9048 update

8/9/2019 9048 Update

1/30

1

Updates on Republic Act No. 9048 otherwise known as the Clerical ErrorLaw1

By

Editha R. Orci lla and Marizza B. Grande

Introduction

Republic Act No. 9048 was approved by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on22 March 2001. This law is a consolidation of House Bill No. 9797 and SenateBill No. 2159 amending Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.It’s been twelve years since this law was passed and implemented. However,can we say that the process of implementing this law is fully understood by all

those involved and authorized to process petitions for Change of First Name(CFN) and Correction of Clerical Errors (CCE)? Are there still problemsencountered in the implementation of this law? Let us see what the data show.

This paper aims to present and discuss actual problem cases or observations inthe processing of petitions submitted by the Local Civil Registry Offices (LCROs)to the Legal Services Division (LSD) and likewise the observations/problemsencountered by the Document Management Division (DMD) of the NationalStatistics Office (NSO) in the processing of requests for a copy of the correcteddocument/s.

Specifically, the objectives of this paper are:

1. To update the Civil Registrars, Local Civil Registry Office (LCRO) Staff,and other civil registration workers on the processing of petitions for RA9048;

2. To discuss common/actual cases of impugned or disapproved petitions onRA 9048 and the reason/s for disapproval; and

3. To discuss the common errors/observation encountered in the issuance ofcopies of corrected documents affected by approved RA 9048 petitions.

1 Paper presented by Editha R. Orcilla, Chief Document Management Division, Civil Registration

Department, National Statistics Office during the 6th National Workshop on Civil Registration heldat the SMX Convention Center, Pasay City on August 7-9, 2012.

8/9/2019 9048 Update

2/30

2

A. What is RA 9048?

Republic Act No. 9048 otherwise known as the “ Clerical Error Law” is an actauthorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR) or the Consul General(CG) to correct clerical or typographical error in an entry and/or change of first

name or nickname in the civil register without need of judicial order. This lawallows the:

1. correction of clerical or typographical errors in any entry in civil registrydocuments, except corrections involving the change in sex, age,nationality and status of a person; and

2. change of a person's first name in his/her civil registry document undercertain grounds specified under the law through administrative process.

We define a clerical or typographical error as an obvious mistake committed inclerical work, either in writing, copying, transcribing, or typing an entry in the civilregister that is harmless and innocuous, such as a misspelled name ormisspelled place of birth and the like, and can be corrected or changed only byreference to other existing record or records.

1. Who may file the petition for RA 9048?

Whether it is for correction of clerical or typographical error, or for change of firstname, the petition may be filed by a person of legal age (at least 18 years old)who must have a direct and personal interest in the correction of the error or inthe change of first name in the civil register.

The following are the only persons who may file the petition:

a. Owner of the record that contains the error to be corrected or first name tobe changed; or

b. Owner's spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents,guardian, or any other person duly authorized by law or by the owner ofthe document sought to be corrected.

2. What are the supporting documents required for correcting aCLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR?

8/9/2019 9048 Update

3/30

3

The supporting documents should be authentic and genuine otherwise, thepetition shall be denied or disapproved pursuant to Rule 5.8 of AdministrativeOrder No. 1, S. 2001.

The following supporting documents are admissible as basic requirements:

a. Certified machine copy of the certificate containing the allegederroneous entry or entries

b. Not less than 2 public or private documents upon which the correctionshall be based. Examples of these documents are the following:baptismal certificate, voter's affidavit, employment record, GSIS/SSSrecord, medical record, school record, business record, driver'slicense, insurance, land titles, certificate of land transfer, bankpassbook, NBI/police clearance, civil registry records of ascendants,and others.

c. Notice or Certificate of Posting

d. Certified machine copy of the Official Receipt of the filing feee. Other documents as may be required by the City/Municipal CivilRegistrar (C/MCR)

3. What are the supporting papers for CHANGE OF FIRST NAME (CFN)?

As in the case of correction of clerical error, no petition for change of firstname shall be accepted unless the petitioner submits the required supportingpapers, as follows:

a. All the documents required of the petitioner for the correction of clericalerror shall also be required of the petitioner for change of first name.

b. Clearance from authorities such as clearance from employer, ifemployed; the National Bureau of Investigation; the Philippine NationalPolice; and other clearances as may be required by the concernedC/MCR.

c. Proof of Publication. An affidavit of publication from the publisher andcopy of the newspaper clippings should be attached.

4. How much is the fee in filing a petition?

Pursuant to RA 9048, the City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR),District/Circuit Registrar (D/CR), and Consul General are authorized to collectfrom every petitioner the following rates of filing fees:

8/9/2019 9048 Update

4/30

4

Petitions filed at LCRO/Office of the Clerk of theShari’a Court

Correction of clerical error P 1,000.00Change of First name P 3,000.00

Petitions filed at the Officeof Consul GeneralClerical or typographicalerror

$50.00

Change of First Name $150.00

A migrant petitioner shall pay an additional service fee to the PetitionReceiving Civil Registrar (PRCR). This service fee shall accrue to the localtreasury of the PRCR.

- Five hundred pesos (P500.00) for correction of clerical or typographical

error- One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) for change of first name

5. Where should the petition be filed?

The petition for CCE/CFN shall be filed with the LCRO where the documentcontaining the clerical error to be corrected or first name to be changed iskept. The same general rule shall apply for documents registered at the Officeof the Clerk of Shari'a Court for Muslim marriages, divorces, revocations ofdivorces, and conversions to Islam.

However, in case the present residence or domicile of the petitioner isdifferent from where his/her civil registry record/s is/are registered, he/shemay file a migrant petition in the nearest LCRO in his area. This process iscalled a migrant petition.

6. Where to submit petitions for affirmation?

Review and evaluation of RA 9048 petitions for affirmation is done by theNSO-Legal Services Division (LSD).

Upon checking the completeness, consistency, and correctness of all RA9048 petitions filed, the LCROs/Office of the Clerk of Shari’a Court/Office ofConsul General transmits them by batch to the following address foraffirmation:

8/9/2019 9048 Update

5/30

5

Hon. Carmelita N. ErictaCivil Registrar General

Attn: Legal Services Division (LSD)National Statistics Office

Sta. Mesa, Manila

Subject: RA 9048 Petition

7. What are the documents to be submitted in securing a correctedcopy of the document?

For the purpose of securing a corrected copy of the document in CRS paper(security paper), the following requirements shall be submitted to NSO forprocessing:

a. CTC of the NSO-OCRG Affirmed Decision;b. CTC of the approved petitionc. CTC of the Certificate of Finality;d. CTC of the affected document with annotation based on CFN/CCEe. CTC of the affected document prior to correction ( unannotated)

These requirements are to be submitted to the following address:

Civil Registration DepartmentVibal Building corner Times St and EDSAWest Triangle, Quezon City

Attn: Document Management Division (DMD)

Subject: RA 9048

Processing of requests for copy issuance of documents affected by RA 9048is done at the Document Management Division (DMD) of the CivilRegistration Department (CRD).

B. Appeal

When the petition for CCE/CFN is denied or disapproved by the C/MCR ( or CGor D/CR), the petitioner has the option to appeal the decision of the C/MCR (orCG or D/CR) to CRG within ten (10) working days from receipt of the decision. ANotice of Appeal shall be filed to the concerned C/MCR (or CG or D/CR). The

8/9/2019 9048 Update

6/30

6

C/MCR or CG or D/CR within five (5) working days after the receipt of the Noticeof Appeal from the petitioner, submits the petition and all the supportingdocuments to the CRG. Within 30 calendar days after the receipt, the CRG willrender the decision on the appeal. The decision of the CRG shall be transmittedto the concerned C/MCR within ten (10) working days after the date of the

decision. Within ten (10) working days after receipt of the decision, the C/MCR(or CG or D/CR) shall notify the petitioner and shall carry out the decision.

When the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the 10 working days from receiptof the decision, the decision of the C/MCR disapproving the petition shall becomefinal and executory. The only option left for the petitioner then shall be to file theappropriate petition with the proper court.

The petitioner may appeal to the CRG on any of the following grounds:

1. A new evidence is discovered, which when presented, shall materially

affect, alter, modify or reverse the decision of the C/MCR;2. The denial of the C/MCR is erroneous or not supported with evidence; or3. The denial of the C/MCR is done with grave abuse of authority or

discretion.

C. Statist ics on RA 9048 Petit ions

1. Received RA 9048 petit ions by region

Figure 1 shows the number of RA 9048 petitions processed by region by theNSO-LSD for the period 2005-2012. There were 783,131 RA 9048 petitionsreceived for review and approval.

Of the 17 regions, NCR had the highest number of petitions filed with 13.4%or 104,728. Second in rank is Region III-Central Luzon with 12.6% or 98,317followed by Region IV-A with 12.3% or 96,189. Meanwhile, the region whichhad the least number of petitions is ARMM with only 0.5% or 3,609.

On the contrary, the top three regions which had the most number ofimpugned cases are Region III, Region IV-A and Region VI-Western Visayaswith 2,562, 2,526, and 1,985 cases respectively. Although ARMM had theleast number of petitions filed, it has the highest proportion of impugnedcases with 8.6% or 311 of its total number of petitions. Table 1 in Annex 1shows the total RA 9048 petitions received by type of decision by region in2005-2012.

8/9/2019 9048 Update

7/30

7

2. Received RA 9048 petitions by type of decisions

Of the total 783,131 petitions receivedby NSO, 95.0% were affirmed decisionsby the Civil Registrar General (CRG).On the other hand, 3.0% or 23,163petitions were impugned ordisapproved and 0.9% or 7,054 aremixed decisions. A very smallproportion of the total number ofpetitions filed is returned to the sender(0.5% or 3,613). The remaining 0.6%or 5,000 petitions are on-going RA9048 petitions being processed byNSO.

There are also petitions alreadyimpugned by CRG that were re-filed byC/MCRs or D/CR or CG on the basis ofsome valid grounds. A total of 798appeal cases were received from 2005-2012. Likewise, based on RA 9048

database, a total of 23,163 petitions forMotion for Reconsideration werereceived by NSO.

Affirmed 95.0%

Impugned 3.0%

Mixed 0.9%

Return to

Sender 0.5%In‐process 0.6%

Figure 2. Percentage Distribution of RA 9048petitions b y Type of Decisions: 2005-2012

8/9/2019 9048 Update

8/30

8

D. Statistics on the Copy Issuance of documents affected by RA 9048Petitions

From January 2005 to June 2012, NSO processed a total of 850,837

documents affected by RA 9048. Figure 3 below shows the number of annualtransactions from 2005-2012 (first semester).

The average daily transactions processed by NSO increased from 410 in2004 to 595 in 2011. However, the number of average daily transactionsprocessed decreased to 510 based on January to June of 2012accomplishments of the NSO-Civil Registration Department. Please see

Annex 2- Number of Appl ications on RA 9048 Processed by NSO-DMD.

E. Feedback Cases

As the number of RA 9048 requests increased from 2005-2011, it is alsoobserved that the number of Feedback Forms issued by NSO increased.Feedback form is an electronic copy provided to clients stating the reasons whythe issuance of annotated or unconverted requests cannot be processed. Thisform also provides the action to be taken for the clients to comply with beforethey will return the set of documents needed for re-processing.

To compare the number of Feedback Forms issued vis-à-vis with the number ofRA 9048 applications received by NSO, the total number of applications receivedfrom 2008 to 2012 was consolidated. Of the 608,907 total RA 9048 applicationsreceived in this period, there were about 6.8% or 41,383 feedback forms issued

84,843

54,629

102,458

130,702 131,508136,251

148,574

61,872

‐

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 3. Number of Appl ications Processed on RA9048 by NSO: 2005-2012

8/9/2019 9048 Update

9/30

9

to NSO clients. Notice the increase in the proportion of Feedback Forms issuedfrom 5.4% of the total in 2008 to 9.0% of the total applications received in 2012.Please refer to Annex 3- Number of RA 9048 received applications andfeedback forms issued by NSO: 2008-2012

F. RA 9048 Appl ication System

Petitions submitted by the C/MCRs, CG, and D/CR to the OCRG are encodedusing the RA 9048 Application System (Civil Registration Archive Managementand Document Servicing and Vital Statistics System). This application systemfacilitates the release of OCRG Decision and annotation of civil registrydocuments. It also provides facility for tracking the status of RA 9048 petitions.Likewise, it is a database containing the details, status, and results of petitions --for change of first name or correction of entries in birth, marriage or deathdocuments -- received by the OCRG for decision in accordance with the

provisions of RA9048.

G. Common Errors observed in the processing of RA 9048 petitions

The common errors observed during the processing of petitions under RA9048 are the following:

1. No Petition Number

2. Duplicate Petition Numbers

3. Wrong Form used

4. No Action Taken by the LCR

5. No LCR’s date of decision

6. No date of birth, marriage, and death indicated on the Petition Form

7. No C/MCR signature in the verification and decision portions

8. Lack/incomplete supporting documents to support the petition forCCE/CFN

9. No date indicated on the verification portion

10. No petitioner’s signature

8/9/2019 9048 Update

10/30

10

11. There are some LCROs without an officially appointed civil registrars andwhere the duties is functioned by Officers-In-Charge (OICs). DesignationOrder of OIC C/MCR should be attached to the RA 9048 petition.

12. Entries indicated in the decision is inconsistent with the information in the

birth certificate

13. Supporting documents are either not certified true copies of the original orshowed erasures or alterations.

14. Failure to follow the procedures of posting and publication. Some petitionswere disapproved due to lack of requirements on the posting (date of filinginconsistent with date of posting, which should be 10 days).

Note: If LCRO Copy is correct, indicate that only the OCRG Copy is to becorrected.

H. Actual cases of impugned petitions

Case 1

Facts:

A petition for Correction of Clerical Error was filed by LuzvimindaEstorninos Matos on April 7, 2011 at the office of MCR Jimmy B. Alfuerta ofCapalonga, Camarines Norte correcting the spelling of her middle name andmother’s last name from “Estoninos” to “Estorninos”.

Finding the petition meritorious for consideration, the MCR granted thepetition on April 25, 2011 and the same was forwarded to the Civil RegistrarGeneral (CRG) for affirmation under OCRG No. 11-0813009. However, it wasimpugned on the ground that the correction is not covered under RA 9048.

Before filing the correction under RA 9048, the petitioner filed a petition forcorrection of entries at the RTC of Labo, Camarines Norte for her gender, that is,from male to female, her middle name and mother’s last name as well as her

parent’s places of birth. Her petition was granted. After securing an annotatedcopy from NSO, the petitioner discovered that the annotation on her middle nameand mother’s last name were inadvertently misspelled as “Estoninos” instead of“Estorninos” because these are the entries approved by the court.

8/9/2019 9048 Update

11/30

11

The petitioner’s counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration but wasdenied by the court as the prescribed time to file a Motion for Reconsiderationhas already lapsed.

The petitioner then filed a petition for Correction of Clerical Error under RA

9048 on her middle name and her mother’s last name but was later impugned bythe CRG.

Issue:

Is a correction previously corrected through court can be again correctedunder RA 9048?

Resolution:

As a rule, any correction previously corrected in civil records through

judicial means cannot be corrected again under RA 9048. As the ImplementingRules and Regulations of Clerical Error Law states that:“Furthermore, an entry in the civil registry previously corrected or first

name previously changed on the basis of a court order shall not be corrected orchanged again under RA 9048”.

In this case, RA 9048 does not cover the correction. In order to correct themisspelled middle name and mother’s last name, the petitioner is advise to fileagain another petition in court since any judicial correction cannot be correctedagain administratively under RA 9048.

Case 2

Facts:

On June 21, 2012, a petition for Correction of Clerical Error was filed byRaul P. Villanueva at the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Caloocan City tocorrect the erroneous entry (First Name of the Child) on the annotation written inthe REMARKS/ANNOTATION portion of his son’s Certificate of Live Birth(COLB) filed at the Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG). The record filedat the OCRG is the only record to be corrected since the record filed at the LocalCivil Registry Office (LCRO) of Caloocan City did not contain any error.

The child, JHANRY MENDOZA, was born on January 29, 1994 atCaloocan City and was registered late on May 20, 1996. During the registrationof the COLB, RHODORA MENDOZA , the informant and mother of the child, also applied for the legitimation of her child. The application for legitimation wasgranted. Hence, Jhanry became the legitimated child of Rhodora Mendoza and

8/9/2019 9048 Update

12/30

12

Paul Pascual Villanueva and the four copies of his COLB were annotatedpursuant to legitimation. However, in the COLB of Jhanry that was forwarded tothe OCRG, the following annotation was written on theREMARKS/ANNOTATION portion of the document :

“Legitimated by the subsequent marriage of parents on Oct. 21, 1994.Henceforth, the child shall be known as : JEANRY MENDOZA VILLANUEVA”.

The child’s first name was erroneously indicated as “JEANRY” instead of“JHANRY”.

Issue:

Can the erroneous entries in the REMARKS/ANNOTATION portion of theCOLB which was forwarded to OCRG be corrected under RA 9048?

Resolution:

In this case, RA 9048 does not apply. Since the COLB filed at the LocalCivil Registry Office (LCRO) contains the correct annotation , the properprocedure is for the LCRO of Caloocan City to endorse a certified photocopy oftheir file together with the certified copies of the requirements for legitimation tothe Document Management Division (DMD) of the Civil Registration Department(CRD) for evaluation and consideration.

Case 3

Facts:

On February 1, 2012, a petition for Correction of Clerical Error in theCertificate of Live Birth (COLB) of Susan Antiquera was filed by Hermogenes

Antiquera at the Local Civil Registry Office of Manito, Albay.

Susan A. Antiquera was born at Manito, Albay and was registered at thesame municipality. However, in her COLB, the child’s and father’s last nameswere erroneously indicated as “ Antiquierra” instead of “Antiquera” and her birthdate was also erroneously indicated as “20 February 1967” instead of “20 March1967”.

Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the petition wasgranted by the LCRO of Manito, Albay and the approved petition was forwardedto OCRG for affirmation. The decision to correct the child’s and father’s lastnames from “ANTIQUIERRA” to “ANTIQUERA” were affirmed by the CRG underOCRG No. 12-0894801. However, the petition to correct the child’s date of birth

8/9/2019 9048 Update

13/30

13

from “FEB. 20, 1967” to “MARCH 20, 1967” was impugned for insufficiency ofthe supporting documents to establish the correct entry of the alleged clerical ortypographical error.

On May 28, 2012, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Hermogenes

Antiquera seeking reconsideration of the impugned CRG decision. However,upon evaluation , the new evidence presented by the petitioner failed to establishclerical error on the child’s date of birth. Hence, the Motion for Reconsiderationwas denied under MR No. 12-9922969 on the ground that the correction involvesthe change of age of the child.

Issue:

Is the CRG correct in the denial of the petition for correction of date ofbirth in the COLB of Susan A. Antiquera?

Resolution:

As a general rule, correction that involves the change of age of the childcannot be corrected under RA 9048. However, there are cases illustrated in theManual of Instructions of RA 9048 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations,namely, Section 5, Case 5.1 – “The date of the occurrence of the vital event wasafter the date of registration of the same event or registration was done beforethe occurrence of the event”; Case 5.2 – “The date is impossible.”; Case 5.3 –“The date appears unreasonable” ; Case 5.4 – “Misleading date where numericcharacter or symbol was used for the month” ; and Case 5.5 – “year of birth waserroneous”. Hence, errors pertaining to date that fall under these cases may beconsidered clerical and subject for evaluation.

The case of Susan A. Antiquera does not fall in any of the wrong dates asillustrated above. Hence, correction is not covered under RA 9048. If the partyis in need of the corrected date of birth, it is advised that a petition for correctionof entries may be filed in the proper court or the party may wait for theamendment of RA 9048.

Case 4

Facts:

On June 15, 2012, a petition for Correction of Clerical Error in theCertificate of Marriage (COM) between Roderick D. Realino and Estella D.Santos was filed by Estella Realino at the Office of the City Civil Registrar of LasPiñas City to correct the erroneous wife’s age and date of birth.

8/9/2019 9048 Update

14/30

14

Roderick D. Realino and Estella D. Santos contracted marriage on July23, 1998 at Las Piñas City. In their COM, the wife declared her date of birth andage as “8 August 1977 and 20”, respectively. However, in the wife’s Certificateof Live Birth (COLB), her date of birth was indicated as August 8, 1979. Hence,a discrepancy occurred. In order that her date of birth be consistent in all her

records, Estella Realino filed a petition for Correction of Clerical Error under theprovision of RA 9048 on her COM correcting the wife’s date of birth from “8 AUGUST 1977” to “ 8 AUGUST 1979” and wife’s age from “20” to “18” years old.

Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, it was granted by theCity Civil Registrar (CCR) of Las Piñas City on June 27, 2012 and the same wasforwarded to the Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) for affirmation.However, the CRG impugned the petition under OCRG No. 12-0934218 on theground that the correction affects the validity of the marriage.

Issue:

Is the OCRG correct in impugning the petition filed by Estella Realino inher COM?

Resolution:

There are three formal requisites of marriage. One of these is the “validmarriage license”. However, there are marriages exempt from the licenserequirement as provided under Articles 27, 28, 33 and 34 of the Family Code ofthe Philippines. The marriage between Roderick D. Realino and Estella D.Santos was solemnized under Article 34, a case exempt from the marriagelicense requirement. Article 34 states that “ no license shall be necessary for themarriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wifefor at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other.”This article requires that at the start of the cohabitation, both the contractingparties have no legal impediment to marry each other hence, they shall at leastbe 18 years of age.

The CCRO of Las Piñas City failed to consider the requirement of Article34 in granting the petition

In this case, RA 9048 is not applicable. The petitioner is advised to file apetition for correction in the proper court.

8/9/2019 9048 Update

15/30

15

Case 5

Facts:

Frederick Siojo Uy filed a Petition for Correction of Clerical Error on the

Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) of his friend , Larry V. Al-ag, in the City of Manilaunder OCRG No. 12-0925735 on May 10, 2012. The petition is to correct theerrors in the child’s last name & middle name on the Remarks or Annotationdone on his friend’s (COLB) by the City Civil Registry Office (CCRO) of Manila.

The child was born out of wedlock to parents Liezel G. Vertudazo andFlavio T. Al-ag on August 5, 1989. On March 22, 2012, the father filed his

Affidavit of Admission of Paternity and also the Affidavit to Use the Surname ofthe Father. Pursuant to RA 9255, the child then was able to use his father’ssurname, Al-ag. However, in the annotation done by the CCRO of Manila on hisCOLB, the last name/middle name of the child was inadvertently spelled as

Vertuzado instead of Vertudazo. The same error also occurred on the COLBfiled at the Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG). TheRemarks/Annotation is as follows:

“ Pursuant to R.A. 9255, the surname of the child named herein is herebychanged from VERTUZADO to AL-AG. ACKNOWLEDGED by FLAVIO T.

AL-AG, executed on March 22, 2012 in CABUAC NORTE, SIKATUNA,BOHOL and recorded in this office under Reg No. 2012-3048, Series of2012. Henceforth, the child shall now be known as : LARRY VERTUZADO

AL-AG.”

Finding the petition meritorious for consideration, the petition was grantedby CCR Maria Josefa Encarnacion A. Ocampo on May 25, 2012 and the samewas forwarded to the Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) for affirmation.However, the petition was denied by the CRG on the ground that the correctionon the Remarks/Annotation portion can not be corrected under RA 9048.

Issue:

Is the CRG correct in impugning the petition correcting the clerical error inthe annotation made by the CCRO on the COLB?

Resolution:

RA 9048 does not apply to correct the clerical error made in anannotation. The proper procedure is for the City Civil Registrar of Manila toendorse to the Document Management Division (DMD) of the Civil RegistrationDepartment (CRD) another set of the documents with the correct annotation. Thenewly endorsed documents from the CCRO of Manila will be the basis of DMD to

8/9/2019 9048 Update

16/30

16

correct also the annotated document filed in its archive. This is an administrativesolution.

I. Common Errors Observed on the Issuance of Corrected Copies

In the processing of documents affected by RA 9048, there are severalproblems encountered.

Case 1. The LCRO file that was used in filing the petition for correction ofentries is a case of delayed registration but NSO file is a timely registeredone

A common problem encountered by DMD.

Example:

A petition for correction of entries on the date of marriage of parents fromMay 24, 1992 to May 24, 1993 on the birth record of Railah Diamla Binsi ofMalabang, Lanao del Sur was filed by her father. The petition was approved bythe CRG in January of this year. The birth certificate was registered underregistry number 2000-283.

When a request for a corrected copy of the subject birth record wasreceived by DMD, it was discovered that a timely registered document isavailable in the archives of NSO. This document was registered in 1998 underregistry number 98-355 and the name of the child is Raila Diamla Diamla. Giventhe presence of this timely registered document, the request for a copy of thecorrected document was denied and instead, a copy of the timely registereddocument is issued to the requesting party. The date of marriage of parents inthis document is May 23, 1993 which is correct.

This case again implies that before a petition is accepted, a copy of thedocument secured from NSO shall be required from the client to ensure thatproper document is used in filing the petition.

Case 2. Application of Rule 12 – Effect of approving the petition for changeof name of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of

Administrat ive Order No. 1 series of 2001

Rule 12 states that: “When the petition for a change of first name is approvedby the C/MCR or CG or D/CR and such decision has not been impugned by theCRG, the change shall be reflected in the birth certificate by way of marginal

8/9/2019 9048 Update

17/30

17

annotation. In case there are other civil registry records of the same personwhich are affected by such change, the decision of approving the change of firstname in the birth certificate, upon becoming final and executory, shall besufficient to be used as basis in changing the first name of the same person inhis other affected records without need for filing a similar petition. In such a case,

the successful petitioner shall file a request in writing with the concerned C/MCR,CG or D/CR to make such marginal annotation, attaching thereto a copy of thedecision.

This rule was further clarified by Memorandum Circular No. 04-08 issued on August 24, 2004.

Example:

A petition for change of first name from “Zenaida” to “ Alicia” on the birthcertificate of Zenaida Dadiz was filed in February of this year. The petition was

approved by CRG in March 2012. The correction was annotated on her birthcertificate which occurred in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. Subsequently, Zenaidaor Alicia, invoking Rule 12, wrote a letter to the concerned LCR requesting thatthe change of her first name be likewise reflected on her Certificate of Marriage.Her request was granted by the concerned LCR. The LCR reflected thecorrection on the first name on the COM of Zenaida.

When the documents were transmitted to DMD for processing, that is,reflecting the change of first name of the wife on the marriage certificate, therequest was disapproved. The reason behind the disapproval is that, DMDobserved that the first name of the wife on the Certificate of Marriage is “ AliciaZenaida” which is different from the name of her birth certificate, that is “Zenaida”only.

To correct the erroneous entry on the Certificate of Marriage, anotherpetition for correction of entries to correct the first name of the wife on theCertificate of Marriage shall be filed by the wife.

Case 3. RA 9048 Form No. 1.1 (LCRO) or Petit ion Form is incomplete

There are instances that the certified machine copy of the Petition Formsubmitted to DMD does not contain the signature of the C/MCR on the “ActionTaken By The C/MCR” portion. Take note that the Petition Form including itsback page should have complete entries before DMD can process thedocuments.

8/9/2019 9048 Update

18/30

18

Example:

A petition for correction of entries on the “Date and Place of Marriage ofParents” on the birth record of Romnick Duero which occurred in Calayan,Cagayan was approved in July 2009. Recently, the document owner is

requesting for a copy of the corrected document from CRD. Upon verification, itwas discovered that the “Action Taken By The C/MCR” did not contain thesignature of the concerned LCR. Because of this deficiency, the result of theprocessing was a feedback instead of a copy of the corrected birth record.

To resolve this issue, the client has to request for a certified machine copyof the Petition Form from the concerned LCR. Processing will be completed byDMD once the complete requirements are received.

Case 4. Copies of documents (birth, marriage, death) prior to correction is

no longer available at the LCRO

It has been observed that copies of birth, marriage and death documentsprior to correction are no longer available at the LCROs. However, a FeedbackForm from DMD was issued that a certified copy of the document prior tocorrection is requested to be submitted before the request for a copy of thecorrected document can be processed (lacking certified copy of the documentprior to correction).

To resolve this issue, the LCRO is requested to endorse a certifiedmachine copy of the document with the marginal annotation together with acertification that the copy of the document prior to correction is no longeravailable. In case a certified machine copy is no longer possible, the LCRO isrequested to endorse a certified transcription (MF 1A) with the proper annotationon RA 9048. The certified machine copy with annotation or MF 1A withannotation on RA 9048, shall be submitted in addition to the requirementsneeded in the processing of documents affected by RA 9048.

Case 5. Document submitted for processing are not certified copies

There are cases where the documents submitted for processing are notcertified copies, only photocopies. Take note that only certified copies areapproved for processing.

Case 6. Documents which require multiple annotations

Several cases of this category resulted to feedback either because thesupporting documents for the second annotation are lacking or incomplete.

8/9/2019 9048 Update

19/30

19

Example:

The birth record of Mylin Miranda from Sto. Niño, Cagayan had undergonethe process of RA 9048 and Supplemental Report. The document should

contain the annotation on RA 9048 and Supplemental Report. Unfortunately,only the annotation on RA 9048 was implemented because the requirements forthe Supplemental Report are lacking. A feedback in this deficiency was preparedto be communicated to the concerned LCRO.

LCROs are advised to send the complete requirements to ensure that theprocessing of the document is completed.

Case 7. The entry/ies of the item/s on the LCRO copy which was used infiling the petition for correction of entries or change of first name is/are not

consistent with the entries on the NSO copy.

This problem is very common. Depending on the discrepancy, the client hasto file again another petition or worse will go to court to correct the erroneousentry.

Example:

A petition for correction of entries on the Child’s First Name, Child’s andFather’s Last Names was filed on the birth record of a certain Susana Ordenanza which occurred in Daet, Camarines Norte. The child’s first name should bechanged from “Susana” to “Susan” and the child’s and father’s last names shallbe corrected from “Ordenanza” to “Ordinanza”. The petition was approved andaffirmed by the Civil Registrar General (CRG). The copy from the LCRO wasused in filing the petition.

When the client requested for a copy of the corrected document at DMD, itwas discovered that the copy of NSO contains SUSANA CU as the name of thechild and BENITO CU as the name of the father. It can be observed that entriesbetween the NSO and LCR copies are not consistent.

Item LCRO Copy NSO CopyRegistry Number 55-244 244Name of the Child Susana Ordenanza Susana CuDate of Birth January 21, 1955 January 21, 1955Name of the Father Benito Ordenanza Benito CuName of the Mother Rosa Caminar Rosa CaminarPlace of Birth Daet, Camarines Norte Daet, Camarines Norte

8/9/2019 9048 Update

20/30

20

To resolve this problem, the petition for correction of entries will just beimplemented on the LCRO copy while the correction on the NSO copy shall bedone through court.

Case 8. Cases where the registry number of the document filed at theLCRO is not consistent with the registry number of the same documentfiled at the NSO document archives.

This is also a common problem. There are so many cases which fallunder this category.

The LCRO and NSO copies should have consistent registry number.

To resolve these cases, a feedback is issued informing the concerned

LCR to endorse a certified copy of the document prior to annotation and a copyof the page of the registry book where the subject document was recorded.These documents should be accompanied by a transmittal letter from theconcerned LCR informing NSO of the reasons of such discrepancy.

Also to avoid the delay of request for SECPA with remarks/annotation ofRA 9048, it is advised that the C/MCR should check the correctness of registrynumber in the petition and document to be corrected.

Case 9. Entries of the approved items for correction, name of the LCR, dateof decision, etc are not properly encoded or impugned items were includedin the encoding .

As discussed under Section E, the creation of entries/data to be used inthe annotation of the corrected document is done at the LSD. The databasecreated at the LSD is accessed by the Document Management Division (DMD)of the Civil Registration Department to process the request of a copy of thecorrected document. If there are errors in the encoding, there is a need for DMDto refer back the problem to LSD for proper resolution. Once the error isresolved, DMD prepares the copy of the annotated document.

Example:

A petition to correct the husband’s age, wife’s age and the wife’s middleinitial was filed by the wife on their marriage certificate which took place inCandelaria, Quezon. In the course of encoding the items to be corrected at theLSD, the wife’s age was missed. Hence, when a copy of the corrected documentis being requested by the wife, DMD can not process the request until such time

8/9/2019 9048 Update

21/30

21

that the missing entry shall be encoded. DMD has to coordinate with LSD toinclude the wife’s age in the encoding and once the wife’s age is encoded, it isonly the time that RA 9048 Unit will be able to issue a copy of the correctedmarriage certificate.

Usually, the feedback that is issued by DMD for this case is: “ Furtherverification of the supporting documents is needed. Please call up telephonenos. xxx-xxxx after 10 working days to verify the status of your request.”

J. Memorandum Circulars/Memorandum Issued by the OCRG Related toRA 9048

1. Memorandum Circular No. 2010-04

Date Issued: October 20, 2010 Addressed to: All City/Municipal Civil Registrars/Officers-in-Charge All Consuls/Consul-General All Shari’a Circuit Registrars

Subject: Guidelines in the Correction of Entries in the Geographic,Statistical Portion and/or Registry Numbers on Civil RegistryDocuments

This Memorandum Circular outlines the guidelines on how to make the

corrections on the entries in the items that are exempt from judicial means

or RA 9048. These items are: the Geographical Portion, Statistical Portionand Registry Number.


Date Issued: February 13, 2007 Addressed to: All City/Municipal Civil Registrars

Consuls General

Subject: Guidelines in Filing the Appropriate Petition Involving the Use of

JR, II, III and the likes under RA 9048

This Memorandum Circular contains illustrations which serve asguidelines in the filing of appropriate petition involving the use of Jr, II, IIIand so on.

8/9/2019 9048 Update

22/30

22

It serves as a guide to all C/MCRs and CGs on the appropriate process tobe used, that is, whether the process of supplemental report or theprocess of RA 9048. If RA 9048 is applicable, this Memorandum Circularincluded illustrations on what type of petition is to be filed, that is, Petitionfor Change of First Name or Petition for Clerical Error.


Date Issued: September 13, 2007Issued to: All Municipal/City Civil Registrars/Officers-in-Charge

Subject: Entries that cannot be corrected by judicial means or by RA 9048

Our Civil Registry Forms are composed of two parts, the entry/legalportion and the statistical portion. In addition, we have also the

Geographical Identification Portion and the Registry Number which arewritten outside the legal/entry and statistical portions. If there is anerroneous entry under the entry/legal portion, correction can be donethrough RA 9048 or judicial means depending on the item to be corrected.However, if the statistical portion or the geographical identification portionor the registry number need corrections, what procedure shall we use?Memorandum Circular No. 2007-007 is the answer.

This Memorandum Circular provides examples on how to correct errors inthe Statistical Portion, Geographical Identification Portion and RegistryNumber. Memorandum Circular 2010-004 outlined how to implement thecorrections to be done, that is, the annotations to be used.


Date Issued: June 21, 2005 Addressed to: All City/Municipal Civil Registrars/

Consuls General

Subject: Clarifying Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9048(Publication Requirement for Change of First Name)

This Memorandum Circular clarified the publication requirement forChange of First Name. It was promulgated because there were somepetitions for CFN that were denied by C/MCRs on the ground of non-compliance with the publication requirement of the law, i.e., for notpublishing the petition for CFN itself ( Forms Nos. 4.1 and 4.2). Some

8/9/2019 9048 Update

23/30

23

LCRs insist that the petition itself (Forms Nos. 4.1 and 4.2) should bepublished and not the Notice of Publication (Form Nos. 10.1 and 10.2).

This Memorandum Circular clarified that if the Notice of Publication (FormNo. 10.1 and 10.2) is used in the publication, it can be construed that the

publication requirement under Section 5 of RA 9048 is complied with.


Date Issued: August 24, 2004 Addressed to: All Local Civil Registrars

Subject: Clarification for Case 3, Section 9 of the Manual of Instructionsfor Republic Act

9048 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations

Case 3, Section 9 of the Manual of Instructions for Republic Act 9048 andits Implementing Rules and Regulations read as:

“Change of first name shall be availed of only once subject to Rule12. Under Rule 12, the decision granting change of first name in the birthcertificate, upon becoming final and executory, shall be sufficient to beused as the basis in changing the first name of the same person in hisaffected records.”

This Memorandum Circular clarified that the change of first name is onlyapplicable to the civil registry records of that same person and not toanother person’s record where his name could be cited. Hence, becauseof this clarification, the case example was updated accordingly.


Date Issued: April 26, 2004Issued to: City/Municipal Civil Registrars

The Department of Foreign Affairs

Subject: Retraction/Withdrawal of Petitions Under RA 9048

This Memorandum Circular provided the guidelines governing theretraction or withdrawal of duly filed petitions under RA 9048. It wasprovided in these guidelines that retraction maybe done at any stage ofthe evaluation of the petition. However, in no case shall retraction beallowed when the Civil Registrar General (CRG) has already acted upon

8/9/2019 9048 Update

24/30

24

the petition which means that the CRG has already affirmed or impugnedthe petition. These guidelines also included who may retract petitions,form of retraction and procedures to be implemented at the Local CivilRegistry Office (LCRO) and at the Office of the Civil Registrar General(OCRG) in case a letter signifying the desire to retract a duly filed petition

is received.


Date Issued: April 13, 2004 Addressed to: All Local Civil Registrars

Subject: Use of Forms Under RA 9048

This Memorandum Circular instructed the Local Civil Registry Offices

(LCROs) that all petitions for Correction of Clerical Error/Change of FirstName/Appeal/Motion for Reconsideration shall use RA 9048 Forms asappearing in Appendix No. 1 of the Manual of Instructions. Likewise, thisMemorandum Circular instructed the LCROs to reproduce the forms andshall make the same available to interested parties. In reproducing theforms, the LCROs are instructed that care should be taken so as not tomiss, alter or modify any item of information.

8. Memorandum

Date Issued: 16 February 2004 Addressed to: All Local Civil Registrars

Subject: Correction of Clerical Errors

Basically, this Memorandum clarified the procedure to be undertaken onthe following cases:

Case 1. Both LCRO and OCRG documents have wrong entries. Where does the petition be filed? Is there a need to annotate both the LCRO and OCRG

documents in case an interested party requests for a copy?

Case 2. In case only the LCRO Copy has the wrong entry Where does the petition be filed? In case an interested party requests for a copy, which

document shall contain the annotation?

8/9/2019 9048 Update

25/30

25

Case 3. In case only the OCRG Copy has the wrong entry Where does the petition be filed? Which document shall bear the proper annotations?

9. Memorandum Circular 03-01

Date Issued: February 10, 2003 Addressed to: All Civil Registrars/Officers-In-Charge

Subject: Officers-In-Charge at the Local Civil Registry Office

The Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) has observed theincreasing number of Local Civil Registry Offices (LCROs) which haveincumbent Local Civil Registrars but the duties and functions of the Local

Civil Registry Office are performed by a designated Officer-In-Charge.

This Memorandum Circular clarified that the functions and duties arisingfrom RA 9048 are merely additional function to those already existing atthe LCRO and with the LCR. Hence, it is not proper for an OIC to performsome of the functions of the office while at the same time anotherperforms just RA 9048 functions.

This Memorandum Circular issued in 2003 clarified that the OCRG willrecognize the duly designated OIC as the valid occupant at the LCROprovided that such designation not fall under any of the exceptionsallowing OICs to act on RA 9048 petitions.

10. Memorandum

Date Issued: June 21, 2001 Addressed to: All City/Municipal Civil Registrars

Subject: C/MCRs are Under the Direction and Supervision of the CivilRegistrar General, and C/MCRs are Authorized to AdministerOaths ( DOJ Opinion No. 26, Series of 2001)

This Memorandum was included in this list to inform the City/Municipal

Civil Registrars about their power to administer oath as provided in

Section 12(g) of Act No. 3753. This power, as mentioned in this

Memorandum, shall be limited to civil registry matters and the same must

be free of charge.

8/9/2019 9048 Update

26/30

26

11. Memorandum

Date Issued: February 7, 2002 Addressed to: All Local Civil Registrars

Subject: Reiteration of Procedures

This Memorandum presented the observations of the Office of the Civil

Registrar General (OCRG) on the petitions submitted by the Local Civil

Registry Offices (LCROs) and the reasons why the petitions are returned

to the concerned LCROs. This Memorandum reiterated different rules for

the guidance of the LCROs.

12. Memorandum

Date Issued: 18 April 2002 Addressed to: All City/Municipal Civil Registrars

Subject: Opinion No. 11, S. 2002 of the Secretary of Justice ConcerningFiling Fee of Petition under Republic Act No. 9048

The objective of this Memorandum is to inform all City/Municipal Civil

Registrars concerning Opinion No. 11 series of 2002 issued by the

Secretary of Justice regarding the filing fee of petition under RA 9048.

This Opinion from the Department of Justice resolved the issue whether or

not a local government unit can impose a filing fee in an amount different

from what was promulgated by the Inter-Agency Committee which was

mandated under the said law to promulgate the implementing rules and

regulations.

Among other things, the Secretary of Justice said:

“Xxx… we rule that the filing fees as imposed by Administrative Order No.

1, S. 2001 should prevail over the filing fees imposed by the said City

Ordinance since the rules and regulations promulgated by the civilregistrar general pursuant to the provisions of RA 9048 have the force and

effect of law (U.S. v. Molina, 29 Phil. 119 [1914]; See Co Chiong v.

Cuaderno, 83 Phil. 242). Moreover, the aforementioned Administrative

Order was issued in implementation of RA 9048 and under the said Law, it

is the civil registrar general, not the local government units, that has the

8/9/2019 9048 Update

27/30

27

authority to issue rules and regulations in implementation of the provisions

thereof.”

K. Conclusion

RA 9048 or the Clerical Error Law was envisioned to ease the burden ofgoing through a very costly and tedious process of correcting erroneousentries in the civil register. It has been a very helpful means to everyFilipino with problems in their civil registry documents. Based on the datapresented, a great number of Filipinos have benefited in the more than tenyears of implementation of the said law. Although problems cannot beavoided, these should serve as a challenge to all Local Civil RegistryHeads and Staff to strive more to improve the implementation of the lawfrom the time of filing the petition until the issuance of a corrected copy of

the affected document which is the ultimate need of the client . Let us bea part of the success of the clients we serve.

8/9/2019 9048 Update

28/30

28

Annex 1

Table 1. Total Petitions Received by Type of Decis ion by Region: 2005-

Decision

REGION

Total Affirmed Impugned Mixed

Return

to

SenderIn-

Process

PHILIPPINES 783,131 744,301 23,163 7,054 3,613 5,000

National Capital Region 104,728 100,912 1,460 628 184 1,544CAR 34,925 33,076 989 452 189 219Region I - Ilocos 75,773 72,600 1,945 577 263 388Region II – Cagayan Valley 38,049 35,458 1,451 379 274 487Region III – Central Luzon 98,317 94,453 2,562 761 294 247Region IVA - CALABARZON 96,189 92,243 2,526 795 359 266Region IVB – MIMAROPA 22,060 20,488 960 245 158 209Region V – Bicol 37,853 35,570 1,162 349 192 580Region VI – Western Visayas 66,574 63,466 1,985 518 268 337Region VII – Central Visayas 53,374 50,862 1,508 507 261 236Region VIII – Eastern Visayas 28,171 25,935 1,457 340 201 238Region IX – Zamboanga Peninsula 17,421 16,067 1,005 196 97 56Region X – Bukidnon 40,828 38,341 1,664 431 345 47Region XI – Davao 30,075 28,647 805 406 182 35Region XII – Soccsksargen 21,812 20,519 914 199 135 45 ARMM – Autonomous Region in Muslim 3,609 3,092 311 100 96 10Region XIII – CARAGA 13,373 12,572 459 171 115 56

8/9/2019 9048 Update

29/30

8/9/2019 9048 Update

30/30

30

Annex 3

Table 3. Total Number of RA 9048 Appl ications Receivedand Feedback Forms issued: 2008-2012

YearNumber of RA 9048

Appl icationsReceived

Number ofFeedback Forms

Issued%

2008 130,702 7,075 5.4%

2009 131,508 8,529 6.5%

2010 136,251 9,481 7.0%

2011 148,574 10,748 7.2%

2012 61,872 5,550 9.0%

Total 608,907 41,383 6.8%