No courtroom drama

According to my professor in Stat Con, there are lawyers who have never really gone inside the courtroom, either to argue for the defense or the prosecution. That is why he required us to attend one court session, and see for ourselves what goes on inside the courtroom. Lucky for us because Judge Pelagio Paguican of RTC  Branch 12 is the first cousin of our classmate. So we were accommodated easily.

Yesterday was our scheduled courtroom visit. There are nine cases slated for the morning session. All are criminal cases. Some are for trial. Others are for arraignment.

When I knew that the cases we were about to witness were for trial, I for one expected to witness a cross-examination of witnesses because it is sometimes the most combative part of the trial process, and it's the part that is often portrayed in films and Pinoy Soap Opera. It's when we often hear the counsels' "Objection Your Honor!"

But I was not able to witness what I expected. Most of the cases up for trial were rescheduled because either the complainant or the witnesses did not show up. There was no courtroom drama.

Nevertheless I'm happy with the outcome of our visit because, at the very least, I understand now why P-noy want to appoint someone who can institute real reforms in the judiciary. Just look around the Benigno S. Aquino Jr. Hall of Justice and notice the facilities and equipment there.

Whether the new Chief Justice is up for the challenge I don't know.

Memorable Decisions

Since Christopher Columbus Langdell pioneered the method in Harvard Law School, the Casebook method has been a fixture of any law school, especially in the Philippines whose system of legal education is largely based on the American system.

The Casebook method goes like this (at least, as it is practiced in UM College of Law): A professor assigns several cases, landmark or otherwise, to the students. These cases are chosen because they illustrate how a usually vague  provision of the law is applied and given meaning by the Supreme Court. The case is then discussed together with the provision of the law. The professor asks a hapless student about the case's facts, the issues it brought before the court, and the court's ruling.

A professor, however, assigns so many cases that a student finds himself in a quagmire. For example, a professor assigns five to ten cases for the next meeting's discussion. And that's just for one subject. Then another professor in another subject assigns the same number of cases. Then a third does the same.

No wonder students like me hold the casebook method both deplorable and lovable. Indeed, what has emerged is a love-hate relationship between the student and the method.

There are, however, few cases that I couldn't just forget because I find them queer or interesting:

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997

This is a case where the wife filed a petition to have her marriage annulled on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. What did the wife say that constituted psychological incapacity? In the short period of time that they lived together as husband and wife, the wife couldn't stand anymore the "senseless and protracted" refusal of the husband to have sex. How the Supreme Court ruled. Go read the case.

Silverio vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. 174689 October 22, 2007

Petitioner Rommel Jacinto Silverio is a well-educated man. He has an M.A. and PhD in Sociology from University of Hawaii, in Manoa. Then he went to Bangkok, Thailand, and had his penis removed, and in lieu of it is a vagina---a procedure commonly called as sex reassignment. Now because of her sex reassignment, she petitioned to have his name changed from "Rommel" to "Melai," and his sex as well, from "male" to "female." Why? Because he wanted to be married with his American boyfriend here in the Philippines.

Question: May a person successfully petition for a change of name and sex appearing in the birth certificate to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery? The RTC where Silverio filed his petition said yes. "The court is of the opinion that granting the petition would be more in consonance with the principles of justice and equity. With his sexual [re-assignment], petitioner, who has always felt, thought and acted like a woman, now possesses the physique of a female. Petitioner’s misfortune to be trapped in a man’s body is not his own doing and should not be in any way taken against him."

The Supreme Court was, however, not impressed, and overruled the decision of the lower court.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Cagandahan G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008

In this case, Cagandahan was Christened as Jennifer. Problem was she diagnosed with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), "a condition where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics." Cagandahan also seemed to have two sex organs. Growing up, however, she thinks, feels, and acts as 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 lower court granted her petition, and the Supreme Court concurred. It said: "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."