Name: MARIA ANASTASIA G.

MALDO
Course: BSEE 2-A
Student Number: 201109406
Date:

Laws and Policies on Violence and

Discrimination of the Members of LGBTQ+

Activity 1

1. Search in the Internet, the Supreme Court-decided case, “Ang Ladlad LGBT Party
vs COMELEC, GR No. 190582, 8 April 2010”.

Ang Ladlad v. Commission on Elections, Supreme Court of the Philippines (8 April 2010)

Procedural Posture. The Commission on Elections denied the petitioner, Ang Ladlad,
registration as a political organisation in 2009. Ang Ladlad petitioned the Supreme Court
for certiorari review, which was granted. The Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
intervened on behalf of Ang Ladlad in this case before the Supreme Court. Ang Ladlad was a
political organisation composed of members of the Filipino LGBT community. In 2006, in
accordance with Filipino law, Ang Ladlad applied for registration with the Commission on
Elections. The application was denied because the Commission on Elections found that the
organisation lacked a substantial membership base. The group applied again in 2009, but the
Commission on Elections again dismissed the application, this time on moral and religious
grounds. The Commission on Elections found that Ang Ladlad, as an LGBT organisation,
“tolerate[d] immorality which offends religious beliefs”. It cited the Bible and the Koran as
proof that homosexual activity violated standards of morality, and held that it could only
recognise law-abiding parties. The Commission believed that Ang Ladlad’s support of LGBT
issues violated several statutes (including Articles 201, 695 and 1306 of the  Civil Code of the
Republic of the Philippines) that referred to concepts such as “morality,” “mores, good
customs,” “public morals,” and “morals”. Additionally, the Commission believed that
 approving Ang Ladlad would violate the constitutional duty to “promote and protect [the
youth’s] physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being”. Whether the
Commission on Elections’ refusal to register Ang Ladlad violated the right of the
organisation and its members to freedom of association, freedom of expression, and political
participation.

2. Read and examine the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding members of the
LGBTQ+ and their right to participate in the party-list system. Write the specific
rule below.

 LGBTQ+ will remain either male or female protected by the same Bill of Rights that applies
to all the citizens alike.
 Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through
freely chosen representatives.
 Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions and
without any unreasonable restrictions.
 Apply the Constitution and laws as best as it can, uninfluenced by public opinion, and
confident in the knowledge that our democracy is resilient enough to withstand vigorous
debate.
 The law prohibit a discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection
against discrimination on any grounds such as race, colour, sex, language, and religion,
political or other opinion.
 Until the time comes when Ladlad is able to justify that having mixed sexual orientations and
transgender identities is beneficial to the nation, its application for accreditation under the
party-list system will remain just that.
 As a society, the Philippines cannot ignore its more than 500 years of Muslim and Christian
upbringing, such that some moral precepts espoused by said religions have sipped (sic) into
society and these are not publicly accepted moral norms.
 The party-list system is not a tool to advocate tolerance and acceptance of misunderstood
persons or group of persons, rather, it is a tool for the realization of aspirations of
marginalized individuals whose interests are also the nations.
 Domestic Law

 Civil Code of the Philippines, Articles 201 (immoral doctrines, obscene publications and
exhibitions, and indecent shows), 695 and 1306.
 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Article II, 13 (State protection of youth), Article III,
Section 1 (equal protection), and Section 5 (freedom of religion).

Comparative Law

 Constitution of the United States, 14th Amendment (Equal Protection).

 Fricke v. Lynch, United States District Court of Rhode Island, 1980 (holding that LGBT
groups could not be denied the right of freedom of association; limiting government’s
involvement in that right).
 Lawrence v. Texas, United States Supreme Court, 2003 (affirming that same-sex sexual
conduct between consenting adults was part of the liberty protected by the substantive due
process clause of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution, and striking down Texas’
sodomy law).

International Law

 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 25 (rights to take part in the
conduct of public affairs, to vote and to be elected, to have access on general terms of
equality to public service); and Article 26 (rights of equality before the law, equal protection
of the law, and non-discrimination).
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21 (1) (right to take part in the government
either directly or through freely chosen representatives).
 United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria, ECtHR, 2006 (holding that
seemingly radical or shocking political and social ideas are protected through the exercise of
the right of association).
 Toonen v. Australia, United Nations Human Rights Committee, 1994 (holding that Article 26
of the ICCPR prohibits discrimination based on sex, which includes sexual orientation).
 Activity 2.1

Use the same group (5 groups). As a group perform the following:

1. Read the following summary on the case of Jennifer laude:

“On the night of 11 October 2014, Jennifer Laude was brutally killed by Lance Corporal
Joseph Scott Pemberton, a US Marine.

In its December 1, 2015 decision, the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, ruled that lance
Corporal Joseph Scott Pemberton was guilty of homicide and not the murder alleged by the
prosecution.

Sentencing Pemberton to prison for a period of 10-12 years (later reduced to 10 years after an
appeal from the defense), the court found no criminal intent to kill because of the presence of
two(2) mitigating circumstances namely passion and obfuscation, and intoxication.

The court stated that ‘in the heat of passion, he arm-locked the deceased, and dunked his
(her) head in the toilet.’

The court argued that is was the discovery of Jennifer Laude having male genitalia which
‘disgusted and repulsed’ Pemberton and caused such heated passion. Therefore, the court
decided he had no malicious intent to kill, reducing the murder charge to one of homicide.”

2. Discuss the summary within the group and gather the responses of each on whether he/she
agrees or disagrees to the decision of the court and provide their reasons thereof. Fill out the
table provided.

Agree Reason/s Disagree Reason/s

3. Report the outputs in class. (Make a video presentation about the group output)
 Activity 2.2

1) Search in the Internet, the Supreme Court-decided cases of City Manila v Laguio (12
April 2005) G.R. No. 118127 and Gualberto v. CA (28 June 2005) G. R. No. 156254.

Facts: Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) engaged in operating hotels /

motels / sostels / lodging business filed for Declaratory Relief against City of Manila for
enacting Ordinance No 7783 for violating their constitutional rights being confiscatory and
invading their property rights. The said Ordinance prohibits the establishment of certain
business and for those existing business forced to relocate outside Ermita-Malate or to
convert their business to allowable business in the area. Judge Laguio decided in favour of
MTDC declaring the Ordinance ultra vires. Hence the appeal from City of Manila.

Issue: Whether or not Ordinance constitute a proper exercise of police power as the

compulsory closure of the motel business has no reasonable relation to the legitimate
municipal interests sought to be protected?

Decision: Petition denied and decision of lower court affirmed. A valid ordinance must not
prohibit but may regulate trade and must not be unreasonable and for the public good. The
problem is not the establishment, it is not injurious to the health or comfort of the
community, but the human activity that may occur within its premises. The second option
instructing owners to relocate qualifies s taking w/o just compensation. The solution will not
end the problem but only relocates it. The conversion into allowed business is essentially
destroying property w/o due process and just compensation.

2) Read and examine the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding members of LGBTQ+ in
these two cases. Write the specific rule below.

3) Compare the rulings in both cases. Assess the impact of these rulings to the lives of
LGBTQ+.

Activity 2.3
1) Search in the Internet, the Supreme Court-decided cases of Silverio v Republic of the
Philippines (22 October 2007) G.R. No. 174689 and Republic of the Philippines v Jennifer
Cagandahan (12 September 2008) G.R. No. 166676.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 166676, September 12, 2008]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JENNIFER B.

CAGANDAHAN, Respondent.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising purely questions
of law and seeking a reversal of the Decision1 dated January 12, 2005 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna, which granted the Petition for
Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate filed by Jennifer B. Cagandahan and ordered
the following changes of entries in Cagandahan's birth certificate: (1) the name
"Jennifer Cagandahan" changed to "Jeff Cagandahan" and (2) gender from "female" to
"male."

The facts are as follows.

On December 11, 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction
of Entries in Birth Certificate2 before the RTC, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna.

In her petition, she alleged that she was born on January 13, 1981 and was registered
as a female in the Certificate of Live Birth 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.

The petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation for three (3)
consecutive weeks and was posted in conspicuous places by the sheriff of the court.
The Solicitor General entered his appearance and authorized the Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor to appear in his behalf.

To prove her claim, respondent testified and presented the testimony of Dr. Michael
Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine
General Hospital. Dr. Sionzon issued a medical certificate stating that respondent's
condition is known as CAH. He explained that genetically respondent is female but
because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally
and she has two sex organs - female and male. He testified that this condition is very
rare, that respondent's uterus is not fully developed because of lack of female
hormones, and that she has no monthly period. He further testified that respondent's
condition is permanent and 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 RTC granted respondent's petition in a Decision dated January 12, 2005 which
reads:

The Court is convinced that petitioner has satisfactorily shown that he is entitled
to the reliefs prayed [for]. Petitioner has adequately presented to the Court very
clear and convincing proofs for the granting of his petition. It was medically
proven that petitioner's body produces male hormones, and first his body as well
as his action and feelings are that of a male. He has chosen to be male. He is a
normal person and wants to be acknowledged and identified as a male.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Civil Register of Pakil, Laguna is hereby

ordered to make the following corrections in the birth [c]ertificate of Jennifer
Cagandahan upon payment of the prescribed fees:

a) By changing the name from Jennifer Cagandahan to JEFF CAGANDAHAN; and

b) By changing the gender from female to MALE.

It is likewise ordered that petitioner's school records, voter's registry, baptismal

certificate, and other pertinent records are hereby amended to conform with the
foregoing corrected data.

SO ORDERED.3
Thus, this petition by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking a reversal of the
abovementioned ruling.

The issues raised by petitioner are:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION CONSIDERING THAT:

I.

THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULES 103 AND 108 OF THE RULES OF COURT HAVE
NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH; AND,

II.

CORRECTION OF ENTRY UNDER RULE 108 DOES NOT ALLOW CHANGE OF "SEX"
OR "GENDER" IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, WHILE RESPONDENT'S MEDICAL
CONDITION, i.e., CONGENITAL ADRENAL HYPERPLASIA DOES NOT MAKE HER A
"MALE"4
Simply stated, the issue is whether the trial court erred in ordering the correction of
entries in the birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender, from female
to male, on the ground of her medical condition known as CAH, and her name from
"Jennifer" to "Jeff," under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.

The OSG contends that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance with
Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because while the local civil registrar is an
indispensable party in a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Section
3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, respondent's petition before the court a quo did not
implead the local civil registrar.5 The OSG further contends respondent's petition is
fatally defective since it failed to state that respondent is a bona fide resident of the
province where the petition was filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of
such filing as mandated under Section 2(b), Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. 6 The OSG
argues that Rule 108 does not allow change of sex or gender in the birth certificate and
respondent's claimed medical condition known as CAH does not make her a male. 7

On the other hand, respondent counters that although the Local Civil Registrar of Pakil,
Laguna was not formally named a party in the Petition for Correction of Birth
Certificate, nonetheless the Local Civil Registrar was furnished a copy of the Petition,
the Order to publish on December 16, 2003 and all pleadings, orders or processes in
the course of the proceedings,8 respondent is actually a male person and hence his
birth certificate has to be corrected to reflect his true sex/gender, 9 change of sex or
gender is allowed under Rule 108,10 and respondent substantially complied with the
requirements of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court. 11

Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court provide:

Rule 103
CHANGE OF NAME

SECTION 1. Venue. - A person desiring to change his name shall present the
petition to the Regional Trial Court of the province in which he resides, [or, in the
City of Manila, to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court].

SEC. 2. Contents of petition. - A petition for change of name shall be signed and
verified by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his
behalf, and shall set forth:

(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide  resident of the province where
the petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such
filing;

(b) The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought;

(c) The name asked for.

SEC. 3. Order for hearing. - If the petition filed is sufficient in form and
substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a
date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of the order
be published before the hearing at least once a week for three (3) successive
weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the province, as the
court shall deem best. The date set for the hearing shall not be within thirty (30)
days prior to an election nor within four (4) months after the last publication of
the notice.
SEC. 4. Hearing. - Any interested person may appear at the hearing and oppose
the petition. The Solicitor General or the proper provincial or city fiscal shall
appear on behalf of the Government of the Republic.

SEC. 5. Judgment. - Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in
the order that such order has been published as directed and that the allegations
of the petition are true, the court shall, if proper and reasonable cause appears
for changing the name of the petitioner, adjudge that such name be changed in
accordance with the prayer of the petition.

SEC. 6. Service of judgment. - Judgments or orders rendered in connection with

this rule shall be furnished the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the
court issuing the same is situated, who shall forthwith enter the same in the civil
register.

Rule 108
CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES
IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY

SECTION 1. Who may file petition. - Any person interested in any act, event,
order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in
the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of
any entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the province where
the corresponding civil registry is located.

SEC. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. - Upon good and valid

grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected:
(a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of
annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the
beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural
children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil
interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of
a minor; and (o) changes of name.

SEC. 3. Parties. - When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register

is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which
would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.

SEC. 4. Notice and publication. - Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall,
by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause
reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The
court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.

SEC. 5. Opposition.  - The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any
interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication
of such notice, file his opposition thereto.

SEC. 6. Expediting proceedings. - The court in which the proceedings is brought

may make orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant preliminary
 injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such
proceedings.

SEC. 7. Order. - After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or issue
an order granting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either case, a
certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar concerned
who shall annotate the same in his record.
The OSG argues that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance with
Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because respondent's petition did not implead
the local civil registrar. Section 3, Rule 108 provides that the civil registrar and all
persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made
parties to the proceedings. Likewise, the local civil registrar is required to be made a
party in a proceeding for the correction of name in the civil registry. He is an
indispensable party without whom no final determination of the case can be
had.12 Unless all possible indispensable parties were duly notified of the proceedings,
the same shall be considered as falling much too short of the requirements of the
rules.13 The corresponding petition should also implead as respondents the civil
registrar and all other persons who may have or may claim to have any interest that
would be affected thereby.14 Respondent, however, invokes Section 6,15 Rule 1 of the
Rules of Court which 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. We agree that there is substantial compliance with Rule
108 when respondent furnished a copy of the petition to the local civil registrar.

The determination of a person's sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue and
the court must look to the statutes. In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code
provides:

ART. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a

judicial order.
Together with Article 37616 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by Republic
Act No. 904817 in so far as clerical or typographical  errors are involved. The correction
or change of such matters can now be made through administrative proceedings and
without the need for a judicial order. In effect, Rep. Act No. 9048 removed from the
ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of such errors. Rule 108 now
applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register. 18

Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is
not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the
applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. 19

The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code:

ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons
shall be recorded in the civil register.

ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register:

(1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of
 marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7)
legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10)
naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction;
(14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor;
and (16) changes of name.
The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil Code
include even those that occur after birth. 20

Respondent undisputedly has CAH. This condition causes the early or "inappropriate"
appearance of male characteristics. A person, like respondent, with this condition
produces too much androgen, a male hormone. A newborn who has XX chromosomes
coupled with CAH usually has a (1) swollen clitoris with the urethral opening at the
base, an ambiguous genitalia often appearing more male than female; (2) normal
internal structures of the female reproductive tract such as the ovaries, uterus and
fallopian tubes; as the child grows older, some features start to appear male, such as
deepening of the voice, facial hair, and failure to menstruate at puberty. About 1 in
10,000 to 18,000 children are born with CAH.

CAH is one of many conditions 21 that involve intersex anatomy. During the twentieth
century, medicine adopted the term "intersexuality" to apply to human beings who
cannot be classified as either male or female.22 The term is now of widespread use.
According to Wikipedia, intersexuality "is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic
species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are
determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. An organism with intersex may
have biological characteristics of both male and female sexes."

Intersex individuals are treated in different ways by different cultures. In most

societies, intersex individuals have been expected to conform to either a male or female
gender role.23 Since the rise of modern medical science in Western societies, some
intersex people with ambiguous external genitalia have had their genitalia surgically
modified to resemble either male or female genitals. 24 More commonly, an intersex
individual is considered as suffering from a "disorder" which is almost always
recommended to be treated, whether by surgery and/or by taking lifetime medication in
order to mold the individual as neatly as possible into the category of either male or
female.

In deciding this case, we consider the compassionate calls for recognition of the various
degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial. "It has
been suggested that there is some middle ground between the sexes, a `no-man's
land' for those individuals who are neither truly `male' nor truly `female'" 25 The current
state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified either as a
male or as a female, but this Court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature
itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification.

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

subject's 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, respondent's 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 thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces
high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for
considering him as being male. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes
the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such
persons, like respondent, is fixed.

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, 26 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 respondent's 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 one's sexuality and lifestyle preferences,
much less on whether or not to undergo medical treatment to reverse the male
tendency due to CAH. The Court will not consider respondent as having erred in not
choosing to undergo treatment in order to become or remain as a female. Neither will
the Court force respondent to undergo treatment and to take medication in order to fit
the mold of a female, as society commonly currently knows this gender of the human
species. 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. In the absence of evidence that respondent is an
"incompetent">27 and in the absence of evidence to show that classifying respondent as
a male will harm other members of society who are equally entitled to protection under
the law, the Court affirms as valid and justified the respondent's position and his
personal judgment of being a male.

In so ruling we do no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how
an individual deals with what nature has handed out. In other words, we respect
respondent's congenital condition and his mature decision to be a male. Life is already
difficult for the ordinary person. We cannot but respect how respondent deals with his
unordinary state and thus help make his life easier, considering the unique
circumstances in this case.

As for respondent's change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a change
of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of
the reasons adduced and the consequences that will follow.28 The trial court's grant of
respondent's change of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name
to a masculine name. Considering the consequence that respondent's change of name
merely recognizes his preferred gender, we find merit in respondent's change of name.
Such a change will conform with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from
female to male.

WHEREFORE, the Republic's petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 12, 2005
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna, is AFFIRMED. No
pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr., and Brion, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1
 Rollo, pp. 29-32. Penned by Judge Florenio P. Bueser.

2
 Id. at 33-37.

3
 Id. at 31-32.

4
 Id. at 97.

5
 Id. at 99.

6
 Id. at 103.

7
 Id. at 104.

8
 Id. at 136.

9
 Id. at 127.

10
 Id. at 134.

11
 Id. at 136.

12
 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103695, March 15, 1996, 255 SCRA 99, 106.

13
 Ceruila v. Delantar, G.R. No. 140305, December 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 134, 147.

14
 Republic v. Benemerito, G.R. No. 146963, March 15, 2004, 425 SCRA 488, 492.

15
 SEC. 6. Construction.- These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

16
 Art. 376. No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority.

17
 AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT A
CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE
CIVIL REGISTRAR WITHOUT NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLES 376 AND
412 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES. APPROVED, MARCH 22, 2001.

18
 Silverio v. Republic of the Philippines,  G.R. No. 174689, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA 373, 388.

19
 Id. at 389.

20
 Id. at 389.

21
 (1) 5-alpha reductase deficiency; (2) androgen insensitivity syndrome; (3) aphallia; (4) clitoromegaly; (5)
congenital adrenal hyperplasia; (6) gonadal dysgenesis (partial & complete); (7) hypospadias; (8) Kallmann
syndrome; (9) Klinefelter syndrome; (10) micropenis; (11) mosaicism involving sex chromosomes; (12) MRKH
(mullerian agenesis; vaginal agenesis; congenital absence of vagina); (13) ovo-testes (formerly called "true
hermaphroditism"); (14) partial androgen insensitivity syndrome; (15) progestin induced virilization; (16) Swyer
syndrome; (17) Turner syndrome. [Intersexuality <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexual> (visited August 15,
2008).]
 22
 Intersexuality<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexual> (visited August 15, 2008).

23
 Intersexuality<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexual> visited August 15, 2008), citing Gagnon and Simon
1973.

24
 Intersexuality <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexual> (visited August 15, 2008).

25
 M.T. v. J.T. 140 N.J. Super 77 355 A. 2d 204.

26
 The goal of treatment is to return hormone levels to normal. This is done by taking a form of cortisol
(dexamethasone), fludrocortisone, or hydrocortisone) every day. Additional doses of medicine are needed during
times of stress, such as severe illness or surgery.

x x x x

Parents of children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia should be aware of the side effects of steroid therapy.
They should report signs of infection and stress to their health care provider because increases in medication may
be required. In additional, steroid medications cannot be stopped suddenly, or adrenal insufficiency will result.

x x x x

The outcome is usually associated with good health, but short stature may result even with treatment. Males
have normal fertility. Females may have a smaller opening of the vagina and lower fertility. Medication to treat
this disorder must be continued for life. (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia )

27
 The word "incompetent" includes persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who are hospitalized
lepers, prodigals, deaf and dumb who are unable to read and write, those who are of unsound mind, even though
they have lucid intervals, and persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason of age, disease, weak mind, and
other similar causes, cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves and manage their property, becoming
thereby an easy prey for deceit and exploitation. (See Sec. 2 of Rule 92 of the Rules of Court)

28
 Yu v. Republic of the  Philippines, 123 Phil. 1106, 1110 (1966).

2) Read and examine the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding members of the LGBTQ+ in
these two (2) cases. Write the specific rule on the space provided.

3) Compare the ruling in both cases.

4) Assess the impact of these rulings to the lives of LGBTQ+

ASSESSMENT
 1. Why do we need to protect and promote the rights of the members of LGBTQ+?

We should protect the rights of everyone. We define the parameters of what rights are
protected, and we create laws that forbid discrimination on certain grounds. Categories include
things like race, sex, religion and disability. These are mostly innate characteristics (religion is a
bit of an outlier). It seems wrong to deny someone rights based on who they are or an accident of
birth. Sexual orientation and gender identity are innate and inborn as well, so they are more and
more being included. It’s a mistake to call this “protecting and promoting the rights of the
members of the LGBTQ.” All these laws are neutral - they equally protect heterosexual and
cisgender people from discrimination. Please show me a law that states “you may not fire a
person for being gay.” They never say that - they say “you may not fire a person based on their
sexual orientation.” So that also protects a straight person from being fired. Now, if straight
people almost never get fired because they are straight, that’s not my problem. But they are
equally protected by the law. Human rights principles, norms and standards lie at the hear t of
efforts to raise awareness about and advocate for specific actions focused on ending
discrimination against and the exclusion of LGBTI people.

2. What can you do to further the protection and protection of the members of the
LGBTQ+ at home, in school, and in community?

If you’re a school representative, you could hold a group or club specifically for LGBTQ+
students, and potentially run it with any teachers who are trans/queer if there are any. You
could host activities, shows, mental health support meetings within the group and use that
opportunity to help each other! - If you don’t have the authority to host it yourself, you can
suggest it to those with that capability.

At home, you could support or donate to online LGBTQ+ charities like:

 Trevor project
 Bi Pride Uk
 Colours Youth Network
 Mind out
 Sparkle
 The outside project
 The proud trust
 Hidayah
Other options might include hanging out a progress/queer/ally flag outside your house to
show support. Buying from LGBT+ shops might also be beneficial.
Anything makes a difference. Posters, penny donations, even just hopping onto social media
to tell someone they’re valid/accepted is grately appreciated.