MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court reminded judges and lawyers to use gender-fair language during trials and proceedings.
This was done through a decision penned by Acting Chief Justice Marvic Leonen in a case where the prosecutor and a judge used non-gender-neutral language in a marriage annulment proceeding.
"'Parting is already a sorrow. It need not be more than what it already is.' The bench and the bar are reminded to abide by the Guidelines on the Use of Gender-Fair Language in the Judiciary and Gender--Fair Courtroom Etiquette," the high court's decision read.
The case is about a petition filed by Aiko Yokogawa-Tan in 2016 for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Jonnell Tan, on the ground of psychological incapacity, which was dismissed by Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) in 2018 due to insufficiency of evidence.
The case was brought up to the Court of Appeals (CA) but was also denied.
This prompted Aiko Yokogawa-Tan to appeal to the high court to which the SC reversed and set aside the rulings of both the RTC and the CA.
The SC ruled their marriage as "null and void" due to clear and convincing evidence that Jonnell Tan was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his essential marital obligations.
“Considering the totality of [the] evidence, this Court finds that petitioner established with clear and convincing evidence that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his essential marital obligations. Thus, their marriage is void under Article 36 of the Family Code,” the high court’s decision read.
The SC ruling then pointed out that the opening line of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision already implied that the petitioner was at fault and “should not be afforded relief for marrying respondent knowing he had an affair.”
The RTC decision read:
Believing that the respondent had not been faithful to her, despite knowing fully well that the latter had another girlfriend other than her prior to their marriage, here comes the petitioner, praying to this Court that her marriage to the respondent be declared null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity of the respondent under Article 36 of the New Family Code.
The RTC decision also mentioned that Jonnell Tan’s infidelity was a “contest” between the two women involved in the case.
A portion of the RTC decision read:
Both women being pregnant, it became a "contest" as to who should win the "guy". The petitioner appears to have won, when she got the blessings [sic] of the respondent's parents to marry her.
The SC also pointed out that the prosecutor asked the petitioner during a cross-examination if she was the “winner.”
The fiscal's question, according to the high court:
So you're the winner?
'So parang pinikot mo lang ba siya, ganun ba ang ibig mong sabihin?
The high court said that this kind of language shifts the blame to women for marrying an unfaithful man after becoming pregnant knowing that society stigmatizes single mothers.
“Together, the foregoing reinforces the trope that women are out to entrap men into marriage. The disparaging language shifts the blame on the woman for marrying the unfaithful man after getting pregnant as if society did not stigmatize single mothers,” the SC’s decision read.