NSO Certificate Republic Act 9048 Republic Act 9048 An Act Authorizing C/MCR or Consul General to Correct a Clerical

or Typographical Error in an Entry and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Register Without Need of a Judicial Order. What is Republic Act 9048? Republic Act (RA) 9048 authorizes the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general to correct a clerical or typographical error in an entry and/or change the first name or nickname in the civil register without the need of a judicial order. RA 9048 amends Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which prohibit the change of name or surname of a person, or any correction or change of entry in a civil register without judicial order. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo approved the act on the 22nd of March 2001. With the law taking effect on the 22nd of April 2001, the Civil Registrar-General promulgated Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 2001, which was published in the newspapers in August that year. What corrections can be made by RA 9048? RA 9048 allows these corrections: Correction of clerical or typographical errors in an entry in civil registry documents, except corrections involving the change in sex, age, nationality and status of a person. (A clerical or typographical error refers to an obvious mistake committed in clerical work, either in writing, copying, transcribing, or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as a misspelled name or misspelled place of birth and the like, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or records.) Change of a person's first name in his/her civil registry document under certain grounds specified under the law through administrative process. What are the conditions under RA 9048 that the petitioner needs to comply with? 1. The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; 2. The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community; or, 3. The change will avoid confusion. Who may file the petition? Whether it is for correction of clerical or typographical error, or for change of first name, the petition may be filed by a person of legal age who must have a direct and personal interest in the correction of the error or in the change of first name in the civil register. A person is considered of legal age when he is eighteen years old and above. Thus, a minor (less than eighteen years old) cannot by himself file a petition, neither for correction of clerical or typographical error nor for change of his first name. Only the following persons are considered to have a direct and personal interest in the correction of clerical error or change of first name: 1. Owner of the record that contains the error to be corrected or first name to be changed. 2. Owner's spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, guardian, or any other person duly authorized by law or by the owner of the document sought to be corrected. What should be theform and content of the petition? The petition, whether it is for correction of clerical error or for change of first name, should be accomplished properly and in the prescribed form. Section 5 of RA 9048 and Rule 8 of Administrative Order No. 1, S. 2001 require that the petition should be in the form of an affidavit, hence, it should be subscribed and sworn to before a person authorized to administer oath. Basically, the petition must contain the following facts or information: Merits of the petition Competency of the petitioner Erroneous entry to be corrected and proposed correction; first name to be changed and the proposed new first name What supporting documents are required for correcting a clerical or typographical error in a civil registry document? The petition shall not be processed unless the petitioner supports it with the required documents. The supporting documents should be authentic and genuine, otherwise, the petition shall be denied or disapproved pursuant to Rule 5.8 of Administrative Order No. 1, S. 2001. The following supporting documents are admissible as basic requirements: 1. Certified machine copy of the certificate containing the alleged erroneous entry or entries 2. Not less than two (2) public or private documents upon which the correction shall be based. Examples of these documents are the following: baptismal certificate, voter's affidavit, employment record, GSIS/SSS record, medical record, school record, business record, driver's license, insurance, land titles, certificate of land transfer, bank passbook, NBI/police clearance, civil registry records of ascendants, and others. 3. Notice and Certificate of Posting 4. Certified machine copy the Official Receipt of the filing fee 5. Other documents as may be required by the City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR) What are the supporting papers for change of first name? As is the case of correction of clerical error, no petition for change of first name shall be accepted unless the petitioner submits the required supporting papers, as follows: 1. All the documents required of the petitioner for the correction of clerical error shall also be required of the petitioner for change of first name.

Clearance from authorities such as clearance from employer, if employed; the National Bureau of Investigation; the Philippine National Police; and other clearances as may be required by the concerned C/MCR. 3. Proof of Publication. An affidavit of publication from the publisher and copy of the newspaper clippings should be attached. How much is the fee in filing a petition? The C/MCR and the District/Circuit Registrar (D/CR) are authorized to collect from every petitioner the following rates of filing fees: One thousand pesos (Php 1,000.00) for the correction of clerical error Three thousand pesos (Php 3,000.00) for the change of first name In case of a petition filed with the Consul General (CG), the fees are the same for all Philippine Consulates. The fees are the following: Fifty U. S. dollars ($ 50.00) for the correction of clerical or typographical error One hundred fifty U. S. dollars ($ 150.00) for the change of first name A migrant petitioner shall pay an additional service fee to the Petition Receiving Civil Registrar (PRCR). This service fee shall accrue to the local treasury of the PRCR. Five hundred pesos (Php 500.00) for correction of clerical or typographical error One thousand pesos (Php 1,000.00) for change of first name Where should the petition be filed? The general rule is that petition be filed with the Local Civil Registry Office (LCRO) where the record containing the clerical error to be corrected or first name to be changed is kept. Included in this general rule is the case of the Office of the Clerk of Shari'a Court where records of divorces, revocations of divorces, conversions to Islam are kept and where some Muslim marriages are registered. However, in case the petitioner is a migrant within or outside the Philippines, meaning his present residence or domicile is different from where his civil registry record or records are registered, he may file the petition in the nearest LCRO in his area. His petition will be treated as a migrant petition FACTS: Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional Trial Court Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of her name from Jennifer B. Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan and her gender from female to male. It appearing that Jennifer Cagandahan is suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a rare medical condition where afflicted persons possess both male and female characteristics. Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with secondary male characteristics. To further her petition, Cagandahan presented in court the medical certificate evidencing that she is suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which certificate is issued by Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital, who, in addition, explained that "Cagandahan genetically is female but because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally, thus has organs of both male and female." The lower court decided in her favor but the Office of the Solicitor General appealed before the Supreme Court invoking that the same was a violation of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because the said petition did not implead the local civil registrar. RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. It held that, in deciding the case, the Supreme Court considered the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial. The Supreme Court made use of the availale evidence presented in court including the fact that private respondent thinks of himself as a male and as to the statement made by the doctor that Cagandahan's body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen), which is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male. The Supreme Court further held that they give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an individual deals with what nature has handed out. That is, the Supreme Court respects the respondents congenital condition and his mature decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary person. The Court added that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons and the consequences that will follow. 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. That is, Philippine courts must render judgment based on law and the evidence presented. In the instant case, there is no denying that evidence points that respondent is male. In determining respondent to be a female, there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. The Supreme Court held 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. 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. 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 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 Supreme Court affirmed as valid and justified the respondents position and his personal judgment of being a male. Silverio vs republic FACTS: On November 22, 2003, Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first name from Rommel Jacinto to Melly and sex of birth from male to female in his birth certificate in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. On June 4, 2003, the trial court rendered in favor of petitioner as it would be more in consonance with the principle of justice and equity. That grating the petitioner would bring much awaited happiness on the part of the petitioner and her fianc and the realization of their dreams. ON August 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines, thru the office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. It alleged that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration. ISSUE: Whether or not a person born male would be entitled to change of gender on the civil registrar and afterwards be legally capacitated to entered into marriage with another man. HELD: No. Sex reassignment is not a ground for change of gender. There is no law present that allows such in our country. Neither may entries in the birth certificate as to first name or sex be changed on the ground of equity. The remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of public

2.

policy to be addressed solely by the legislature, not by the courts. As to contracting marriage, our law allows only male and female with the main reason of procreation. Sex reassignment scientifically has not yet made one completely into female, with the complete function for reproduction. The difference between the Silverio and Cagandahan cases Silverio had a sex change or reassignment operation in Bangkok, Thailand. On the other hand, Cagandahan has Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where a person possesses both male and female characteristics. As the Supreme Court stated: [Cagandahan] 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, 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. Silverio deliberately took the sex reassignment operations to change his body to that of a woman. Cagandahan, on the other hand, from birth had a female body, male hormones, two sex organs, and no monthly period.