GR 213346 Leonen (Digest)
G.R. No. 213346 , July 29, 2019
Republic of the Philippines vs. Miller Omandam Unabia
FACTS
The Republic assailed the decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ordering the correction of the sex entry in respondent Miller Omandam Unabia’s birth certificate from male to female. The Republic argued that determining an individual’s true sex is not based on simple visual observation. Respondent countered that the evidence, including a medical certificate certifying him as “phenotypically male,” supported the lower courts’ findings. The majority opinion, in denying the Republic’s petition, noted that a photograph in the record showed respondent had a prominent Adam’s apple, which it considered an anatomical feature of a male.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied Republic Act No. 10172 to allow the administrative correction of a clerical error regarding sex in the birth certificate, and whether the presence of an Adam’s apple is a definitive determinant of biological sex.
RULING
The petition was denied. Justice Leonen, in a separate concurring opinion, agreed with the result but clarified critical conceptual distinctions. He emphasized that “sex” and “gender” are not interchangeable; sex is biological, based on anatomical, endocrinal, and chromosomal features, while gender is a social construct. He disagreed with the majority’s factual premise that a prominent Adam’s apple conclusively indicates male sex, explaining that both men and women possess an Adam’s apple, with its prominence influenced by hormonal levels and not exclusive to males.
On the procedural issue, Justice Leonen concurred that Republic Act No. 10172 , being a remedial or procedural law, applies retroactively. The law, which amended Republic Act No. 9048 to allow the administrative correction of clerical errors concerning sex, can be applied to cases pending at the time of its enactment. Such laws do not create or destroy vested rights but facilitate the adjudication of cases and confirm existing rights. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly applied R.A. No. 10172 in ordering the correction, as it merely reinforced the respondent’s right to have an accurate birth record without impairing any vested right.