"The Violence and the Deaths Must Stop" by Clara Rita A. Padilla

The violence and the deaths related to the Maguindanao massacre are painful reminders of the deeply-rooted problems of private armies, election cheating, stealing from the government coffers, and the culture of impunity here in the Philippines.

Lawyers, journalists, and other civilians were killed. A witness even said that the women were raped before they were slain.

The slain women lawyers were human rights defenders--a great loss for the marginalized people of Mindanao. Atty. Connie Brizuela, whose life was suddenly snuffed out by armed men, was representing marginalized clients totaling to about a thousand cases. The slain journalists joined the convoy in their unknowingly last coverage of a fight against the reigning Ampatuans.

Our democracy, our rights are at stake. The question now is, “Can ordinary citizens do something to stop the violence and the deaths?” Yes, indeed, we can. As concerned citizens, we can remain vigilant and focus our efforts on demanding justice to the victims of the Maguindanao massacre. We must tirelessly clamor for the successful prosecution of all the perpetrators.

The culture of impunity must stop. The buying of votes, selling guns by the army to private armies must stop. The CAFGUs, CVOs, police auxiliary brigades—all these private armies—must stop. The appointment of police officers by Mayors and Governors must stop. The amassing of wealth—mansions and luxury cars—of the likes of the billionaire Ampatuans governing in one of the poorest provinces in a country where the majority of the Philippine population are living below poverty line must not be countenanced.

Filipinos must stop supporting government officials who coddled and benefited from the likes of the infamous Maguindanao twelve-zero senatorial votes and presidential votes. The violence and the deaths must stop.

“Junk House Bill 6919 Criminalizing Same-Sex Marriage” by Clara Rita A. Padilla

December 9, 2009, Manila—“The bill proposed by Rep. Abante imposing criminal penalties on same-sex marriage should be immediately junked. House Bill 6919 has no place in the halls of Congress for being clearly discriminatory against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders (LGBTs). Instead of promoting human rights, Rep. Abante is proposing a bill that is backward by promoting intolerance and even hatred of LGBTs. In the coming elections, voters should remember to vote for candidates who promote human rights and not those who perpetuate discrimination,” said Atty. Clara Rita Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

“Contrary to the discriminatory view of Rep. Abante, the rights of LGBTs are recognized in international treaties that the Philippines has ratified such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Having ratified these treaties, it is the obligation of the Philippines to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of LGBTs,” says Atty. Padilla.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), tasked to monitor CEDAW, issued General Recommendation 21 recognizing same-sex unions and families by stating that “[t]he form and concept of the family can vary from State to State, and even between regions within a State.” The CEDAW Committee has also asked states parties (e.g. Kyrgzstan) to reconceptualize lesbianism as a sexual orientation and to abolish penalties for its practice.

The HRC, tasked to monitor the ICCPR, recognized in General Comment 19 that the concept and structure of family may differ from state to state and that the right to marry and found a family may be based on diverse definitions of families and relationships.

Atty. Padilla continued, “To state the truth also about the freedom to choose who to have sex with including same-sex, there are many countries allowing same-sex, civil unions, and the like. Same-sex marriages are recognized in Netherlands, Canada, South Africa and even in the predominantly Catholic countries such as Belgium and Spain. Spain is the third country to have recognized same-sex marriage. Recognition of the rights of homosexuals by Muslims can be seen in the example of Iranian clerics who recently gave approval to gender reassignment surgery to transgendered people. In Lebanon, a small public campaign exists to legalize homosexual relations in private between consenting adults.”

“Even the Vatican has delivered a statement in the UN General Assembly way back in December 2008 urging states to repeal criminal laws against homosexuality,” added Atty. Padilla.

The CEDAW Committee has also commended states parties (e.g. Germany, Sweden, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand) for enacting laws prohibiting discrimination against sexual orientation and for showing concern on sexual preference at the same time expressing concern on discrimination against sexual orientation (e.g. Guatemala, Ecuador).

The ICCPR protects LGBTs against discrimination on the basis of equal protection. The right to sexual orientation is protected under Article 2 (1) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of “other” status; Article 3 which provides for equal right of men and women; and Article 23 deals with equality of rights to marriage.

Cases decided by the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the committee tasked to monitor the implementation of the ICCPR, uphold the right to sexual orientation. In the case of Toonen v. Australia, the HRC found that the prohibition of private homosexual behavior is an arbitrary intrusion on privacy rights under article 17 of the ICCPR and the right against discrimination under article 2 of the same convention. After the decision, Tasmania repealed the law in question. In the case of Young v. Australia, the Repatriation Commission denied Young’s application for pension for his war veteran same-sex partner of 38 years. The HRC decision found a violation by Australia of article 26 of the ICCPR on equality before the law and non-discrimination and that Mr. Young is entitled to reconsideration of his pension application without discrimination based on his sex or sexual orientation, if necessary through an amendment of the law. There are cases where the HRC found that the petition for change of name should be granted because the right to choose one’s name and identity is covered by the right to privacy under article 17 of the ICCPR.

In the case of Dudgeon v. United Kingdom and Norris v. Ireland, the European Court of Human Rights held that laws criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct violated right to privacy (Article 8 of the Convention). In the cases of Goodwin v. United Kingdom and Case of I. v. United Kingdom, the European Court considered the cases of two transsexual women who claimed that the United Kingdom’s refusal to change their legal identities and papers to match their postoperative genders constituted discrimination. Reversing a number of its previous decisions — and offering a major victory for transgender people’s rights — the Court held that their right to respect for their private lives, and also their right to marry, had been violated (articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention).

Courts of Fiji, Hong Kong, India, South Africa and the United States have declared laws criminalizing same-sex conduct as violating rights protected by their constitutions. In the U.S. case of Lawrence v. Texas, the court held that it is unconstitutional to prohibit homosexual sex, because it is private, consensual conduct. It is clear that the right would encompass a range of conduct, from the use of contraception, to a woman's consultations with her doctor, to homosexual sexual intercourse. Any governmental intrusion upon this privacy is unconstitutional and a violation of one’s right to privacy.

Atty. Padilla added, “In the 2003 Concluding Observations on the Philippines, the HRC urged the Philippine government to ‘take the necessary steps to adopt legislation explicitly prohibiting discrimination’ and ‘to pursue its efforts to counter all forms of discrimination’ pertaining to sexual orientation. The Committee further urged the Philippines to ‘strengthen human rights education to forestall manifestations of intolerance and de facto discrimination.’”

Atty. Padilla stressed, “A clear expression of the affirmation of the rights to sexual orientation and gender identity is the March 26, 2007 Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity released by international human rights experts in a worldwide call for action against sexual orientation discrimination.” “The Principles were adopted by 29 distinguished experts in international law following a meeting in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Among the group of experts were former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and former President of Ireland Mary Robinson, UN independent experts including Philip Alston (UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions) and Paul Hunt (UN Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of health), current and former members of human rights treaty bodies, judges, academics and human rights defenders,” said Atty. Padilla. Sonia Onufer Corrêa of Brazil, who co-chaired the experts’ group said, “ [W]omen, men and persons whose sexuality does not conform with dominant norms face rape, torture, murder, violence, and abuse because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. These Principles affirm that human rights admit no exceptions.”

In December 2008, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for an end to “killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation.” Also in December 2008, a joint statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity was delivered by Argentina on behalf of 66 States. . At the same UN General Assembly, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights delivered a statement describing criminal laws against homosexuality as “anachronistic” and “relics of the colonial era.”

“To promote the rights of LGBTs, the right to same-sex marriage, domestic partnership and civil unions should be clearly recognized under Philippine law. A clear recognition of the rights of LGBTs to marriage, domestic partnerships and civil unions is a step towards equality and equal protection of the law. Such recognition would also support needed reforms in law where there is equality for LGBT couples with regard to adoption,tax exemption, social security benefits, health care benefits, insurance benefits, rights of next of kin during hospitalization, death and burial benefits, immigration, succession, among others,” added Atty. Padilla.

“Heterosexuals are not the only ones with rights. Laws respecting the rights of LGBTs are important steps towards ending discrimination against LGBTs and will clearly show that the rights of LGBTs are protected. This is the kind of policy environment that is needed to end homophobia. It is the duty of the Philippines to uphold the right to sexual orientation and gender identity,” Atty. Padilla concluded.

"EnGendeRights Calls on the COMELEC to Overturn its Resolution Denying the Accreditation of Ang Ladlad" by Clara Rita A. Padilla

November 22, 2009, Manila—“The COMELEC Resolution denying accreditation to Ang Ladlad for reasons of immorality and for being a threat to the youth is clearly discriminatory against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders (LGBTs). The resolution even equates homosexuality with being illegal. There is nothing immoral and illegal about a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity,” said Atty. Clara Rita Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

“Contrary to the discriminatory views issued by the COMELEC, the rights of LGBTs are recognized in international treaties that the Philippines has ratified such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Having ratified these treaties, it is the obligation of the Philippines to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of LGBTs,” says Atty. Padilla.

The ICCPR protects LGBTs against discrimination on the basis of equal protection. Pertinent provisions of this treaty are as follows: article 2 (1) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of “other” status; article 3 which provides for equal right of men and women; and article 23 speaks on equality of rights to marriage.

Cases decided by the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the committee tasked to monitor the implementation of the ICCPR, uphold the right to sexual orientation. In the case of Toonen v. Australia, the HRC found that the prohibition of private homosexual behavior is an arbitrary intrusion on privacy rights under article 17 of the ICCPR and the right against discrimination under article 2 of the same convention. After the decision, Tasmania repealed the law in question. In the case of Young v. Australia, the Repatriation Commission denied Young’s application for pension for his war veteran same-sex partner of 38 years. The HRC decision found a violation by Australia of article 26 of the ICCPR on equality before the law and non-discrimination and that Mr. Young is entitled to reconsideration of his pension application without discrimination based on his sex or sexual orientation, if necessary through an amendment of the law.

There are cases where the HRC found that the petition for change of name should be granted because the right to choose one’s name and identity is covered by the right to privacy under article 17 of the ICCPR. In the cases of Goodwin v. United Kingdom and Case of I. v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights considered the cases of two transsexual women who claimed that the United Kingdom’s refusal to change their legal identities and papers to match their postoperative genders constituted discrimination. Reversing a number of its previous decisions — and offering a major victory for transgender people’s rights — the Court held that their right to respect for their private lives, and also their right to marry, had been violated (articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention).

Atty. Padilla added, “In the 2003 Concluding Observations on the Philippines, the HRC urged the Philippine government to ‘take the necessary steps to adopt legislation explicitly prohibiting discrimination’ and ‘to pursue its efforts to counter all forms of discrimination’ pertaining to sexual orientation. The Committee further urged the Philippines to ‘strengthen human rights education to forestall manifestations of intolerance and de facto discrimination.’

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee), tasked to monitor CEDAW, issued General Recommendation 21 recognizing that “[t]he form and concept of the family can vary from State to State, and even between regions within a State.” The Committee has also asked states parties to reconceptualize lesbianism as a sexual orientation and to abolish penalties for its practice.

The HRC, tasked to monitor the ICCPR, recognized in General Comment 19 that the concept and structure of family may differ from state to state and that the right to marry and found a family may be based on diverse definitions of families and relationships.

Atty. Padilla continued, “To state the truth also about the freedom to choose who to have sex with including same-sex, there are many countries allowing same-sex, civil unions, and the like. Same-sex marriages are recognized in Netherlands, Canada, South Africa and even in the predominantly Catholic countries such as Belgium and Spain. Spain is the third country to have recognized same-sex marriage. Recognition of the rights of homosexuals by Muslims can be seen in the example of Iranian clerics who recently gave approval to gender reassignment surgery to transgendered people. In Lebanon, a small public campaign exists to legalize homosexual relations in private between consenting adults.”

Atty. Padilla stressed, “A clear expression of the affirmation of the rights to sexual orientation and gender identity is the March 26, 2007 Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity released by international human rights experts in a worldwide call for action against sexual orientation discrimination.” “The Principles were adopted by 29 distinguished experts in international law following a meeting in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Among the group of experts were former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and former President of Ireland Mary Robinson, UN independent experts including Philip Alston (UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions) and Paul Hunt (UN Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of health), current and former members of human rights treaty bodies, judges, academics and human rights defenders,” said Atty. Padilla. Sonia Onufer Corrêa of Brazil, who co-chaired the experts’ group said, “ [W]omen, men and persons whose sexuality does not conform with dominant norms face rape, torture, murder, violence, and abuse because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. These Principles affirm that human rights admit no exceptions.”

“There is widespread discrimination against LGBTs in the Philippines, yet no national law explicitly protects homosexuals from discrimination nor promotes their rights. While a Quezon City ordinance prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation, in Makati City, a dress code is imposed on gay men working for the city government. There are anti-discrimination bills based on sexual orientation pending in Congress, but none has yet been passed into law,” said Atty. Padilla.

Furthermore, the Philippine justice system still blatantly discriminates against lesbians. In Court of Appeals (CA) amparo case several CA justices suggested that petitioner A.L. was an immoral person because she is a lesbian, and went so far as to suggest that consequently, A.L.’s mother was justified in kidnapping, holding hostage, and beating her. In the first hearing of the case Justice Roxas of the CA stated, “The main problem that we are confronted here, as the RTC [Regional Trial Court] judge sees it, …that this is not the case of a restrained liberty. The problem that the TC sees is that this is the problem of morals.” While A.L. is a twenty-eight year-old woman, in the second hearing of the case, Justice Garcia of the CA reduces her to a mere child by saying that the “scolding, spanking that [A.L] received from [her] mother…is but part actually of disciplinary action exercised by parents over their children.”

Both the first and second hearings of the amparo case are laced with explicit references to the immorality of lesbianism. Justices Roxas and Garcia in particular continuously chastise A.L. for her “lifestyle choice”, and then go on to scold her priest (charged with her protection) for failing to persuade her to change her “lifestyle”. Finally, the case was dismissed by the CA forcing petitioner A.L. to live in fear for her life and liberty. In the decision, the CA stated, “To Our mind, the case involves a domestic quarrel between mother and daughter pertaining to family issues on morality. [Petitioner] is a lesbian involved in a lesbian relationship which is vehemently against respondent[’s] will and morals.” The CA in this case clearly made its decision based on biases and discriminatory beliefs against lesbians.

In a case on discrimination of a lesbian mother with regard to the custody of her children, one Regional Trial Court judge made pronouncements in open court that the lesbian woman’s relationship with her lesbian partner was “abnormal”.

In the Philippine Supreme Court case of Rommel Jacinto Dante Silverio vs. Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007), a male to female transgendered person was denied her petition to change her sex and name in her birth certificate.

There is an elevated suicide risk among LGBT young adults related to issues ranging from experiences of discrimination, experiences of sexual-orientation related violence, perceived stigma, and internalized homophobia. As a result of negative cultural attitudes towards homosexuality, including one out of four Filipinos not wanting LGBTs as neighbors, Filipino adolescents may encounter several of the aforementioned issues that could contribute to suicide risk.

In the Philippines, there is no legal recognition of marriage or partnership with regard to lesbians and bisexual and transgender women. It is significant, however, that women victims of abuse in lesbian relationships are accorded the same protection under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act since Sec. 3 includes “any person with whom the woman has or had a sexual dating relationship.”

The Philippine Supreme Court in the case of Pablo-Gualberto v. Gualberto held that sexual preference does not prove parental neglect or incompetence. This recognizes that lesbian mothers have a right to custody of their children and their sexual orientation as lesbians does not make them “unfit” to have parental authority over their children as contemplated under article 213 of the Family Code.

“Several days have passed since Ang Ladlad filed its Motion for Reconsideration to the COMELEC on November 18. To protect the rights of LGBTs to equality and equal protection of the law, the COMELEC should immediately overturn its utterly discriminatory resolution. It is the duty of the Philippines to uphold the right to sexual orientation and gender identity,” Atty. Padilla stressed.

Reproductive Rights Activists Appeal to Six United Nations Special Rapporteurs Regarding Reproductive Rights Violations in Manila

October 13, 2009, Manila — On March 27, 2009, the Philippine-based Task Force CEDAW Inquiry led by EnGendeRights and WomenLead, the Center for Reproductive Rights and International Women’s Rights Action Watch, Asia-Pacific (IWRAW-AP), submitted a request to six United Nations Special Rapporteurs (UNSRs) requesting for an Urgent Appeal to be transmitted to the Philippine government and seeking a fact-finding country visit to investigate reproductive rights violations related to Manila City Executive Order 003 (“EO 003”). The goal in submitting the request was to draw the UNSRs attention to the grave violations perpetrated in Manila City by the Philippine government against women and their families.

The request for an Urgent Appeal was submitted to six UN Special Rapporteurs, namely, health, violence against women, education, human rights defenders, freedom of religion or belief, and the Independent Expert on extreme poverty.

The submission to the UNSRs raised reproductive rights violations in Manila City arising out of then-Mayor Atienza’s issuance of EO 003 and the continued implementation of said EO under Mayor Lim. As alleged in the submission to the UNSRs, this EO has “in practice resulted in a ban on modern contraceptives from all the Manila-run public health facilities and a denial of information or referral on family planning services,” Because women of low socioeconomic status cannot afford family planning services from private clinics, the EO has impermissibly prohibited access to modern family planning methods for such women. The request to the UNSRs elaborated, “Testimonies provided by doctors indicate that they frequently witness pregnancy complications and maternal mortality and morbidity as a result of women’s limited access to reproductive health care.”

The EO has had dire consequences for poor women in Manila, in part because nearly half of all Filipino women have an unmet need for contraception. The submission alleged violations to women’s human rights, including the rights to life, health, self determination and bodily integrity, education, adequate standard of living, freedom from violence, freedom of religion and belief, and the right to promote and protect human rights. The request to the UNSRs highlighted the pervasive effects of the EO such as “unwanted pregnancies, complications arising from lack of access to safe and legal abortion, maternal mortality and morbidity, lack of education and employment opportunities, hunger and poverty for women and their families.”

The UNSRs, which fall within the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, operate under special procedures that allow them to review human rights violations. Typically, the UNSRs receive complaints of human rights violations and issue urgent appeals to the governments to address the violations; in addition, UNSRs perform country visits to examine the national human rights situation.

The submission to the UNSRs requested an Urgent Appeal to be transmitted to the Philippine government to repeal the EO, enact the Reproductive Health bill, and provide full access to reproductive health information and services, as well as a country visit to the Philippines, to look into the effects of the EO on women’s human rights. Atty. Clara Rita Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights and co-convenor of the Task Force CEDAW Inquiry, said, “Allowing a visit by the Special Rapporteurs is a step towards the Philippines compliance with the international human rights standards.”

For country visits by UNSRs, the host country agrees to a visit or better yet issues a standing invitation to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). This standing invitation is an open invitation that allows the UNSRs to conduct investigations and visits to the country. The host country is expected to allow the UNSRs freedom of movement within the country; freedom of inquiry; contacts with government authorities; contacts with NGOs and the media; confidential contact with witnesses of human rights abuses; full access to all relevant documentary material; and, assurances that individuals who have been in contact with the UNSRs will not be harassed or punished.

The UNSRs will review the submission, and will decide whether to issue an Urgent Appeal and conduct a country visit. Should the UNSRs request to visit the Philippines, the government must allow them, to ensure Philippine compliance with international human rights standards. Thus far, UNSRs have issued reports on human rights in the Philippines regarding the human rights of migrants, internally displaced persons, rights of indigenous people, and extrajudicial killings.

The UNHRC urged the Philippine government to issue a standing invitation during the 2008 UNHRC First Universal Periodic Review on the Philippines. At present, the Philippine government has not complied.

According to Atty. Padilla, “A visit by the UNSRs is extremely important in ensuring reproductive rights for all Filipino women, and would be a major step in holding the Philippine government accountable for their reproductive rights violations.”

Reproductive Rights Activists Demand Government Response to the CEDAW Committee and Consent to the Visit of CEDAW Experts

October 13, 2009, Manila -- When Sylvia Pabustan went to a Manila City health clinic seeking family planning services, she was told that the clinic could not give her family planning supplies because “If someone from Manila City Hall found out, [the clinic] would be reprimanded.” When Ms. Pabustan, whose name has been changed for confidentiality, went to a private clinic, she was told the same thing. Another woman, Alia Banyana, whose name has also been changed, reported that when she went to Ospital ng Maynila, she was told that they would not provide tubal ligation because they are “Pro-Life.” Ms. Pabustan and Ms. Banyanas’ stories were only a few of the many collected by EnGendeRights, WomenLEAD, and KAKAMMPI and SAMAKANA-Gabriela during community visits in Manila in 2008 and 2009.

Why are women such as Ms. Pabustan and Ms. Banyana being denied access to basic reproductive health services? According to Attorney Clara Rita Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights, Inc., the blame falls on Mayor Atienza’s EO 003 Series of 2000 (“EO”). The EO promotes the use of natural family planning (NFP) and “discourag[es] the use of artificial methods of contraception, like condoms, pills, intrauterine devices, surgical sterilization.”

The EO has resulted in a ban on modern contraceptives from all the Manila-run public health facilities and a denial of information or referral on the full range of contraceptive methods.

According to Atty. Padilla, this policy of promoting NFP alone has cost many poor women in Manila significantly, “As a consequence, some of them ended up having as many as eight more children than they actually desired. While the national average would only show that women usually have one child more than they desired, the disparity between desired and actual number of children is greater for poor women.” In addition, according to Atty. Padilla, poor women are further impacted by EO 003 because they “do not have the money to pay for their own contraceptive supplies and counseling from private doctors,” unlike wealthier women in Manila.

The EO has had a devastating effect on the lives of many poor women living in Manila. Without access to contraceptives, these women continue to get pregnant and give birth while facing grave threats to their health and ability to subsist. Furthermore, poor families suffer substantial strain when they have more children than they can afford. Some families have five children or more while making only a very small amount of income. Providing access to modern contraceptives prevents unwanted pregnancies, prevents the need for abortion and reduces maternal mortality and morbidity.

The practice of denying women access to modern family planning in Manila, in addition to harming women such as Ms. Pabustan and Ms. Banyana, is against international law and the Philippines’ international treaty obligations, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

The Philippine-based Task Force CEDAW Inquiry led by EnGendeRights and WomenLead, the Center for Reproductive Rights and International Women’s Rights Action Watch, Asia-Pacific (IWRAW-AP), have submitted a total of three official requests for inquiry for consideration of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) to investigate discrimination and other treaty violations resulting from the EO.

The initial request for inquiry, dated June 2, 2008, asserted that the EO violates Articles 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 16, and that the state is responsible for such violations. The subsequent requests, also sent by the Task Force CEDAW Inquiry, dated October 27, 2008, and April 22, 2009, highlight further violations by the Philippine government. In addition, the subsequent requests for inquiry discuss the controversial Reproductive Health Bill, which present Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim does not support.

The delay in the passage of the RH bill into law perpetuates the prevalence of restrictive policies such as the EO. Ben de Leon, President of The Forum for Family Planning and Development, stated that “This is a clear example of why we need a comprehensive reproductive health care bill passed into law in this Congress. With a Reproductive Health Care Law, government hospitals and clinics are required to provide the full range of contraceptive methods, require reproductive health education in schools, among others.”
Attorney Padilla, co-convenor of the Task Force CEDAW Inquiry, said, “The goal of the Task Force is to draw attention to the grave and systematic violations of reproductive rights of Manila residents. The inquiry is a very important procedure that allows the CEDAW experts the opportunity to visit the Philippines to investigate violations committed against women’s reproductive rights. This request for inquiry is only the second that has been submitted to the CEDAW Committee. This is historical! The impact of such a visit will not only be in the Philippines but in other countries as well where there are similar violations of women’s rights.”

Attorney Claire AP Luczon, Executive Director of WomenLEAD and also a co-convenor of the Task Force CEDAW Inquiry, stated: “By being a state party to the CEDAW, the Philippine government has committed to respect, protect and promote the human rights of women to reproductive health, including their human right to family planning information and services. Our government, thus, cannot declare one thing before the international community, and do another in contravention of its declarations in the domestic sphere. Through the inquiry procedure, our government will be called to account for the violations of the commitments it has made under CEDAW and other international human rights instruments. Hopefully, this international pressure will put a stop to the ongoing violations to women's reproductive rights all over the country.”

At the heart of Mayor Atienza’s policy is religious fundamentalism. These types of religiously fundamental policies are encouraged by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s (GMA) natural-family-planning-only stance.

Ben de Leon added, “Under GMA’s administration, the Population Commission only promotes NFP. Such policy is unacceptable. Research shows that the majority of Filipinos seek access to modern contraceptives through the government. The EO and GMA’s support for NFP to the exclusion of other methods of contraception are examples of bad policy. We all know that NFP has a high failure rate.”

While the Philippines is a constitutionally secular state, it is impermissible for national and local policy to be founded on religious beliefs and the government’s imposition of its own moral values. Task Force CEDAW Inquiry emphasized, “Religious fundamentalism has interfered with politics and governance violating the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state, as well as the non-establishment of a state religion.”

Ben de Leon continued, “Both former Mayor Atienza, and current Mayor Lim have been made aware of the pervasive and devastating effects the EO is having on poor women, yet neither has made any move to address the situation.”

Atty. Padilla stressed, “Since the law has been prevailing for almost a decade now and it has not been overturned by the Mayor, the President, Congress and the judiciary, we decided to go to the United Nations CEDAW Committee as a last resort. We simply cannot let the women continue to suffer violations.”

Should the CEDAW Committee decide to conduct an inquiry, it will further investigate the CEDAW violations. The investigation would include a visit to the Philippines by designated members of the Committee. But such visit by the CEDAW Committee can only be done with the consent of the Philippine government. The Committee would then issue its findings regarding the alleged discrimination against women and recommendations for the courses of action the Philippine government should take to alleviate such discrimination.

There has only been one other inquiry conducted since the entry into force of the Optional Protocol in December 2000. The committee issued its concluding comments on the systematic rape and murder of women in and around Ciudad Juarez in Mexico 2005. Atty. Padilla added, “With this inquiry request, we hope that the Philippine government will be pressured to comply with its international treaty obligations. It is time to put an end to the blatant discrimination against women and alleviate the dire situation that women of Manila face as a result of EO 003.”

Over a year has passed since the request for inquiry was submitted to the CEDAW Committee and the EO has not been overturned. As an update, the Philippine government was asked to submit a response to the CEDAW Committee before the end of February 2000 but almost eight months has passed and the Philippine government through DFA sill has not issued its official response. The request of the CEDAW Committee to the government already means that they considered the information submitted to them as reliable and indicative of grave and/or systematic violations as provided under Rule 83 of the CEDAW Committee Rules. The government also has not expressed its consent to the visit of the CEDAW Committee.

As cited in the 2006 CEDAW Concluding Comments on the Philippines, the nation must “strengthen measures aimed at the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, including by making a comprehensive range of contraceptives more widely available and without any restriction”, as well as “give priority attention to the situation of adolescents and that it provide sex education, targeted at girls and boys, with special attention to the prevention of early pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.”

Because of the large numbers of women being denied access to reproductive health services in Manila, in spite of the nation’s duties under CEDAW to ensure the elimination of discrimination against women, an inquiry into reproductive health violations under CEDAW is urgently needed.

For the sake of poor women in Manila, an inquiry by the CEDAW Committee is needed to provide recourse for women affected by the EO.

EnGendeRights Submits Shadow Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child

Quezon City, September 4, 2009 – “Yesterday, September 3, EnGendeRights, represented by its Executive Director Atty. Clara Rita Padilla, submitted a Shadow Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (the “Committee”) in time for its review of the Philippines on September 15 during the Committee’s 52nd session.

The Shadow Report drew attention to adolescents’ lack of access to modern contraceptive methods, emergency contraception, education on sexuality and family planning, safe and legal abortion, and safe pregnancy and childbirth. The report additionally discussed HIV/AIDS issues, forced marriages, gender-based violence and rape, human trafficking, discrimination against and suicide among gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals. All of these matters will be examined by the Committee in an effort to bring to the forefront the Philippine government’s violations of adolescent sexual and reproductive rights.

According to the 2008 UNFPA State of the World Population Report, adolescent Filipino girls aged 15-19 are already giving birth at 47 births per 1,000 women of their age. The International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) estimates that approximately 15% of women aged 20-24 in the Philippines were married before they were 18 years old. Under Muslim law, girls are allowed to marry at age 15 rather than age 18. By allowing girls in the Philippines to marry at such a young age, the Philippine government is perpetuating a harmful practice to girls that greatly impacts these adolescent women’s education, health, and their total well-being.
The Shadow Report calls the attention of the Committee on the Executive Order No. 003 (“the EO”) issued by then Mayor Jose L. Atienza, Jr. which effectively banned supplies of modern contraceptives from Manila City-run public health facilities and denied women referral or information on family planning services. Atty. Padilla said, “Mayor Lim, on the other hand, still has not repealed the EO despite repeated requests for him to do so. The EO is preventing Filipino women, including adolescents, from accessing information, supplies, and services on modern contraceptives in Manila-run public health care facilities. This is a problem primarily for poor and adolescent women who are in greatest need of such supplies.”

The Shadow Report also emphasized the rights violations caused by the lack of emergency contraception (EC) in the Philippines. Postinor, the emergency contraceptive, is banned in the Philippines due to the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD)’s claim that Postinor has an “abortifacient” effect. Atty. Padilla added, “Lack of access to EC unnecessarily exposes women to the multiple risks associated with unintended pregnancy. In the Philippines, the prevalence of laws criminalizing abortion compounds these risks. The immediate re-listing of Postinor in the registry of available drugs would be an important first step toward preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortions, and reducing maternal mortality.”

The illegality of abortion in the Philippines is a violation of the Convention. Results of a study conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) revealed that in 2000, 473,000 Filipino women had illegal abortions and that approximately 800 women die every year due to complications resulting from unsafe abortion. Although abortion is outlawed, hundreds of thousands of Filipino women undergo the procedure unsafely with detrimental repercussions. Atty. Padilla asserted, “Criminalization of abortion has created an extremely prohibitive environment leading to discriminatory and inhumane treatment of women seeking medical attention after having undergone an unsafe abortion. Low-income women are disproportionately impacted by the ban on abortion…it is estimated that two-thirds of women who undergo abortion are poor.”

“Unsafe abortions contribute to the astoundingly high maternal mortality rate of 230 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2008. The law criminalizing abortion does not eliminate abortions; it only makes it dangerous for women who undergo clandestine and unsafe abortion. The criminal provision penalizing the woman and the physician for self-induced abortion must be repealed,” Atty. Padilla explained.

Atty. Padilla disclosed that, “Access to quality healthcare facilities is a major barrier facing pregnant Filipino adolescents, especially in rural areas. Only 60% of births in the Philippines are assisted by skilled birth attendants.”

HIV/AIDS is another issue discussed in the Shadow Report. Many new cases are being diagnosed in Filipino adolescents, and Atty. Padilla stated that, “Due to lack of sexual education, many of them are unable to negotiate safe sex and have limited or no access to information about protection. The spread of HIV/AIDS in the Philippines could easily be curtailed by a comprehensive national reproductive health policy that increased knowledge and use of contraceptives, including condoms. Yet, the Philippine government has no such policy and allows the Catholic Church to continue to deceive the Philippine public about the efficacy of condoms in preventing the spread of disease.”

Incidence of gender-based violence and rape remain high in the Philippines, with an average of eight women and nine children raped daily. Despite the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 and the Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998, the Shadow Report stated, “Numerous complaints for rape are dismissed at the preliminary investigation level and in the Regional Trial Courts… Many judges and public prosecutors still do not understand the realities of rape as gender-based violence.”

Studies show that three out of five Filipino women have been victims of physical abuse. The “Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” took effect five years ago, but Atty. Padilla claimed, “There is still an ongoing disjunct between the law and how the law is being implemented in barangays, police stations, and courts.”

In 2005, an estimated 800,000 women and children were forced into prostitution in the Philippines. If caught, these women are imprisoned; Atty. Padilla clarified, “The existing criminal law imposing imprisonment on women in prostitution disregards the fact that many are lured to prostitution because of the desperation due to poverty and lack of alternative sources of income. The discriminatory provisions imposing penalties on women in prostitution should be repealed.”

On the issue of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals (LGBTs), the Shadow Report highlighted the blatant discrimination LGBTs routinely face including homophobic statements issued by Court of Appeals justices during hearings on a writ of amparo case filed by a lesbian who was locked in a room for a month by her own mother. Despite Committee recommendations in 2005 to “establish adequate mental health services tailored for adolescents,” suicide rates still remain high for the LGBT adolescent population. The Shadow Report pronounced, “Adolescence is a time of great change in any person’s life, particularly as one discovers and navigates her or his own sexuality and sexual orientation. This elevated suicide risk among gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults is related to issues ranging from experiences of discrimination, experiences of sexual-orientation related violence, perceived stigma, and internalized homophobia.”

“Cytotec is a Life-Saving Essential Medicine” by Clara Rita A. Padilla

Quezon City, August 21, 2009 – “Yesterday, August 20, thousands worth of cytotec were seized by the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Quiapo. Contrary to what fundamentalists and the misinformed say, cytotec, with generic name misoprostol, is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “a life-saving device.” In April 2009, the WHO announced the inclusion of misoprostol to its Model List of Essential Medicines based on its proven safety and efficacy for the treatment of incomplete abortion and miscarriage,” said Atty. Clara Rita “Claire” A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

The inclusion to the Model List of Essential Medicines was made by an expert committee that evaluated available evidence, which includes several guidelines and numerous randomized and comparative clinical trials for this indication.

In the proposal submitted by Gynuity Health Projects to the WHO, it state the following evidence and considerations:
• “Misoprostol is effective for this purpose. More than a dozen randomized or comparative trials have been carried out, the most recent showing that misoprostol has a success rate of about 90-100% for treatment of incomplete abortion and miscarriage.
• Medical evacuation of the uterus with misoprostol offers an alternative to surgical treatment, which in low-resource settings is often unavailable and may be associated with significant morbidity.
• Misoprostol is inexpensive and so offers a low-cost but safe and effective means of treating this common obstetrical condition.
• Misoprostol is safe. More than 600 studies have been published on the use of misoprostol in obstetrics and gynecology that have involved well over 90,000 women.
• Incomplete abortion contributes disproportionately to maternal morbidity and mortality in much of the developing world.”
The WHO Model Essential Medicine List guides the development of national and institutional essential medicine lists. The Model List has led to a global acceptance of essential medicines to promote health equity.
Atty. Padilla said, “The denial of access to safe life-saving medicines such as cytotec is not only contrary to international human rights law and international medical standards but will further compound a major public health crisis in the country involving half a million unsafe abortion procedures every year, 79,000 hospital admissions for complications from unsafe abortion and 800 deaths.”
“Twelve percent of maternal deaths in the Philippines are due to unsafe abortion. The latest Philippine statistics on abortion also show the following profile of women who induce abortion: nine in ten women are married or in a consensual union; more than half have at least three children; two-thirds are poor; nearly 90% are Catholic,” Atty. Padilla continued.

“Our national statistics reveal that criminalizing abortion does not eliminate abortions; it only makes it dangerous for women who undergo clandestine and unsafe abortion. No one wants women to be in a circumstance where they have no choice but to seek an abortion. But the reality is that unequal power relations prevent women from having control over their bodies and their reproductive decisions,” added Atty. Padilla.

“Furthermore, in the Philippines the full range of contraceptive methods is unavailable, which directly contributed to the high rate of unwanted pregnancy and pushes women to resort to unsafe abortions that in many cases result in death. The obligation to provide access to information and family planning methods as a means of reducing abortion has been recognized by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) and the Beijing and Cairo Conferences consensus documents,” said Atty. Padilla.

Recognizing the need of women for misoprostol, organizations like Women on Waves and Women on Web have come out with guidelines on its use for medical abortion up to nine weeks of pregnancy.

Atty. Padilla continued, “Predominantly Catholic countries around the world have long separated fundamentalist Catholic Church doctrine with the states’ policies. A classic example is Spain, whose colonial rule in the Philippines converted many Filipinos to become Catholics, which allows abortion on certain grounds[2]. Other predominantly Catholics countries that allow abortion are Belgium, France, Italy,[3] Hungary,[4] Mexico,[5] Portugal,[6] Poland,[7] and Colombia[8]. While Spain and other predominantly Catholic countries have liberalized their laws to protect human rights and ensure social justice, we Filipinos have been left to contend with the vestiges of our outdated colonial laws and values.”

“During the August 2006 periodic review of the Philippines, the CEDAW Committee, urged the Philippine government to ‘consider the problem of unsafe abortion as a matter of high priority’ and ‘consider reviewing the laws relating to abortion with a view to removing punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion and provide them with access to quality services for the management of complications arising from unsafe abortions and to reduce women’s maternal mortality rates in line with the Committee’s general recommendation 24 on women and health and the Beijing Platform for Action,’” Atty. Padilla stressed.

Atty. Padilla added, “The critical link between unsafe abortion and maternal mortality has also been a matter of concern for the Human Rights Committee, the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee, and the Children’s Rights Committee. They have consistently called upon states with criminal abortion laws to review their laws as a means to ensuring women’s basic human rights.”
“In the communication K. Llantoy v. Peru[9] filed with the Human Rights Committee (HRC) where a 17-year old woman was prevented from terminating her risky pregnancy of an anencephalic fetus (a fetus with a partial brain[10]) where the infant died five days after birth and the woman fell into a deep depression,[11] the HRC found in 2005 that: forcing the woman to carry her pregnancy to a term constituted cruel and inhuman treatment in violation of article 7 of the ICCPR;[12] violated her right to privacy under article 17;[13] and violated her right to receive the special care she required as an adolescent girl from the health system under article 24.[14] The State party was recommended to provide an effective remedy to the author, including compensation, and to adopt measures to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future,”[15] Atty. Padilla continued.

“Although misoprostol (with brand name cytotec) is already in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, cytotec is still an unregistered drug here in the Philippines. Recognized as a life-saving device, cytotec must be registered by the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) to make it readily available to women who need it. The Philippine government must ensure that international human rights standards and medical standards are upheld in the Philippines,” concluded Atty. Padilla.


* * *

[1] Misoprostol is already included in the 14th (2005) and 15th (2007) editions of WHO Model List of EssentialMedicines (22.1 Oxytocic) because of its proven safety and efficacy for medical
abortion and labor induction. In April 2009, WHO announced the inclusion of misoprostol to its Model List of Essential Medicines for the treatment of incomplete abortion and miscarriage.

[2]Spain permits abortion on grounds of rape and fetal impairment.

[3] Belgium, France and Italy permit abortion upon a woman’s request.

[4] Hungary’s constitution protects life from conception but permits abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation.

[5] Mexico City legalized abortion in the first trimester without restriction (April 24, 2007).

[6] Portugal allows abortion up to 10 weeks of pregnancy but with a mandatory three-day "reflection period” (up to 12 weeks if her health is at risk; up to 16 weeks if the pregnancy is a result of rape; any time during the pregnancy to save a woman's life).

[7] Poland allows abortion to protect a woman’s life and physical health; rape, incest; fetal impairment

[8] Colombia now permits abortion on the following grounds: where the woman’s life or health is in danger; the pregnancy is the result of rape; when the fetus has malformation incompatible with life outside the uterus. Colombia’s abortion law formerly outlawed the procedure under all circumstances. The law was challenged in the Constitutional Court by a Colombian citizen on April 14, 2005. The argument included the CEDAW and ICCPR monitoring bodies’ recommendations for Colombia to decriminalize abortion under the most extreme cases.

[9] K. Llantoy v. Peru, Case No. 1553/2003, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/ 1153/2003 (2005).
[10] Id. ¶ 2.1.
[11] Id. ¶¶ 2.5 & 2.6.
[12] Id. ¶ 6.3.
[13] Id. ¶ 6.4.
[14] Id. ¶ 6.5.
[15] K. Llantoy. v. Peru, Case No. 1553/2003, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/ 1153/2003, ¶ 8 (2005).

“Catholic Priests, the Magna Carta of Women, and Pregnancy Outside of Marriage” by Clara Rita A. Padilla

,Quezon City, August 20, 2009 – “Catholic priests are saying they will refuse readmission of students and dismiss teachers who became pregnant outside of marriage. This is a clear violation of the newly-signed Magna Carta of Women (RA 9710). Once the law becomes effective as Philippine law, Catholic schools must abide by the provisions of the Magna Carta which specifically prohibits against discrimination of pregnant teachers and students outside of marriage. Under the Magna Carta, a government official who is found to have violated this provision will be sanctioned under administrative law, civil service law or other laws while a private individual can be made liable for damages and other applicable criminal laws, said Atty. Clara Rita “Claire” A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

Atty. Padilla continued, “Contrary to the rabid disinformation of Filipino Catholic priests, predominantly Catholic countries around the world have long separated fundamentalist Catholic Church doctrine with the states’ policies. A classic example is Spain, whose colonial rule in the Philippines converted many Filipinos to become Catholics, which allows abortion on certain grounds[1] and became the third country in the world to allow same-sex marriage. Other predominantly Catholics countries that allow abortion are Belgium, France, Italy,[2] Hungary,[3] Mexico,[4] Portugal,[5] Poland,[6] and Colombia[7]. Other predominantly Catholic Countries allowing same-sex marriage are Belgium and certain regions in Italy. Same-sex civil unions are recognized in predominantly Catholic countries such as in Colombia and Uruguay and in certain cities in Mexico and Argentina. While Spain and other predominantly Catholic countries have liberalized their laws to protect human rights, we Filipinos have been left to contend with the vestiges of our outdated colonial laws and values.”

“I myself, a reproductive rights activist, was a member and an officer of the University of the Philippine Student Catholic Action (UPSCA) in my college days. Certainly, these Catholic priests who profess Catholicism do not have a monopoly of what it means to be Catholic,” said Atty. Padilla.

“Jesus in his time taught compassion, love for others and non-judgmental attitude towards others. This is how Catholicism should be in the Philippines and anywhere around the world. Catholic schools must not teach their students hatred and discriminatory attitudes towards others. Let us not forget the true essence of Catholicism and respect for the fundamental rights of others which includes the right to education, among others,” concluded Atty. Padilla. ***
[1] Spain permits abortion on grounds of rape and fetal impairment.

[2] Belgium, France and Italy permit abortion upon a woman’s request.

[3] Hungary’s constitution protects life from conception but permits abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation.

[4] Mexico City legalized abortion in the first trimester without restriction (April 24, 2007).

[5] Portugal allows abortion up to 10 weeks of pregnancy but with a mandatory three-day "reflection period” (up to 12 weeks if her health is at risk; up to 16 weeks if the pregnancy is a result of rape; any time during the pregnancy to save a woman's life).

[6] Poland allows abortion to protect a woman’s life and physical health; rape, incest; fetal impairment

[7] Colombia now permits abortion on the following grounds: where the woman’s life or health is in danger; the pregnancy is the result of rape; when the fetus has malformation incompatible with life outside the uterus. Colombia’s abortion law formerly outlawed the procedure under all circumstances. The law was challenged in the Constitutional Court by a Colombian citizen on April 14, 2005. The argument included the CEDAW and ICCPR monitoring bodies' recommendations for Colombia to decriminalize abortion under the most extreme cases.

"The Magna Carta of Women" by Clara Rita A. Padilla

Quezon City, August 14, 2009 – “The signing of the Magna Carta of Women is a milestone in the promotion and protection of the rights of women. The Magna Carta of Women is an important law. Finally, we have a law that incorporates Article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW or Women’s Convention) which defines discrimination against women,” said Atty. Clara Rita “Claire” A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

Sec. 4(b) of the Magna Carta defines discrimination against women as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”

Atty. Padilla added, “Included in the law is the prohibition against discrimination of pregnant teachers and students outside of marriage (Sec. 13, paragraph c). This will stop dismissals of women teachers and students from school because of pregnancy outside of marriage. I know of a case where a national high school terminated a female teacher merely for being pregnant outside of marriage. I have also received reports of college students from a Catholic school who were forced to get married because their school wouldn’t admit them for the reason that they had borne a child outside of marriage. With the Magna Carta, a government official who is found to have violated this provision and other provisions of the Magna Carta will be sanctioned under administrative law, civil service law or other laws while a private individual can be made liable for damages and other applicable criminal laws.”

“The Magna Carta is indeed an important step towards the promotion and protection of the rights women. The effective implementation of the law will contribute towards the prevention and prosecution of discrimination against women,” concluded Atty. Padilla

"Cory: The Epitome of an Extraordinary Filipino Woman" by Clara Rita A. Padilla

Quezon City, August 5, 2009 – “At a time when the Philippines needed an icon to bring down a dictator, Cory Aquino was there. At the time of death, Cory again rouses our love for country, for democracy, for fellow Filipinos, for family. Cory is not just an icon of democracy she is the epitome of an extraordinary Filipino woman who is strong-willed, of pure and kind heart, selfless, calm, simple, and with abundant faith. Kudos to you, Cory,” said Atty. Clara Rita “Claire” A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

“As the epitome of an extraordinary Filipino woman, the world would be a better place if we emulate Cory’s essence in our hearts and minds,” added Atty. Padilla. “This also comes very timely when the 2010 elections are coming. It would do the Philippines good if candidates for the coming elections do a lot of introspection and keep in their hearts the essence of nationalism and good governance,” concluded Atty. Padilla.

"Katrina Deserves All the Support She Needs" by Clara Rita A. Padilla

Quezon City, May 23, 2009 – “Let us not judge Katrina. She is the victim. Dr. Hayden Kho betrayed Katina’s trust when he took intimate videos of them without her consent,” said Atty. Clara Rita “Claire” A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

“Whoever was involved in the production, distribution, sale, and uploading of the videos violated Katrina’s right to privacy. They should all be made accountable criminally, civilly, and administratively for their acts. These violations should not go unpunished, otherwise, more unscrupulous people would have the gall to exploit others--women mostly. Successful prosecution of these violations is crucial to putting a stop to the proliferation of these videos and these abuses,” added Atty. Padilla.

Atty. Padilla continued, “Please do not view the video through the internet and do not buy the videos. Each time one views or buys the video is another violation of Katrina. So, please stop. Please respect Katrina and others who suffered the same fate. If this happened to you, I’m sure you wouldn’t want others to continue watching it.”

“We should also congratulate Katrina for embarking in this cause to find vindication and hold the perpetrators liable for their acts. Katrina now symbolizes someone who has transcended victimization and is now taking the cudgels for all women who suffered the same violation. She is asking other victims to come out and fight for their rights. Katrina deserves all the support she needs,” stressed Atty. Padilla.

Atty. Padilla also reiterated the urgent call for new and effective legislation that penalizes the production, distribution, and sale of said videos.

“With the new technologies now, women should be wary of having pictures and videos taken of their sexual intimacies. You never know who will get hold of these,” concluded Atty. Padilla.

It is the Country that Owes Vanessa

Quezon City, May 20, 2009 – “Instead of hounding Vanessa that she owes the country it is the country that owes Vanessa. The country owes rape victims the proper judgments where they are believed for their rape complaints. A rape victim should be given credence when she says, ‘No, I did not consent to the sexual act,’” said Atty. Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

“The actors in our judicial system are the ones who owe rape victims the justice they seek. If there is proper prosecution, investigation, and the perpetrators are convicted and punished, then that is justice,” added Atty. Padilla.

Atty. Padilla continued, “The rape acquittals constitute a failure of the Philippine government to comply with its obligation of due diligence in addressing violence against women (VAW). The Philippines is mandated to ‘refrain from engaging in VAW, to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and, punish acts of VAW and to provide access to just and effective remedies including medical assistance to victims; to take appropriate and effective action whether those acts are perpetrated by the State, by private persons or by armed groups or warring factions.”1


Atty. Padilla continued, “Convictions of rapists prevent other rapes from happening. These convictions will send a strong message that rape cannot happen with impunity. This is what the country owes rape victims. No less.”

“It is also through effective prosecution and proper punishment of rapists that we can encourage rape victims to come out, file their cases, and get vindication of their rights,” added Atty. Padilla.

“Our justice system must put a stop to impunity of rapists. Our media and the common tao must simply stop blaming victims of rape. The perpetrators of rape are the ones at fault, no one else,” Atty. Padilla stressed.

“Let us also be mindful that there would not have been a Vanessa and Nicole if there was no Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). The VFA should never have been ratified not only for being lopsided and defying our sovereignty but for bringing militarism which, we are all aware, brings human rights abuses including rape into our country. There mustn’t be any more Nicole and Vanessa. The time to abrogate VFA is now,” Atty. Padilla concluded.

___________________

1. Extension of mandate of U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women (UNSRVAW) by the Commission on Human Rights in 2003, 59th sess., Res. 2003/45.

The CA Acquittal of Smith is Sexist Jurisprudence

Quezon City, April 24, 2009 – “The decision issued by the Special Eleventh Division of the Court of Appeals is a clear example of bad case law in the Philippines. This is what I call sexist jurisprudence. Here in the Philippines we are still faced with court decisions where the testimonies of rape victim are not given credence. This kind of jurisprudence must be overturned. There has a long line of cases decided by the Supreme Court where it is said that when a rape victim says she was raped, she says all there is to be said. The CA decision contravenes such long-held jurisprudence,” said Atty. Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

“How can the decision hold that the incident wasn’t rape but a “romantic episode” when there was clear evidence of lack of consent before, during, and after the rape was committed? It would seem that the justices who issued the decision had a mindset of what a rape victim should be. In their minds, Nicole wasn’t a demure barrio lass, thus, could not have been raped. In reality, however, any woman can be a victim of rape regardless of their demeanor and character. Many women may even get tipsy or drunk but this doesn’t mean they’re asking to be abused. This is classic victim-blaming. Smith was the one who took advantage of her and raped her. He is the only one to be blamed,” Atty. Padilla continued.

Atty. Padilla said, “The fact that the decision was issued by three women only goes to show that there are still many judges and justices—women and men alike--who lack an understanding of gender-based violence. Gender-based violence is defined as ‘violence which is directed against a woman because she is a woman or which affects women disproportionately.’”1

The decision also contravenes a long line of Supreme Court cases where the higher court gave more weight to the finding of fact by the trial court judge who has had the chance of observing the demeanor of the complainant.

Atty. Padilla stressed, “This is a failure of the Philippine government to comply with its obligation of due diligence in addressing violence against women (VAW). The Philippines is mandated to ‘refrain from engaging in VAW, to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and, punish acts of VAW and to provide access to just and effective remedies including medical assistance to victims; to take appropriate and effective action whether those acts are perpetrated by the State, by private persons or by armed groups or warring factions.”2

“In accordance with the state obligation to address VAW, a petition for certiorari must be filed by the state alleging grave abuse of discretion.3 The Supreme Court must not allow such sexist jurisprudence to prevail in our courts.” Atty. Padilla added.


______________
1. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 19, art. 1, U.N. Doc. No. A/47/38 (1992), available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom19 (last accessed May 19, 2008) [hereinafter General Recommendation No. 19].
2. Extension of mandate of U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women (UNSRVAW) by the Commission on Human Rights in 2003, 59th sess., Res. 2003/45.
3. Appeals in acquittals from the trial court are allowed based on deprivation of due process and grave abuse of discretion under the DOJ Memo Circular No. 3, April 1, 1997 and have been allowed in cases such as PP vs. Sandiganbayan and Geronimo Z. Velasco, G.R. No. 140633, February 4, 2002.

Women’s NGOs Cries Justice for Rebelyn Pitao

Quezon City, March 10, 2009 – The torture, possible rape, and killing of Rebelyn Pitao, a 20-year old civilian teacher and daughter of an NPA commander, is evidence of the continuous human rights violations that is happening under the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration. “The abduction of Rebelyn on March 4 and later her body found dead on March 5 at the time when women should be celebrating women’s gains and solidarity for their causes this Women’s Month is indeed a slap in the face of all Filipino women,” said Atty. Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

Atty. Padilla added, “All the perpetrators of this gruesome violence against women, the four armed men and those who issued the orders, must face accountability and be immediately dismissed from service after a thorough investigation and hearing. Under the doctrine of due diligence, the Philippine government has the ‘duty to prevent, investigate and punish international law violations and pay just compensation.’”

“The Philippine government is directly responsible for the acts of the perpetrators under the international law of State responsibility,” continued Atty. Padilla. The Articles on State Responsibility adopted by the International Law Commission and subsequently noted by the UN General Assembly. Article 4 of the Articles provides:

Article 4. Conduct of Organs of a State
a) The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State.

b) An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State.


Atty. Padilla stressed, “Thus, actions of the operatives that are inconsistent with the Philippines’ international human rights obligations amount to a failure by the State to fulfill its human rights obligations. Having ratified the Conventions on Women, Torture, and Civil and Political Rights, the Philippine government must put a stop to these human rights violations.”

Inaction against the perpetrators and the continuing failure of the judiciary to actively prosecute the perpetrators provide evidence of the failure of the State to fulfill its human rights obligations and the complete lack of will to address the human rights violations.

Nicole is a Victim; Her Supposed Recantation Shouldn’t be Given Weight

Quezon City, March 18, 2009 – “Nicole has been a victim. She was a victim of the ills brought forth by the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). She was raped by a U.S. military personnel. She has been victimized by those who didn’t believe her complaint for rape. She has been victimized by a government that refuses to assert its sovereignty by allowing Daniel Smith to be detained in the U.S. embassy. And now she is being blamed for succumbing to pressure,” said Atty. Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

Atty. Padilla added, “As a private prosecutor of violence against women cases, I’d like to say that we should respect Nicole’s decision. The pressure must really have been too much for her.”

“If those who drafted the supposed recantation thought they were successful in raising doubts, they are mistaken because the supposed recantation failed miserably in doing so. On the other hand, it even strengthened Nicole’s lack of consent to the sexual act,” Atty. Padilla added. She stressed though that, “It is also important to mention that the Philippine Supreme Court has decided in a long line of cases that recantation of a witness should not be given weight. It has also been decided by the Supreme Court that the findings of fact of a lower court, the regional trial court in this case, bears a lot of weight. Thus, the conviction of Smith should be upheld by the appellate court.”

Atty. Padilla continued, “The timing of the supposed recantation at this point where there is strong clamor to abrogate the VFA is also suspicious. If the pressure to issue the supposed recantation was specifically made to squash the momentum to abrogate VFA, then those behind this move are mistaken because no such acts will dampen the hearts of Filipinos who want the VFA abrogated. The fight to abrogate the VFA will continue to rage on. Without the VFA, there wouldn’t have been a Nicole.”

As regards the publication of the name and picture of Nicole, “it would have been best if the name and picture of Nicole were kept confidential in accordance with the protective measures provided under Republic Act 8505. Keeping the identity of a rape victim confidential makes life easier for rape survivors and it encourages more rape victims to file complaints,” added Atty. Padilla.

Women’s Rights NGO Calls on Congress to Pass the RH bill into Law Amidst CBCP Opposition by Clara Rita A. Padilla

Manila, February 22, 2009 --Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights, said, “We are calling on the Congress to the pass the reproductive health care (RH) bill into law in this present Congress and not later. She said senators and congresspersons should show their full support to the RH bill to manifestly express their political will.”

“The 2008 national and Manila City surveys of the Social Weather Stations both confirm that majority of Filipinos want the RH bill passed into law, 71% and 86%, respectively. Politically, it is popular for legislators to support the RH bill. With these statistics, a clear support for the RH bill increases the possibility of winning a seat in the coming 2010 elections. More and more voters are keeping tab,” Atty. Padilla added.

The national and Manila City surveys even show that majority of Catholics want the RH bill passed into law (71% and 85%, respectively). The recent walk-out of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) during the Senate Technical Working Group meeting only shows that the CBCP is not responsive to the needs of the Filipinos—Catholics included,” Atty. Padilla added.

In reaction to the CBCP’s statement saying that they will campaign against the reproductive health care bill pending in Congress, Atty. Padilla emphasized, “CBCP’s stance on the reproductive health care bill is detrimental to women’s reproductive rights.”

Atty. Padilla said, “The recent Social Weather Stations (SWS) findings on Manila City reflect the sentiments and needs of Manila residents. CBCP is completely disregarding the needs of Manilans and this is detrimental to the lives and well-being of Filipino families especially the poor residents of Manila City.”

“The SWS survey clearly showed the correlation between large family size and the very basic problem of hunger that the family experiences. The CBCP should instead heed the call of Manilans avowing for the need for reproductive health services, the enactment of a law protecting their reproductive rights, and for sexuality education,” continued Atty. Padilla.

“As can be seen in the survey, the residents of Manila want the reproductive health care bill passed into law. The poor of Manila took the brunt of former Mayor Atienza’s policy under EO 003 (Series of 2000) by restricting their access to contraceptives. And they are still feeling the impact of such restrictive policy even now under Mayor Lim’s term since the Office of the Mayor is not providing funding to buy free contraceptives for Manila residents. The impact of such a policy is especially felt by poor women who cannot even afford to buy a 25 peso kilo of rice for their families,” stressed Atty. Padilla.

“In my work with the community women from Tondo, I interviewed women who wanted to undergo ligation during Atienza’s term but they were completely denied access by the local public hospitals. They were told that such services were prohibited because Manila was ‘pro-life’. Now, under Mayor Lim’s term, we asked the Family Planning Services of the Manila Health Department for a measly P5250 to cover medications of 35 poor women who wanted to undergo ligation and we were flatly told that they did not have the funds. These are clear incidents of denial of women’s access to reproductive health care,” added Atty. Padilla.

“With political will and heeding the call of Manila residents, Mayor Lim should quickly overturn former Mayor Atienza’s policy. Otherwise, in the coming 2010 elections, he might suffer the same fate that Atienza had in the last elections,” Atty. Padilla pointed out.

Atty. Padilla stressed that, “The impact of the lack of reproductive health information and access to health care services is grave especially to poor women who do not have money to pay for their own contraceptive supplies and for counseling from private doctors.”

“The impact of such restrictive policies is also pervasive and damaging to the lives and health of adolescent girls. I have interviewed an adolescent who, due to lack of access to sexuality education and lack of access to reproductive health information and services, already had six children at the very young age of 21. There were also many adolescents who started childbearing at 14-18 years of age and continued childbearing successively,” continued Atty. Padilla.

“If we have a comprehensive reproductive health care law, we will not have these restrictive policies in place. We will have more women having access to sexuality education and reproductive health information and services,” says Atty. Padilla.

It is the obligation of the Philippine government as cited in the 2006 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Concluding Comments on the Philippines to “strengthen measures aimed at the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, including by making a comprehensive range of contraceptives more widely available and without any restriction”; “give priority attention to the situation of adolescents and that it provide sex education, targeted at girls and boys, with special attention to the prevention of early pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.”

“Our representatives in Congress must realize that our very own Constitution states that, ‘Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.’ Elected officials must be reminded that they are mere representatives of the Filipino people and that their obligation is to the Filipino people and not to the Catholic Church and its bishops who are against the passage of the bill into law,” said Atty. Padilla.

“Elected officials must respect plurality in our society. They must uphold access to reproductive health information and health care services and give primary importance to a person’s right to reproductive self-determination. Our legislators should immediately pass a comprehensive reproductive health care law. That’s what we need.” Atty. Padilla added.

* * *

For a copy of the SWS survey, see www.sws.org.ph.

Women’s Rights NGO Hails Obama for Rescinding the Global Gag Rule on Abortion and Reject’s the Vatican’s Statement as Contrary to Women’s Rights

Manila, January 26, 2009 --Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights, hails U.S. President Obama’s act last Friday, January 23, in rescinding the Global Gag Rule. Under the policy, organizations that received USAID funding were prohibited from using their own funds to advocate for safe and legal abortion and provide for life-saving safe abortions services.

Atty. Padilla said, “The rescission works towards the advancement of free speech and puts a strong message forward that access to safe and legal abortion is a human right.”

“As Obama mentioned in his statement, ‘this will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls,” Atty. Padilla continued.

Atty. Padilla added, “contrary to recent statement of the Vatican officials against the executive action, Obama’s action will spell the difference between life and death for almost half a million Filipino women every year who are driven to induce abortion with 79,000 admitted to hospitals for complications from unsafe abortion and 800 women who die.”

The Vatican’s position on access to access to safe and legal abortion is contrary to international human rights law. The United Nations treaty monitoring bodies have recognized access to safe and legal abortion as a matter of women’s rights to life, health, non-discrimination and dignity. Their position is based on principled interpretations of human rights norms, commitments contained in global consensus documents and evidence of the impact of unsafe abortion on women’s health.

During the August 2006 periodic review of the Philippines, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), urged the government to “consider the problem of unsafe abortion as a matter of high priority” and “consider reviewing the laws relating to abortion with a view to removing punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion and provide them with access to quality services for the management of complications arising from unsafe abortions and to reduce women’s maternal mortality rates in line with the Committee’s general recommendation 24 on women and health and the Beijing Platform for Action.”

The CEDAW Committee has rightly noted that the lack of access to contraceptive methods and family planning services, as well as restrictive abortion laws, tend to coincide with the prevalence of unsafe abortions that contributes to high rates of maternal mortality. The critical link between unsafe abortion and maternal mortality has also been a matter of concern for the Human Rights Committee (HRC) the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee (ESCRC) and the Children’s Rights Committee (CRC). The HRC ESCRC CEDAW and CRC have consistently called upon states with criminal abortion laws to review their laws as a means to ensuring women’s basic human rights.

The figures around the world reveal that criminalizing abortion does not eliminate abortions; it only makes it dangerous for women who undergo clandestine and unsafe abortion. The social justice implications of restrictive abortion laws has been recognized in many predominantly Catholic countries around the world, including Spain, Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, and Hungary (whose constitution protects life from conception but permits abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation). Recent abortion liberalizations occurred in Colombia , Mexico City (legalized abortion in the first trimester without restriction in April 2007) and Portugal (allows abortion up to 10 weeks of pregnancy).

“All the above-mentioned predominantly Catholic countries belie the claim that restricting access to contraception and even safe and legal abortion in the Philippines is a matter of practice of the Catholic religion. It is simply fundamentalism and non- adherence to standards of medicine, science and law and clinging to our colonial past that detrimentally impacts women’s health and lives,” Atty. Padilla stressed.

Atty. Padilla explains, “Furthermore, in the Philippines the full range of contraceptive methods is unavailable, which directly contributed to the high rate of unwanted pregnancy and pushes women to resort to unsafe abortions that in many cases result in death. The obligation to provide access to information and family planning methods as a means of reducing abortion has been recognized by the CEDAW Committee and the Beijing and Cairo Conferences consensus documents.”
“The Philippine government must respect women’s rights and in so doing comply with international law,” Atty. Padilla concluded.
***

The Poor Women and Adolescent Girls in Tondo Need the RH Law by Clara Rita A. Padilla

Manila, October 27, 2008 -- “We need the reproductive health (RH) care law. We simply cannot have cities like Manila where former Mayor Atienza was able to restrict women’s access to contraceptives under EO 003 (Series of 2000),” says Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

“In my work with the community women from Tondo, I interviewed women who wanted to undergo ligation during Atienza’s term but they were completely denied access by the local public hospitals. They were told that such services were prohibited because Manila was ‘pro-life’. As a consequence, some of them ended up having two to eight more children than they actually desired. While the national average would only show that women usually have one child more than they desired, the disparity between desired and actual number of children is greater for poor women,” added Atty. Padilla.

Atty. Padilla stressed that, “The impact of the lack of reproductive health information and access to health care services is grave especially to poor women who do not have money to pay for their own contraceptive supplies and for counseling from private doctors.”

“The impact of such restrictive policies is also pervasive and damaging to the lives and health of adolescent girls. I have interviewed an adolescent who, due to lack of access to sexuality education and lack of access to reproductive health information and services, already had six children at the very young age of 21. There were also many adolescents who started childbearing at 14-18 years of age and continued childbearing successively,” continued Atty. Padilla.

“If we have a comprehensive RH law, we will not have these restrictive policies in place. We will have more women having access to sexuality education and reproductive health information and services,” says Atty. Padilla.

It is the obligation of the Philippine government as cited in the 2006 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Concluding Comments on the Philippines to “strengthen measures aimed at the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, including by making a comprehensive range of contraceptives more widely available and without any restriction”; “give priority attention to the situation of adolescents and that it provide sex education, targeted at girls and boys, with special attention to the prevention of early pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.”

“Our representatives in Congress must realize that our very own Constitution states that, ‘Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.’ Elected officials must be reminded that they are mere representatives of the Filipino people and that their obligation is to the Filipino people and not to the Catholic Church and its bishops who are against the passage of the bill into law,” said Atty. Padilla.

“Elected officials must respect plurality in our society. They must uphold access to reproductive health information and health care services and give primary importance to a person’s right to reproductive self-determination. Our legislators should immediately pass a comprehensive reproductive health care law. That’s what we need.” Atty. Padilla added.

* * *

Face-to-Face with Sabah Deportees by Clara Rita A. Padilla

October 8, 2008, Manila--EnGendeRights, represented by lawyer Clara Rita A. Padilla, was part of the team that went to Zamboanga for a fact- finding mission on the state of Filipinos who are being massively deported from Sabah by the Malaysian government. Representative Luz Ilagan of Gabriela Women’s Party and Connie Bragas-Regalado of Migrante International were also part of the team.

Clara Rita Padilla said, “In this fact-finding mission, I was face-to-face with the harsh realities our fellow Filipinos confront—the lack of access to education, lack of jobs, poverty and the impact of war in the conflict-ridden areas in Mindanao. Most of the deportees are unschooled or undereducated from Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Region 9, and Basilan. Women from these areas experiencing the same harsh realities fall prey to trafficking in Sabah.”

Atty. Padilla continued, “It’s really unfortunate. You have Filipinos who suffer human rights violations at the detention centers and yet they still want to go back to Sabah to find work.”

“In February 2009, Malaysia will be reviewed by the Human Rights Council (HRC) for the Universal Periodic Review and that will be an important opportunity for us to hold the Malaysian government accountable for its compliance with the conventions it has ratified such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” added Atty. Padilla.

“Deportation or forcible transfer of population, rape, sexual slavery when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population is a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court but Malaysia has not ratified the Rome Statute,” said Atty. Padilla.

The fact that Malaysia has not ratified the Rome Statute, the Migrants Convention, Torture Convention and the Optional Protocol to the Torture Convention, Racial Discrimination Convention, Civil and Political Rights Convention, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Convention, the Optional Protocol to the Women’s Convention, the Disabilities Convention and the Optional Protocol to the Disabilities Convention and the Enforced Disappearance Convention will also be reviewed by the HRC. The HRC will also review the reports of special rapporteurs on Malaysia and the non-issuance of a "standing invitation" to the Special Rapporteurs. A standing invitation is an open invitation for the Rapporteurs to visit Malaysia.

Atty. Padilla continued that, “The state of the Filipino deportees can also be brought as urgent appeals to the UN Special Rapporteur on Migrants and Trafficking in Persons. In the case of trafficking of women, both the Malaysian and the Philippine governments have failed in their obligation to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against women.”[1]

In the report of then UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro on her 2002 visit to the Philippines, she recommended that Philippine “consular and embassy officials should investigate and document incidents of abuses during the deportation proceeding and detention up to the moment of embarkation from Malaysia.” In our fact finding mission, we found no such investigation and documentation of abuses being done by the Philippine consular and embassy officials.

* * *
[1] See the Philippines “Note verbale dated 18 April 2007 from the Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the United Nations addressed to the President of the General Assembly”, par. 15 states, “In recognition of the contributions of migrant workers to the society and the economy of both sending and receiving States in the region, as was emphasized in the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers, the Philippines will continue to advance the cause of migrant workers.”






* * *

Catholicism and reproductive rights—Clara Rita Padilla

ABS-CBN News Online Views and Analysis, 7/17/2008 11:21 AM
http://www.abs- cbnnews.com/ storypage. aspx?StoryId= 125472

____________ _________ _________ __
Many predominantly Catholic countries around the world allow access to modern contraceptives, emergency contraception and even safe and legal abortion. The state of Philippine law on reproductive rights is mere blind adherence to our Spanish colonial past.
________________________________________

It’s time to state the truth about Catholicism and reproductive rights in the Philippines and the rest of the world.

I challenge the bishops of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and other religious fundamentalists to go to the poorest communities in Tondo and interview the women there to see first-hand how having ten children impacts the health and lives of women and their families.

I have just visited Tondo twice these past three weeks and I interviewed poor women who have borne the brunt of the restriction of access to family planning information, supplies and services due to the Atienza policy (EO 003 Series of 2000) and as a consequence had 3-10 children. The women were either outrightly denied access to family planning supplies and services or were denied access to information to effectively control their fertility.

The women, after years of being deprived access to family planning services by clinics and hospitals attached to Manila City, finally decided to undergo ligation. Last July 11, I also saw scores of women who filled up the Tondo Sports Coliseum in the heat of the day to eagerly wait for their turn to get family planning counseling and services.

The laws of predominantly Catholic countries around the world belie the claim of the CBCP that restricting access to contraception and even access to safe and legal abortion is against the Catholic religion. Many predominantly Catholic countries around the world allow access to modern contraceptives, emergency contraception and even safe and legal abortion. The state of Philippine law on reproductive rights is mere blind adherence to our Spanish colonial past.


Freedom of conscience

Catholic women around the world--including more than 60 percent of Catholic women in Trinidad, Tobago and Botswana, and 28 percent in the Philippines--have used contraceptive methods, showing that Catholic women exercise freedom of conscience.

Predominantly Catholic countries such as Chile and Peru have the same constitutional protection of the life of the woman and the unborn from conception as the Philippines and they allow access to emergency contraceptive pills.

Other predominantly Catholic countries such as Argentina and Belgium even make emergency contraceptive pills available without prescription. The World Health Organization defines emergency contraception (EC) a method of preventing pregnancy. It says that EC does not interrupt pregnancy and thus is not considered a method of abortion.

Religiously fundamental policies are encouraged by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s administration. President Arroyo has taken a “natural-family-planning-only” stance to family planning services. Thus, many women are denied access to modern contraceptives such as oral contraceptives, injectables, IUDs, and tubal ligation.

For example, Executive Order No. 003, issued by former Manila Mayor Jose “Lito” Atienza in 2000 prohibits public health clinics and hospitals from providing any family planning services besides natural family planning. While modern family planning services are still permitted in private health institutions, due to many women’s limited resources they are effectively banned from receiving such services.

Public health crisis

As a result of Executive Order No. 003 and similar policies implemented throughout the country, the Philippines faces a health crisis that would only be worsened if the Philippine government does not enact a national law providing access to information and reproductive health care services including sexuality education and adolescent access to reproductive health information and services. The continued delay in the passage of a national law on reproductive health care will further compound a major public health crisis in the country.”

In fact, in an oral statement delivered at the United Nations adoption of the Philippine Universal Periodic Review Report last June 10, I, along with many national and international organizations urged the Philippine government to reject the recommendation by the Holy See in the Working Group Report which calls for, “ …the protection of children in the womb….”

I said that the acceptance of this recommendation by the Philippines will not only be contrary to international human rights law but will further compound a major public health crisis in the country involving half a million unsafe abortion procedures every year, 79,000 hospital admissions for complications from unsafe abortion and 800 deaths.

Twelve percent of maternal deaths in the Philippines are due to unsafe abortion. The latest Philippine statistics on abortion also show the following profile of women who induce abortion: nine in ten women are married or in a consensual union; more than half have at least three children; two-thirds are poor; nearly 90% are Catholic.

Safe and legal abortion

The United Nations treaty monitoring bodies have recognized access to safe and legal abortion as a matter of women’s rights to life, health, non-discrimination and dignity. Their position is based on principled interpretations of human rights norms, commitments contained in global consensus documents and evidence of the impact of unsafe abortion on women’s health.

It is pertinent to note that during the August 2006 periodic review of the Philippines, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), urged the government to “consider the problem of unsafe abortion as a matter of high priority” and “consider reviewing the laws relating to abortion with a view to removing punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion and provide them with access to quality services for the management of complications arising from unsafe abortions and to reduce women’s maternal mortality rates in line with the Committee’s general recommendation 24 on women and health and the Beijing Platform for Action.”

The CEDAW Committee has rightly noted that the lack of access to contraceptive methods and family planning services, as well as restrictive abortion laws, tend to coincide with the prevalence of unsafe abortions that contributes to high rates of maternal mortality.

The critical link between unsafe abortion and maternal mortality has also been a matter of concern for the Human Rights Committee, the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee, and the Children’s Rights Committee. They have consistently called upon states with criminal abortion laws to review their laws as a means to ensuring women’s basic human rights.

The figures around the world reveal that criminalizing abortion does not eliminate abortions; it only makes it dangerous for women who undergo clandestine and unsafe abortion.

No one wants women to be in a circumstance where they have no choice but to seek an abortion. But the reality is that unequal power relations prevent women from having control over their bodies and their reproductive decisions.

Spain, Colombia, Mexico, Poland

The social justice implications of restrictive abortion laws has been recognized in many predominantly Catholic countries around the world, including Spain, Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, and Hungary (whose constitution protects life from conception but permits abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation).

Recent abortion liberalizations occurred in Colombia, Mexico City (legalized abortion in the first trimester without restriction in April 2007) and Portugal (allows abortion up to 10 weeks of pregnancy).

As can be seen, Spain has liberalized its laws to allow abortion and yet we are left to contend with our old colonial laws. Also, in the example of Hungary, the constitutional provision protecting the life of woman and the unborn from conception even allows access to safe and legal abortion.

The ‘abortion scare’ that is being espoused by fundamentalist groups is detrimental to the very lives, health, and well-being of Filipino women because it advocates the harmful.

State practice, as shown by the laws and jurisprudence of countries worldwide, reflects a growing consensus that government’s duty to protect a woman's life should take precedence over their interest in protecting an unborn fetus.

Furthermore, in the Philippines the full range of contraceptive methods is unavailable, which directly contributed to the high rate of unwanted pregnancy and pushes women to resort to unsafe abortions that in many cases result in death. The obligation to provide access to information and family planning methods as a means of reducing abortion has been recognized by the CEDAW Committee and the Beijing and Cairo Conferences consensus documents.

Despite international human rights standards that protect information and access to family planning and contraception, the religious fundamentalist stance being towed by the Philippine government is depriving Filipino women access to the full range of contraceptive methods.

The Philippine government must ensure that international human rights standards and norms are upheld in the Philippines.

The author, a lawyer, is executive director of EnGendeRights, Inc. Email: engenderights@pldtdsl.net; padillaclara@yahoo.com Blog: http://clararitapadilla.blogspot.com

R We Ready for the RH law?

BROWSER

By Clara Rita A. Padilla
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:28:00 03/23/2008
MANILA, Philippines -


1. To prevent maternal deathsrelated to pregnancy and childbirth


About half of all pregnancies in the Philippines (approximately 1.43 million a year)[1] are unintended. The Health Department has noted that Filipino women on average have one child more than they want. According to the UNFPA State of the World Population 2007 report on the Philippines, at least 200 Filipino mothers die for every 100,000 live births, compared to only 17 deaths in the US, six in Canada, four in Spain,five in Italy, 41 in Malaysia, 30 in Singapore, and 44 in Thailand. These preventable deaths could have been avoided if more Filipino women have had access to reproductive health information and health care.


2. To help [individuals and] couples choose freely and responsibly when to have children


Knowing which medically safe and effective methods of contraception to use will help couples determine freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children. This in turn should ensure that all children are wanted and loved and will be properly provided for by their parents.


3. To prevent unwanted pregnanciesand reduce abortion rates

Increased access to, and adequate information on, contraceptive methods[—both natural and modern—]will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, eliminate the need for abortion and prevent maternal deaths.


4. To give rape victims a betterchance to heal from their ordeal


Giving rape victims access to emergency contraception (EC) like levonorgestrel can help them prevent unwanted pregnancies. So far, the Arroyo administration has deliberately failed to actupon a request to register levonorgestrel since it was made in December 2006.The denial of access to EC has no basis in medical science. The World Health Organization defines EC as a method of preventing pregnancy. It does not interrupt pregnancy, and is therefore not considered a method of abortion,according to this respected health institution.


5. To prevent early pregnancy andsexually transmitted diseases especially among adolescents


The Comprehensive ReproductiveHealth Care Law recommends that the government provide sex education targeted at girls and boys, with special attention to the prevention of early pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. According to our obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which the Philippines ratified more than 2[6] years ago,“adolescent pregnancies present a significant obstacle to girls’ (when it comes to) educational opportunities and economic empowerment.”[2]


6. To free women’s bodies from beingheld hostage by politics


For the longest time, foreign donors have provided for the contraceptive needs of Filipino women, until the phase-down of condoms in March 2003, pills in 2007, injectables in 2008, and IUDs on a later date, with projections that stocks will run out six months after the last shipment. It is now up to the government to take up the slack.But rather than antagonize the Catholic Church, our politicians toe its line of prescribing only natural family planning methods, no matter how inadequate,unsuitable or ineffective they are to most women.


The administration’s policy of refusing to give women access to contraceptive methods that suit them has seeped down to local politics and ordinances, as in Exec. Order No. 003 Series of 2000, which has the city of Manila refusing to dispense modern contraceptives in government clinics.


Such policies reflect religious fundamentalism in our laws, where the beliefs of the majority are imposed on others. But shouldn’t government respect plurality in our society and respect the rights of its citizens, no matter what their faith? Why are politicians allowed to sacrifice women’s health to forward their careers? The passage of a Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Law in the 14th Congress should address these anomalies. Hopefully, our senators and representatives will do their part to help change women’s lives. Or you can write them and make it happen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clara Rita A. Padilla is the founder and Executive Director of EnGendeRights, Inc., and is a widely published feminist lawyer and women’s rights activist. She has extensive experience in policy advocacy, litigation, research, writing, and training. For more information on reproductive rights, check out www.engenderights.org and http://clararitapadilla.blogspot.com.


[1] Singh S et al., Unintended Pregnancy and Induced Abortion in the Philippines: Causes and Consequences, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006.


[2] August 25, 2006 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Concluding Comments on the Philippines


Copyright 2008 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

UN Member-States Raise Concerns on the Philippines

by Clara Rita A. Padilla

April 11, 2008, Geneva—Atty. Clara Rita Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights, present at the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review held in Geneva said that, “Several countries raised issues and recommendations related to women, migrant workers, children, indigenous peoples, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and compliance with Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and UN mechanisms including the recommendations of Special Rapporteurs.”

New Zealand raised the issue of the prevalence of violence against women (VAW) and called for wider judicial and non-judicial interventions and a gender-responsive environment addressing VAW.

China raised the issue of trafficking of women and finding means to address this issue; the Republic of Korea recommended the prevention of cross-border trafficking and sexual exploitation of women; Azerbaijan raised the need to combat trafficking; Belarus related the fact that the upcoming Global Forum on Migration is going to be held in the Philippines; Japan and Azerbaijan raised the issue of addressing the needs of vulnerable groups including women.

Several countries such as India, China, Guatemala, Palestine and Sri Lanka raised the issue of the high rate of migration and migrant workers. Algeria cited the CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments on the Philippines that seeks to address the root causes of migration. They cited the report of the Special Rapporteur on Migrants that tackles the social causes and effect of migration. The Algerian delegate sought an explanation from the Philippines on why there is a high rate of Filipino women migrants while Bangladesh reiterated the social cost of migration. Egypt, on the other hand, wanted to hear about the measures being taken by the government to educate migrants. Both Bangladesh and Egypt asked whether the non-accession/ratification of receiving countries on the Migrants Convention is a hindrance.

One Philippine government delegate gave a dismissive response on the issue of feminization of migration by saying, “feminization of migration is a global problem, it’s not just a problem in the Philippines."

Syria raised concern on the vast growth of the Philippine population.

Tunisia raised women issues in relation to the Philippine obligations under CEDAW. The delegate recommended the reduction of gender disparities and the further mitigation of gender disparity particularly in labor. Turkey raised the need for a comprehensive legal framework on CEDAW while Mexico raised the issue of compliance with CEDAW.

Italy and Cameroon raised concern on the compliance on the Concluding Comments of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the committee tasked to monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Sudan raised compliance with the Millenium Development Goals. Sudan and Belarus raised the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights in the Philippines.

Russia and Palestine raised the issue on the rights of indigenous peoples.

Canada raised the issue of human rights abuses and the culture of impunity and expressed its continued concern on the fact that there are few convictions. They also raised concern on Administrative Order 197 that impacts on the Rule on the Writ of Amparo issued by the Supreme Court and the need for security forces to be made aware of human rights. France and Switzerland raised concern on enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings and the low number of resolved cases. France and Australia also wanted to be informed on the follow up regarding the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur Philip Alston. Norway wanted information on the government’s measures to eliminate extrajudicial killings and disappearances. Other countries that raised concern on extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances were Japan and Brazil.

Mexico, Slovenia, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom and Netherlands recommended for the Philippines to ratify either or both the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Slovenia also recommended for the Philippines to report regularly to the Committee against Torture, the committee tasked to monitor the implementation of CAT, since the last report of the Philippines was submitted in 1989.

The United States raised the human rights compliance by the police.

Mexico raised the need for the Philippine National Plan of Action to take into consideration the UN mechanisms and the Special Procedures [the procedure allowing submission of individual complaints, country visits and country and thematical reports by the Special Rapporteurs]. Sri Lanka also raised compliance with the UN mechanisms and Special Procedures while Brazil recommended for the Philippines to extend invitations to Special Rapporteurs.

United Kingdom expressed concern on corruption and the delayed reporting with the treaty monitoring bodies. Atty. Padilla added, “The following reports are due to be submitted by the Philippine government: CEDAW Committee 7th & 8th country report in 2010; Committee on ESCR 5th country report on June 30, 2010;
Human Rights Committee 3rd country report overdue since Nov. 1, 2006; Committee on the Rights of the Child 3rd & 4th country report overdue Sept. 19, 2007; and
Committee against Torture 2nd-5th reports overdue since ’92,’96, 2000, and 2004.”

“I just hope the Philippine government agrees to the recommendations of the UN member-states and the Human Rights Council in this Universal Periodic Review to officially form part of the ‘recommendations’ portion of the UPR report on the Philippines. The government’s agreement is significant to its compliance with international human rights standards,” Atty. Padilla stressed.

(Copies of the full text of statements as well as audio files may be accessed at http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil and on the UPR extranet page)

EnGendeRights Calls on the Member States of the UN to Uphold the Right to Sexual Orientation at the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review

by Clara Rita A. Padilla

April 10, 2008, Geneva—“It is the obligation of every state party to Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Civil and Political Rights Covenant, the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention Against Torture, to fulfill its obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender and intersex (LGBTIs),” says Clara Rita Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights and a lawyer based in the Philippines.

On the occasion of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Ecuador, Slovenia expressed their concern on the torture of LGBTIs and asked what the Government is doing to apply the principle of universality and overall international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. Slovenia recommended that Ecuador further strengthen its commitment to non-discrimination against LGBTIs and urged the application of the Yogyakarta Principles to uphold LGBT rights.

In the Report of the Working Group on the UPR, Ecuador fully cooperated and agreed to “implement measures to combat discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as other human rights violations against the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual and transvestite community.”

The Egyptian delegation initially raised concern about the inclusion of said recommendation in the Working Group report on Ecuador saying that the issue of sexual orientation is not yet universally recognized.[1] It was agreed at the plenary, however, that such recommendation should be maintained since Ecuador had already committed itself to uphold the right to sexual orientation in its national report, inter alia.

Clara Rita Padilla stressed, “A clear expression of the affirmation of the rights to sexual orientation and gender identity is the March 26, 2007 Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity released by international human rights experts in a worldwide call for action against sexual orientation discrimination.” “The Principles were adopted by 29 distinguished experts in international law following a meeting in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Among the group of experts were former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and former President of Ireland Mary Robinson, UN independent experts including Philip Alston (UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions) and Paul Hunt (UN Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of health), current and former members of human rights treaty bodies, judges, academics and human rights defenders,” said Clara Rita Padilla. Sonia Onufer Corrêa of Brazil, who co-chaired the experts’ group said, “ [W]omen, men and persons whose sexuality does not conform with dominant norms face rape, torture, murder, violence, and abuse because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. These Principles affirm that human rights admit no exceptions.”

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee), tasked to monitor CEDAW, issued General Recommendation 21 recognizing that “[t]he form and concept of the family can vary from State to State, and even between regions within a State.”[2] The Committee has also asked states parties to reconceptualize lesbianism as a sexual orientation and to abolish penalties for its practice.[3]

The Human Rights Committee, tasked to monitor to the Civil and Political Rights Covenant, recognized in General Comment 19 that the concept and structure of family may differ from state to state and that the right to marry and found a family may be based on diverse definitions of families and relationships.

To state the truth also about the freedom to choose who to have sex with including same-sex, there are many countries allowing same-sex, civil unions, and the like. Same-sex marriages are recognized in Netherlands, Canada, South Africa and even in the predominantly Catholic countries such as Belgium and Spain.[4]

In the Philippines, there is no legal recognition of marriage or partnership with regard to lesbians and bisexual and transgender women. It is significant, however, that women victims of abuse in lesbian relationships are accorded the same protection under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act since Sec. 3 includes “any person with whom the woman has or had a sexual dating relationship.”

Cases decided by the Human Rights Committee uphold the right to sexual orientation. In the case of Toonen v. Australia Comm. No. 488/1992 (1994), the Human Rights Committee found that the prohibition of private homosexual behavior is an arbitrary intrusion on privacy rights (Article 17 of the Civil and Political Rights Covenant).

In the case of Young v. Australia (2003) Communication No. 941/2000, the Repatriation Commission denied Young’s application for pension for his war veteran same-sex partner of 38 years. The Human Rights Committee decision found a violation by Australia of article 26 of the Covenant (equality before the law and non-discrimination) and that Mr. Young is entitled to reconsideration of his pension application without discrimination based on his sex or sexual orientation, if necessary through an amendment of the law.

In the 2003 Concluding Observations on the Philippines, the Human Rights Committee urged the Philippine government to “take the necessary steps to adopt legislation explicitly prohibiting discrimination” and “to pursue its efforts to counter all forms of discrimination” pertaining to sexual orientation.[5] The Committee further urged the Philippines to “strengthen human rights education to forestall manifestations of intolerance and de facto discrimination.”[6]

On the issue of change of name and identity, there are cases where the Human Rights Committee found that a petition for change of name should be granted because the right to choose one’s name and identity is covered by the right to privacy under Article 17 of the Civil and Political Rights Covenant.[7]

“The Member States of the UN must uphold the right to sexual orientation at the UPR,” Clara Rita Padilla stressed.


---------------------------------
FOOTNOTES:

[1] On the night of May 10, 2001, the Cairo 52 were arrested and fifty defendants were charged with "obscene behavior" under a law against prostitution (Article 9c of Law No. 10 of 1961 on the Combat of Prostitution) and two were charged, in addition, with "contempt for religion" under Article 98f of the Penal Code. There were reports of torture and ill-treatment of some of the detainees including anal examinations to "prove their homosexuality." The names and pictures of the detained men were published in Egyptian newspapers. See http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/section.php?id=5&detail=108

[2]General Recommendation 21, Equality in Marriage and Family Relations, supra note 11, Comment No. 13 on Art. 16 Various forms of family.

[3]CEDAW Concluding Observations on Kyrgyzstan. 27/01/99. CEDAW/C/1999/I/L.1/Add.3, par. 35.

[4]“Homosexuality laws of the world” available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world; Civil Partnerships in United Kingdom, Falkland Islands; Civil Unions in Mexico City, New Zealand, Buenos Aires City, Colombia, Uruguay; registered partnerships in Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland; Civil Unions, Domestic partnerships, Same-sex marriage in certain states in the US; registered and domestic partnerships in Australia.

[5]Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Philippines : Philippines. 01/12/2003, CCPR/CO/79/PHL, 1 December 2003 available at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/5c1a26dde6327ef0c1256df300525589?Opendocument

[6]Id.

[7]Coeriel and Aurik v. The Netherlands (1994); In the case of Goodwin v United Kingdom (2002) and I. v United Kingdom (2002), the European Court of Human Rights considered the cases of two transsexual women who claimed that the United Kingdom’s refusal to change their legal identities and papers to match their postoperative genders constituted discrimination. Reversing a number of its previous decisions — and offering a major victory for transgender people’s rights — the Court held that their right to respect for their private lives, and also their right to marry, had been violated (articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention).

EnGendeRights Submits its Summary of Women’s Concerns on the Philippines to the State Delegates at the Human Rights Council

by Clara Rita A. Padilla

April 7, 2008, Geneva--EnGendeRights, represented by Atty. Clara Rita A. Padilla, submitted a Summary of Women’s Concerns on the Philippines to the state delegates attending the ongoing Human Rights Council (HRC) First Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

This April 11, 2008, the HRC is reviewing the Philippine compliance of the major human rights treaties that it has ratified including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Civil and Political Rights Covenant, the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention Against Torture, the Convention on Racial Discrimination, the Migrants Convention, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities . The HRC will also review the reports of special rapporteurs on the Philippines and the non-issuance of a "standing invitation" to the Special Rapporteurs. A standing invitation is an open invitation for the Rapporteurs to visit the Philippines.

The fact that the Philippines has not ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance will also be reviewed by the HRC.
Atty. Padilla stressed that, “The UPR is a very important process where any of the 192 Member States of the United Nations can engage the Philippine delegation to an interactive dialogue.”

The 16 countries currently under review during the first session of the UPR Working Group are Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, India, Indonesia, Morocco, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Tunisia, and United Kingdom.

Atty. Padilla said that, “The first day of the UPR was a success with many states parties seeking responses from Bahrain and Ecuador regarding issues relating to women in their countries.” On the review of Bahrain, Atty. Padilla said that, “Sweden was concerned about the rights of women vis-à-vis the Shari’a; Mauritania took particular attention to health issues and the rights of women; Slovenia stressed the removal of Bahrain’s reservations on CEDAW; Switzerland and Bangladesh raised the rights of women migrant workers; France expressed concern on forced marriages; Netherlands raised the importance of the issuance of a standing invitation for special procedures [to facilitate the visit of the different thematical Special Rapporteurs].”

On the review of Ecuador, Atty. Padilla said that, “Countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Ghana, Mexico, and Slovenia raised concern on indigenous peoples; Mexico also expressed concern on VAW and the health system; Slovenia and Bolivia raised the issue of migrant women; Slovenia was strong in expressing their concern on the torture of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and expressed their hope that measures will be taken to prevent torture against LGBTs. Slovenia also urged the recognition of gender identities of LGBTs and the use of the Yogyakarta Principles to uphold LGBT rights.”

In the EnGendeRights summary, issues including the lack access to information and reproductive health care services, discriminatory marriage laws, violence against women (VAW) including state-perpetrated VAW and sexual orientation were raised.

EnGendeRights raised the Philippine government curtailment of access to modern contraceptives with the Department of Health and the Population Commission only promoting “natural family planning.” EnGendeRights brought up the lack of access to sex education for adolescents and the high maternal mortality rate with 200 Filipino women dying for every 100,000 live births showing also a lack of access to basic and emergency obstetric care. EnGendeRights recommended for the government to make the full range of modern contraceptives available to women and the enactment of a national law and ordinances on Reproductive Health Care that ensure women’s and adolescent’s reproductive and sexual rights regardless of who is the head of the national and local governments.

EnGendeRights mentioned the lack of access to emergency contraceptives that prevent unwanted pregnancies. The government delisted Postinor, an emergency contraceptive, and continues to delist it despite the recommendation by the Special Committee to re-list it. The government also did not act on a December 2006 request to make levonorgestrel, an emergency contraceptive, available to women. EnGendeRights recommended for the government to make emergency contraception available to rape victims as part of routine emergency health care and to women, in general, to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

EnGendeRights raised the fact that women do not have access to safe and legal abortion despite statistics showing 473,000 women who induced abortions annually; 79,000 of these women were hospitalized for complications; and 800 women died (or 2 women died daily) due to complications. EnGendeRights brought up the issue that Philippine law penalizes women who undergo abortion without providing express exceptions on life, health, rape or fetal impairment. Having ratified CEDAW, EnGendeRights recommended that the government must fulfill its obligation to make abortion safe and legal.

EnGendeRights mentioned the fact that there is no absolute divorce or no-fault divorce in the Philippines; there is only nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code; cases for nullity of marriage are costly and inaccessible to poor women and court decisions nullifying marriages are difficult to obtain because of varying judicial interpretations. EnGendeRights recommended that divorce must be made available to Filipino women.

EnGendeRights brought up the discriminatory provisions in the Muslim Code that allow polygamy, early marriage (at age 15), arranged marriages (females aged 12-14), the husband to choose the family residence, and the husband to deny permission to his wife’s profession or occupation. EnGendeRights recommended the repeal of discriminatory provisions in the Muslim Code.

EnGendeRights mentioned the discriminatory penal provisions on adultery and recommended the repeal of the criminal provisions on adultery and concubinage.

EnGendeRights raised the issue of violence against women that there are judges who refuse to issue Protection Orders or refuse to issue Contempt Orders for violations of Protections Orders issued under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act. EnGendeRights also mentioned that there are many rape and sexual harassment cases dismissed in the Preliminary Investigation level and in the courts and the lack of definitive data on the number of rape and sexual harassment cases dismissed in the Preliminary Investigation and court levels. EnGendeRights recommended that there must be continuing legal education for members of the judiciary on gender-based violence including strict enforcement of Protection Orders and Contempt Orders under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act and the importance of holding perpetrators liable for rape and sexual harassment to comply with its obligation to prevent, investigate, penalize and provide medical assistance to women victims of gender-based violence.

EnGendeRights also brought up the fact that there are women who were disappeared, raped, and tortured by the military (e.g., Sheryll Cadapan and Karen Empeńo) and yet they remain disappeared. EnGendeRights recommended that the executive and judicial branches of government must do everything to release these women to finally end the continuous torture and sexual abuse being committed against these victims.

EnGendeRights raised the issue that women exploited in prostitution are still penalized. EnGendeRights recommended that the penal provisions imposed on women exploited in prostitution must be repealed and that women exploited in prostitution must be provided with educational/skills training, financial assistance and counseling to open up opportunities for them.

EnGendeRights raised the lack of recognition of domestic partnerships or civil union for lesbians and the fact that lesbians suffer discrimination including discrimination in work and education environments. EnGendeRights recommended that there must be legal recognition of domestic partnerships or civil unions for lesbians; legal and judicial recognition of the right to custody of lesbian mothers whether their children be below seven or above seven; legal and judicial recognition of the right of lesbians and bisexual and transgender women to change their identity and name; and enactment of the proposed bill prohibiting discrimination against lesbians including discrimination against lesbians in work and education environments.

(Please see the attached Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Summary of Stakeholders’ Submissions to the UN Human Rights Universal Periodic Review and Compilation of Information of Jurisprudence of Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures on the Philippines. Copies of the full text of statements as well as audio files may be accessed at http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil and on the UPR extranet page).