PAGULAYAN, GIONICO L.

Special Proceedings
PURSUIT OF HAPINESS
What is pursuit of happiness? Many define Pursuit of happiness as the
fundamental right to freely pursue a joyful life and to live a life in way that it
makes you happy. However, is this fundamental right absolute? Of course in
all Human rights there is always an exception, in which such a human right
ends when it will prejudice the right of others. Therefore, the pursuit of
happiness, or the pursuit to a happy life is always subject to the limitation
whereby the right to pursue a happy life ends if it will prejudice the right of
others. In other words this right is not absolute for it ends when it will cause
injustice or unfairness to others.
In the controversial case of Silverio vs. Republic and Republic vs.
Cagandahan, the Supreme Court infers its ruling to the Pursuit of happiness.
Both cases deal with the change of sexual status. However, in the case of
Silverio the Supreme Court denied the petition of Silverio to change his
status from male to female, while in the case of Cagandahan, the Court
grants his petition to change her status from female to male. The court in the
Silverio case did not consider Silverios right to pursue a life of happiness,
while in the Cagandahan case, the court somehow base its decision to
Cagandahans pursuit of happiness. Hence, base from the forgoing, it can be
gleamed that there is controversy with regard to the pursuit of happiness of
a man and a women to his sex preference.

In the Silverio case, Silverio undergo sex reassignment surgery which

is the basis of his petition to change his sex from male to female. It is only
proper for the Court to dismiss his petition. Yes, Silverio in his pursuit of
happiness has the right to change his sex status or preference, however by
rewarding such right to him under the context of Philippine jurisdiction, such
will result to the desecration of the public policy, public morality and religious
belief of the Filipinos, in which it is somehow a taboo to declare a man as a
women basing only on his sex reassignment. It is fact that in todays
generation sex reassignment is not that absolutely accepted for it will
contradict the public policy and morality as well as religious belief.
On one hand, in the case of Cagandahan, her petition was solely based
on the fact that she was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
which is a condition where a person is afflicted to possess both male and
female characteristics. Moreover, there also is a clear indication that
Cagandahan is more of a man that a woman. Hence, it is only right for the
court to grant her petition on the ground of pursuit of happiness. To declare
Cagandahan as male in this case is a part of his right to pursuit of happiness
because there is really a mistake in the entry of his child birth. In declaring
Cagandahan as male, such will result on part of Cagandahan to have a happy
life, wherein he will not be mistaken to be a female.
I concur with the decision of the Supreme Court in these two cases, for
there is big difference in the facts of the two cases, in which the inference to
the pursuit of happiness cannot be applied to both cases. The right of pursuit

happiness is always subjective, and its application will depend on the

circumstances. Moreover, ones right to sex preference is part of the
fundamental right of pursuit of happiness. However, such right is always
subject to limitation for there is no such thing as absolute right.