Caramat, Clinton C.

Special Proceedings

Right to Pursuit of Happiness

Is it a reality or a mere fantasy?
Respect! It is what is required when confronted with one
possessing it, be it a person or an animal.
It is a fact that human right is considered as an inherent
right. It does not need any law for it to be enforced. Also,
the modern trend of human right (being dynamic) provides that
the right to pursuit of happiness is a 4th generation right. In
the United States, the LGBT community rejoiced as their rights
and obligations were finally recognized.
Based from the above-mentioned propositions, it is on the
opinion of the author that the Supreme Court should have also
granted the petition of the petitioner in the Silverio Case.
In such case, petitioner feels like and acts like a woman
despite being in a mans body. Even if he was born male and
later availed surgeries and medications which caused her the
artificial state of being a woman, still, she has the right to
change her name in a feminine manner and change her sex to
female if we are to consider her human right to pursuit of
happiness. But in such case, the Court failed to consider such
right.
Unlike in the Kagandahan Case, the Court granted it because
there was no intervention on the part of the petitioner to
acquire such state. Such conclusion is erroneous. The fact

Caramat, Clinton C.

Special Proceedings

that there was an intervention from the petitioner to acquire

the state of gender should be immaterial. The ultimate
consideration should be the happiness of the petitioner, even
if the gender was obtained naturally or artificially. We have
to accept the fact that there are homosexuals that do not
prefer and others who do prefer sex change. We have to respect
that. If change name is allowed, why is it not the case in
terms of change of gender if both of them are for the purpose
of satisfaction of the petitioner?
Another commentary of the author is that in case of
ambiguity of whether or not a right exists, the scale of
justice should tilt in favor of the one raising such right. In
both cases, despite the absence of hard law granting the right
of petitioners, their petition should be granted. The right to
pursuit of happiness should be treated not as a mere
privilege. It does not jeopardize the state. Neither does the
exercise of such right violate others. So why should the
exercise of such right be prohibited?
It is only a matter of time before the Philippines would
accept and recognize the right to pursuit of happiness. An
elected transgender in the Congress is a start. It is a
manifestation that some citizens are accepting the fact that
the LBGT Community may be considered as assets and they should
not be treated inferiorly but equally.