current sex, noting that the status of a person is “more or less permanent in nature,”
not ordinarily terminable at his own will,” and that a person’s sex is “determined at
birth,” by visual examination of the infant’s genitalia.^59
In the second case, however, the court allowed the changes in the birth certificate,
stating that the “determining factor” is “what he thinks of his/her sex”; that is to say,
the person’s choice.^60 The court considered the petitioner as “biologically or natur-
ally intersex,” possessing both male and female characteristics. The court ruled:
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 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 [congenital
adrenal hyperplasia]...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. [Accordingly], the Court affirms as valid
and justified the respondent’s position and his personal judgment of
being a male.
Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and the
transgendered to form a party list to vie for a Congressional seat. One of the post-
Marcos reforms was the creation of party-list seats in Congress. These seats are
reserved for disadvantaged groups not represented by the major political parties in
the usual district elections. The election commission refused to accredit theAng
LadladLGBT because it failed to establish that having “mixed sexual orientations and
transgender identities” had been accepted into “generally accepted public morals,”
and that the group had therefore lied in its application when it declared that it was not
advocating immorality. The court reversed, holding that the “bare invocation” of
morality does not constitute a “sufficient government interest” to justify exclusion
of homosexuals from participation in the party-list system.^61 The court ruled:
We are not blind to the fact that, through the years, homosexual
conduct, and perhaps homosexuals themselves, have borne the brunt
of societal disapproval...Nonetheless, we recall that the Philippines
has not seen fit to criminalize homosexual conduct. Evidently,
(^59) Silveriov.Republic, G.R. No 174689 (October 22 , 2007 ).
(^60) Republicv.Cagandahan, G.R. No 166676 (September 12 , 2008 ).
(^61) Ang Ladlad LGBT Partyv.Commission on Elections, G.R. No 190582 (April 8 , 2010 ).