; and at the option of the professional
concerned, ministerially issue the professional identification card, to be used solely
for the purpose of identification, upon payment of appropriate amount.

In the case at bar, Juan was already issued a certificate of registration which
gives him the authority to practice medicine. Based from the foregoing provision,
possession of professional identification card is only permissive in nature by virtue
of the phrase “at the option of the professional concerned” and does not evince
authority because such card is for identification purposes only. Hence, Juan’s act of
accepting patients pending the issuance of professional identification card is valid.