Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 313 views

    G.R. NO. 184535, SEPTEMBER 03, 2019 Sister Pilar Versoza, Petitioner, vs. People of The Philippines, Et Al., Respondents. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Roxanne Valino
    This case involves a man named Larry who had cognitive disabilities. His legal guardians had him undergo a bilateral vasectomy without his consent when he was 24 years old. The court ruled that this was a case of child abuse under the law as Larry was unable to comprehend the long-term implications of the procedure. While parents have authority over their children, this does not include violating human dignity. The petition was ultimately denied as the petitioner had died and the solicitor general did not appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    G.R. NO. 184535, SEPTEMBER 03, 2019 Sister Pilar Versoza, Petitioner, vs. People of The Philippines, Et Al., Respondents. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Roxanne Valino
    313 views2 pages
    This case involves a man named Larry who had cognitive disabilities. His legal guardians had him undergo a bilateral vasectomy without his consent when he was 24 years old. The court ruled that this was a case of child abuse under the law as Larry was unable to comprehend the long-term implications of the procedure. While parents have authority over their children, this does not include violating human dignity. The petition was ultimately denied as the petitioner had died and the solicitor general did not appeal.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    11

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a man named Larry who had cognitive disabilities. His legal guardians had him undergo a bilateral vasectomy without his consent when he was 24 years old. The court ruled that this was a case of child abuse under the law as Larry was unable to comprehend the long-term implications of the procedure. While parents have authority over their children, this does not include violating human dignity. The petition was ultimately denied as the petitioner had died and the solicitor general did not appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    313 views2 pages

    G.R. NO. 184535, SEPTEMBER 03, 2019 Sister Pilar Versoza, Petitioner, vs. People of The Philippines, Et Al., Respondents. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Roxanne Valino
    This case involves a man named Larry who had cognitive disabilities. His legal guardians had him undergo a bilateral vasectomy without his consent when he was 24 years old. The court ruled that this was a case of child abuse under the law as Larry was unable to comprehend the long-term implications of the procedure. While parents have authority over their children, this does not include violating human dignity. The petition was ultimately denied as the petitioner had died and the solicitor general did not appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    11. G.R. NO.

    184535, SEPTEMBER 03, 2019


    SISTER PILAR VERSOZA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
    PHILIPPINES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

    FACTS
    This case involves a man with cognitive disability who, at 24 years old, was made
    by his legal guardians to undergo bilateral vasectomy without his consent.
    On June 19, 1986, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3 of Balanga, Bataan
    appointed the Aguirre Spouses to be the legal guardians of Larry and of his
    properties.
    In November of 2001, respondent Dr. Agatep, a urologist/surgeon, was approached
    concerning the intention to have Larry, then 24 years of age, vasectomized. Prior to
    performing the procedure on the intended patient, Dr. Agatep required that Larry
    be evaluated by a psychiatrist in order to confirm and validate whether or not the
    former could validly give his consent to the medical procedure on account of his
    mental deficiency.
    In view of the required psychiatric clearance, Larry was brought to respondent Dr.
    Pascual, a psychiatrist, for evaluation. In a psychiatric report dated 21 January
    2002, respondent Dr. Pascual recommended that the responsibility of decision
    making may be given to his parent or guardian.
    Two (2) cases arose simultaneously after the vasectomy. G.R. NO. 170723, filed
    by Gloria Aguirre for violation of Art. 172 (falsification) and Art. 262 (mutilation),
    was denied for lack of merit.
    The second case is this Petition filed by Sister Versoza when she learned about the
    procedure done on her former ward. However, the same was denied up to CA.
    Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE
    Whether the bilateral vasectomy conducted on Larry constitutes child abuse under
    R.A. 7610.

    RULING
    Yes. The unconsented vasectomy on Larry is clearly a case of cruelty, not so much
    for the manner it was done, but because of the circumstances surrounding its
    commission and the resulting limitations to the way Larry will be able to live the
    rest of his life.
    In his speech, "The Common Right to Privacy," retired Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno
    distinguished among three (3) different aspects or "strands" of the right to privacy,
    namely: (1) locational privacy; (2) informational privacy; and (3) decisional privacy.
    Locational privacy, also known as situational privacy, pertains to privacy that is
    felt in a physical space. It may be violated through an act of trespass or through an
    unlawful search.[65] Meanwhile, informational privacy refers to one's right to
    control "the processing—i.e., acquisition, disclosure, and use—of personal
    information."[66]
    Decisional privacy, regarded as the most controversial among the three, refers to
    one's right "to make certain kinds of fundamental choices with respect to their
    personal and reproductive autonomy." It finds relevance in matters that involve
    one's reproductive health.

    ANALYSIS
    The vasectomy was a decision made by respondents despite the medical finding that
    Larry, at that time, was unable to comprehend the procedure's long-term ramifications.
    While parents are capable of exercising authority over their children, this authority is by
    no means unlimited. Parental authority is both a right and an obligation, granted by law
    under the presumption that it will be exercised for the full development of a child's mind,
    heart, and senses.[75] Under no circumstances is it allowed to be exercised in a way that is
    violative of human dignity or will diminish another's intrinsic worth.
    CONCLUSION
    WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. This Court reached the consensus that the
    action must be denied for lack of a party, on account of petitioner's death, and for
    lack of an appeal from the Office of the Solicitor General.

    You might also like