Lawyers, judges reminded: Use gender-fair language

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