Republic Act No. 10172 – Correction of Clerical and Typographical Errors in Month and Date of Birth and Sex of a Person Appearing in Civil Register

January 26, 2013

President Benigno S. Aquino III recently signed into law Republic Act No. 10172 entitled “An Act Further Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to Correct Clerical or Typographical Errors in the Day and Month in the Date of Birth or Sex of a Person Appearing in the Civil Register Without Need of a Judicial Order Amending for this Purpose Republic Act Numbered Ninety Forty-Eight. The said law amended Republic Act No. 9048, particularly Section 1 thereof and now allows the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general to change or correct without a judicial order, clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname, the day and month in the date of birth or sex of a person where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry.

Whereas before it was only clerical or typographical errors and change in the first name or nickname of a person which may be changed or corrected by a city or municipal civil registrar or consul general without a judicial order, RA 10172 now allows changes or corrections in the month and date of birth and sex of a person, even without the person petitioning the court.


As defined under RA 10172, a “clerical or typographical error” refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth, mistake in the entry of day and month in the date of birth or the sex of the person or the like, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or records: Provided, however, That no correction must involve the change of nationality, age, or status of the petitioner.”


So how do you apply for a correction under RA 10172?

The law states that a petition for correction of a clerical or typographical error, or for change of first name or nickname, as the case may be, shall be in the form of an affidavit, subscribed and sworn to before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The affidavit shall set forth facts necessary to establish the merits of the petition and shall show affirmatively that the petitioner is competent to testify to the matters stated. The petitioner shall state the particular erroneous entry or entries, which are sought to be corrected and/or the change sought to be made.

The petition shall be supported with the following documents:

(1) A certified true machine copy of the certificate or of the page of the registry book containing the entry or entries sought to be corrected or changed;

(2) At least two (2) public or private documents showing the correct entry or entries upon which the correction or change shall be based; and

(3) Other documents which the petitioner or the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general may consider relevant and necessary for the approval of the petition.

Also, a petition for correction of erroneous entry concerning the date of birth or the sex of a person should be accompanied by earliest school record or earliest school documents such as, but not limited to, medical records, baptismal certificate and other documents issued by religious authorities;

Moreover, any entry involving change of gender must be accompanied by a certification issued by an accredited government physician attesting to the fact that the petitioner has not undergone sex change or sex transplant. The petition for change of first name or nickname, or for correction of erroneous entry concerning the day and month in the date of birth or the sex of a person, as the case may be, shall be published at least once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.

Furthermore, the petitioner shall submit a certification from the appropriate law enforcements, agencies that he has no pending case or no criminal record.

The petition and its supporting papers shall be filed in three (3) copies to be distributed as follows: first copy to the concerned city or municipal civil registrar, or the consul general; second copy to the Office of the Civil Registrar General; and third copy to the petitioner.



Sereno is 24th Chief Justice

August 24, 2012

President Benigno Aquino III has appointed Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno as the 24th Chief Justice of the Philippines, becoming the first woman and second youngest Chief Justice to hold the highest judicial position in the country. Chief Justice Sereno replaces impeached Chief Justice Renato C. Corona who was found guilty in his impeachment trial last May. She was the first appointee of President Aquino in the Supreme Court and at 52 years old will head the judiciary for the next 18 years or until she reaches the mandatory retirement age of 70. Sereno is a product of the University of the Philippines College of Law, class of 1984 and holds a degree in economics at the Ateneo de Manila University. She passed the bar examinations in 1984 with a grade of 89.10% and earned a Masters Degree in Law from the University of Michigan Law School. Before she was appointed to the Supreme Court, she served as the Executive Director of the Asian Institute of Management. Chief Justice Sereno was also a legal counselor of the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body Secretariat in Geneva and was a Commissioner and Chairman of the steering committee of the Preparatory Commission on the Constitutional Reform where she was the lone female member. She is married to Mario Jose E. Sereno and has two children, Maria Sophia and Jose Lorenzo.

For more information on CJ Sereno, visit this link:

Watch her interview before the Judicial and Bar Council:


Shortlist for Chief Justice revealed by JBC

August 14, 2012

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has come out with its shortlist for the vacant position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which will be submitted to President Benigno Aquino III. Among the candidates contained in the shortlist are Acting Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Carpio, Associate Justices Roberto Abad, Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Teresita Leonardo de Castro and Arturo Brion, Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, former Ateneo Law Dean Cesar Villanueva and former Rep. Ronaldo Zamora. The position of Chief Justice became vacant after former Chief Justice Renato Corona was found guilty in his Senate Impeachment Trial last May 29, 2012 for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust for his failure to declare $2.4 million and P80 million in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth. Under the 1987 Constitution, the President has 90 days or until August 27, 2012 to decide on who will be the next Chief Justice. The 1987 Constitution also requires that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court be at least 40 years old, must have practiced law or served as judge for 15 years, and with proven competence, integrity, probity and independence. To see how the JBC voting went, please visit this link.


Judgment Day: Chief Justice Renato C. Corona

May 28, 2012

By: Atty. Ryan L. Tanjutco

The seemingly never ending saga that is the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona is about to come to a historic close. For the first time, an impeachment court was able to complete its proceedings and is ready to render judgment.

Despite their fumbles and miscues, the prosecution has been able to salvage three out of the eight Articles of Impeachment. The centerpiece being Article 2 which alleges that Chief Justice Renato C. Corona culpably violated the Constitution and/or betrayed the public trust by failing to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth in accordance with Section 17, Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution.

On the part of the defense, Chief Justice Corona directly admitted that he did not disclose his dollar deposits amounting to $2.4 Million because they were confidential under the Foreign Currency Deposits Act. He also claimed that he did not state in his SALN his three other peso accounts amounting to Php 80 Million because these were co-mingled funds and included money from Basa Guidote Enterprises, Inc., a corporation owned by the family of his wife.

Stripped of all its drama, legalese and hyperboles, the main issue that will determine the fate of the Chief Justice is whether he committed an impeachable offense when he did not declare his Dollar deposits and other Peso accounts in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).

The senator-judges are now faced with the unenviable task of either convicting or acquitting the Chief Justice by considering the applicable laws and the evidence and testimony on record. A judgment of acquittal would mean that they accept hook, line and sinker, the defense theory that a public official is not bound to declare his foreign currency deposit accounts in his SALN due to Section 8 of Republic Act 6426 or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act, which states, to wit:

“All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private.”

Such a decision, however, is fraught with disastrous consequences for transparency and accountability as corrupt government officials need to only convert their pesos into foreign currency to avoid declaring their assets in their SALN. Ultimately, it would offer them a haven to escape scrutiny and examination of their ill-gotten wealth. This is not consistent with the spirit and intent of Section 17, Article XI of The 1987 Constitution which declares that “a public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth.”

It also renders nugatory the provision of Section 8 of Republic Act 6713 or the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees”, which states that “public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.

It must also be remembered that the confidentiality clause of the RA 6426 is directed only to banks to keep the foreign currency bank accounts of their clients privileged and confidential. It should not be taken to mean and be used as an excuse for a government official to evade his disclosure responsibilities under the law.

It has also been argued that the non-declaration by the Chief Justice of his dollar deposits and other peso account in his SALN does not constitute an impeachable offense, Jurisprudence, however, is replete with cases dismissing government officials for non-declaration of assets in their SALN for lesser reasons than those proferred by the Chief Justice. Thus,

  • In the case of Rabe vs. Flores [A.M. No. P-97-1247.  May 14, 1997] Interpreter III Delsa M. Flores was dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations for merely failing to disclose in her SALN that she was running a stall in the market.
  • In the case of Concerned Taxpayer vs. Doblada [A.M. No. P-99-1342.  June 8, 2005], Norberto V. Doblada, Jr., Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch 155, was accused of having acquired properties during his incumbency as sheriff, the values of which “are manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public employee and to his other lawful income or incomes from legitimately acquired property. He was found guilty of violating Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 for his failure to declare a true and detailed statement of his assets and liabilities for the years 1974, 1976, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995 and 1998 and was meted out the penalty of dismissal from service pursuant to Section 9(b), R.A. No. 3019 and Section 11, R.A. No. 6713.
  • In the case of Flores vs. Montemayor [G.R. No. 170146, August 25, 2010], Atty. Antonio F. Montemayor was a Regional Director II of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Region IV, in San Fernando, Pampanga. He did not declare his 2001 Ford Expedition in his 2001 SALN and a 1997 Toyota Land Cruiser in his 2001 and 2002 SALN.  He was, thus, dismissed from government service for his repeated and consistent failure to reflect truthfully and adequately all his assets and liabilities in his SALN.

Ultimately, the Chief Justice, being the highest magistrate of the land, must be held to a higher standard. Not only must his actions be guided by legal principles but he should be morally upright and be the among the first to uphold transparency and accountability in government. Fittingly, the words of the Supreme Court in a slew of cases are now apropos:

“We have repeatedly held that although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in the judiciary.  Personnel in the judiciary should conduct themselves in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties but also in their everyday life.  They are strictly mandated to maintain good moral character at all times and to observe irreproachable behavior so as not to outrage public decency.” [Legaspi vs. Garrete, 242 SCRA 679, 701, March 27, 1995 citing Montemayor vs. Collado, Adm. Matter No. 2519-MJ, September 10, 1981, 107 SCRA 258, 264; Association of Court Employees of Panabo, Davao vs. Tupas, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-87-141, July 12, 1989, 175 SCRA 292, 296; Leynes vs. Veloso, Adm. Matter No. 689-MJ and Virrey vs. Veloso, Adm. Matter No. 809-MJ, the two latter cases promulgated on April 13, 1978, 82 SCRA 352, 328.]

Little did the Supreme Court know that these pronouncements would one day apply to one of their esteemed colleagues, none other than the Chief Justice of the Philippines himself. With judgment day close at hand, the Chief Justice of the Philippines can only wish that he be excused.