The Supreme Court called out a judge and a prosecutor for their use of non-gender-fair language in an annulment case, emphasizing the need for gender-sensitive language in legal proceedings.
In a decision penned by Acting Chief Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Court's Second Division noted instances of inappropriate language used during court proceedings involving the petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Aiko Yokogawa-Tan.

Yokogawa-Tan had filed a petition in 2016 seeking the nullity of her marriage with Jonnell Tan on the grounds of psychological incapacity.

Despite the lower courts' dismissal of her petition due to insufficient evidence, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Yokogawa-Tan, declaring her marriage null and void based on clear and convincing evidence of Tan's psychological incapacity.

However, in addition to ruling on the case, the Supreme Court also addressed the use of non-gender-fair language by the judge and prosecutor involved.

The Court highlighted statements made during the proceedings that implied fault on Yokogawa-Tan's part for marrying Tan despite knowing about his affair.

The judges decision included a statement made by Yokogawa-Tan: “Sir, nauna po ‘yung marriage kasi before I found out that he has a child with the other, because I know that he has a girlfriend, I didn’t realize na may baby talaga sila.”

The Court also pointed out questions posed by the judge and prosecutor that reinforced negative stereotypes about women and marriage.

“So you’re the winner?,” the judge was quoted as asking the petitioner. “So parang pinkit mo lang ba siya, ganun ba ang ibig sabihin?”

The Court emphasized the importance of using gender-fair language in legal proceedings and reminded the bench and the bar to adhere to the Guidelines on the Use of Gender-Fair Language in the Judiciary and Gender-Fair Courtroom Etiquette.

These guidelines, approved by the Supreme Court En Banc in 2022, aim to combat sexist language in the judiciary and promote gender equality.

The Court further clarified in the Guidelines that “courts are courts of evidence, and its power to take judicial notice of matters is limited.

Therefore, courts cannot and should not perpetuate gender stereotypes, which rest on unfounded generalizations regarding the characteristics and roles of binary and non-binary genders, but indisputably influence the perspectives of the judges and litigants alike.

This is evident with respect to matters at issue before the courts, as well as in the language the courts employ in adjudication.”

The use of non-sexist language in official documents, communications, and issuances is thus encouraged under the Guidelines.

Cited as examples are the use of “person” instead of “man” or “humanity” instead of “mankind.”

Also discouraged is the use of masculine terms for professions or occupations: “chairperson” instead of “chairman” or “business owners” instead of “businessmen.”