Clara Rita Padilla's Blog

No Excuses for the Pajero Bishops By Clara Rita Padilla

2011-07-09T12:19:00.001+08:00

July 8, 2011 – “There are no excuses for the use of the PCSO public funds by the bishops. PNoy’s statement to leave it to the parishioners is like saying everyone else can be made liable for their criminal acts except the bishops. The Catholic bishops’ robes should not be used as immunity from suit and imprisonment. There is no such thing. The bishops should pay back the full amount to the government because this money belongs to the Filipino people and not anyone else and the bishops and the government officials involved in the illegal use of funds should all be made criminally liable,” said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

Atty. Padilla said, “The excuse that the funds were used for the Catholic Church for its alleged charitable purpose is the primary reason why such public funds should not have been released by the PCSO to the bishops.”

The Constitution provides:

Section 29 paragraph 2, Article VI (Legislative Department): "No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the Armed Forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.”

“This provision is in line with the constitutional guarantees of separation of church and state and non-establishment of religion. If these acts of the bishops are simply made to pass by the PNoy government, PNoy would be reneging on his daang matuwid and kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap promise,” stressed Atty. Padilla.

“It would seem that despite the 150 years since Jose Rizal was born during the Spanish regime that the Padre Damasos are still wielding their influence in governance and law. The brazen disregard of our Constitution by the Catholic bishops and the then PCSO officials should not be countenanced by the Filipino people. The PCSO public funds could have been used for reproductive health of Filipinos. One SUV alone costing 1.7 million could have provided access to over 11,000 poor Filipino women who wanted to be ligated by paying for their pain medication and anti-biotics for said procedure,” concluded Atty. Padilla.***

2011-06-18T20:34:00.000+08:00

Human Rights Council Passes First Resolution on
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
by Clara Rita A. Padilla

June 18, 2011 – “The Human Rights Council made a historic decision by passing the first resolution on human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity (L9/rev1) yesterday, June 17. This is the first UN resolution that specifically focuses on human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It affirms the universality of human rights, and expresses grave concern about acts of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

The resolution requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a study on violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and calls for a panel discussion to be held at the Human Rights Council to discuss the findings of the study.

Atty. Padilla added, “The resolution recalls human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other relevant core human rights instruments. It recalls the UDHR which affirms that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in that Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.”

“This resolution follows a joint statement of nations to end violence and criminal sanctions based on sexual orientation and gender identity delivered at the March 2011 session of the council. The resolution was passed in relation to the follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action,” Atty. Padilla continued.

The resolution, presented by South Africa along with Brazil and 39 additional co-sponsors from all regions of the world, was passed by a vote of 23 in favor, 19 against, and 3 abstentions. A list of how States voted is attached.

“Not being a member of the Human Rights Council, the Philippines did not have voting rights but could have co-sponsored the resolution as 39 other countries did. The Philippines did not express support to the resolution just like its failure to support the March 22, 2011 Joint Statement and the December 22, 2010 United Nations General Assembly resolution which included protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people from extrajudicial executions (EJE) and other unlawful killings based on sexual orientation,” continued Atty. Padilla.

Atty. Padilla added, “It is a dangerous precedent for the Philippine government not to express support for such a historic UN resolution expressing concern on human rights violations based on one’s sexual orientation and gender identity. The Philippines should uphold universal human rights where all rights apply to everyone including if one is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. In this important resolution, the Philippine government failed to stand up for the rights of LGBTs not just in the Philippines but around the world.”

“In the past years, there have been numerous reports in the Philippines of lesbians, gays and transgenders being murdered or beaten and harassed without clear investigations and active prosecution being conducted leading to the perpetuation of abuses with impunity. The Philippines must perform its obligation to prevent, investigate and prosecute human rights abuses including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,” Atty. Padilla concluded.

***

2011-06-18T19:58:00.003+08:00

Junk the Anti-Choice Bills and Stop Supporting Anti-Choice Legislators
By Clara Rita Padilla

May 28, 2011 – The senate bills of Senators Enrile (SB 2497), Estrada,[1] Sotto,[2] Recto (SB 2584), and Revilla (SB 2635) protecting the life of the so-called unborn will be heard on Monday, May 30, 2011, while the anti-choice bill of Amado Bagatsing (HB 3667) was heard last week in a Technical Working Group (TWG) hearing with Representatives Roilo Golez (HB 13), Pablo Garcia (HB 4482), and Rufus Rodriguez[3] supporting the anti-choice bills. The House Committee on Revision of Laws Chair is reportedly pushing to do away with the TWG hearings despite having three bills restricting access to contraceptives to further delay the passage of a comprehensive Reproductive Health Care (RH) bill into law.

“These bills erroneously equate contraception with abortion and restrict access to contraceptives,” said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona reportedly expressed his bias against the RH bill by taunting in a newspaper interview that the constitutionality of the passage of the said law would be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Legislators, justices, and other government officials who are pushing for the protection of the unborn have no business to sit in government. As government officials they should uphold our constitution which guarantees the separation of church and state and non-establishment of religion. Legislators who want to pass such bills restricting access to contraception and increasing penalties on abortion are trying to enact legislation that establishes the views of the Catholic Church hierarchy,” said Atty. Clara Rita A. Padilla.

Representatives Golez, Garcia, Rodriguez and Bagatsing are among the 38 congresspersons on the list of interpellators at the House of Representatives on the RH measure. Those who voted for Senators Enrile, Estrada, Sotto, Revilla, and Recto and Representatives Amado Bagatsing (Manila), Pablo Garcia (Cebu), Roilo Golez (Paranaque), and Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro) should learn their lesson and not support these politicians in the next elections. Those who believe in respecting, promoting, and upholding the rights of women should use their power as citizens to vote for people who will uphold the rights of women. Women are the ones who bear the brunt of the delayed passage of a comprehensive RH law and any restriction on their access to the full range of contraceptive methods. Women are ones who die from childbearing, pregnancy, and unsafe abortion. This prevailing discrimination against women and total disregard for women’s rights by government officials who support these restrictive bills must stop. Those who fight for the human rights of women must stand up and fight for women’s rights. These bills violate human rights standards and they are an affront to the rights of women,” said Atty. Padilla.

In the United Kingdom case of Smeaton v. Secretary of State for Health, the judicial challenge by the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child claiming that emergency contraceptive pills contravened the Offenses against the Person Act of 1861was dismissed by the High Court. The England and Wales High Court ruled that emergency contraception is not considered abortion under the scope of the current medical and legal science.[4] Justice Munby ruled that “[u]p until the attachment stage, the embryo is not attached in any way to the woman herself.”[5] He added, “[c]urrent medical definitions given in medical dictionaries support the view that pregnancy begins once the blastocyst has implanted in the endometrium and more particularly, that miscarriage is the termination of such a post implantation pregnancy.”[6] The court ruled that “the morning-after pill cannot cause a fertilized egg which is implanted to de-implant – that is, it cannot work after the process of implantation is complete.”[7]

The Judicial Section of France’s Conseil d’Etat on 25 April 2001 dismissed complaints against the authorization by the French l’agence du medicament of the marketing of two morning-arter pills, Norlevo and Tetragynon both containing levonorgestrel.[8] In both cases, the Conseil d’Etat held that the product was a hormonal contraceptive and not an abortifacient.[9]

At least one United States federal court has held that “[a]bortion, as it is commonly understood, does not include the IUD, the ‘morning-after’ pill [EC pills], or for example, birth control pills.”[10]

IUDs prevent pregnancy. They do not cause miscarriages. Pregnancy begins with the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall. In medical practice, IUD is not used once a pregnancy is established.

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines affirm IUD use is safe for women who are at low risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The laws and policies of countries worldwide provide women’s access to IUD. More than 100 million women worldwide use IUDs. Contrary to claims that IUDs are abortifacients, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has definitively stated that IUD is not an abortifacient.

Researches have shown that prevention of fertilization is the dominant mode of action of IUDs. The WHO cited that the “antifertility effects” of IUD “take place before the ova reach the uterine cavity.” Evidence show the pre-fertilization action of IUDs by interfering with sperm motility and survival, hindering ascent of sperm to the fallopian tubes (where fertilization occurs), and impeding egg development.

Women have a right to contraceptives. Under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Beijing and ICPD Conference documents, the Philippines is obligated and committed to provide information and access to family planning methods. Denying access to IUD is a blatant violation of the woman’s freedom to decide whether and when to bear children. Such denial risks women’s lives and health.

The Philippine government should not countenance the acts of government officials who seek to restrict access to modern contraceptives. Such restriction of access to modern contraceptives is an imposition of one’s religious morality on the whole Filipino populace. The legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government demand good governance and not such conduct of imposition of religious morality prejudicial to public service. As the government officials, they should ensure women’s access to the full range of contraceptives.

Atty. Padilla said, “The anti-choice legislators have been spreading disinformation by claiming that contraceptives are abortifacients. What the anti-choice are propagating is not based on medical science. What government officials should bear in mind is their duty to raise discourse to the level of international human rights standards, realities women face, public health, medical science, and legal reform. Our standard in governance and laws, as decided by the Supreme Court, is secular standards. Our government officials are obligated to maintain public good and uphold human rights.”

The criminal law on abortion is an outdated colonial law that violates the rights to health and life of Filipino women. It was a direct translation of the old Spanish Penal Code of 1870s that used to criminalize abortion—in the time of the Spanish friars and conquistadores. Without knowing the full consequences of such a harsh and restrictive law, our congress enacted the criminal provision in our Revised Penal Code of 1930. At the time the law was adopted, Filipino women did not even have the right to vote, there was no Universal Declaration of Human Rights and no international human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1976), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1976), CEDAW (1981), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1990). These came much later.

The international human rights standard is to liberalize abortion laws to make it safe and accessible to women and thereby lessen maternal mortality related to unsafe abortion. The Philippines is duty-bound to fulfill its treaty obligations to uphold the right to equality, equal protection of the law, non-discrimination of women, right to health and life under the ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, and CRC. Recognizing that the criminalization of abortion does not lessen the number of women inducing abortion but only makes it dangerous for women who undergo clandestine and unsafe abortion, in 2006, the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee),[11] urged the Philippine government to “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.”[12]

In 2008, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)[13] expressed its concern that “abortion is illegal in all circumstances, even when the woman’s life or health is in danger or pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and that complications from unsafe, clandestine abortions are among the principal causes of maternal deaths.” The Committee encouraged the Philippines “to address, as a matter of priority, the problem of maternal deaths as a result of clandestine abortions, and consider reviewing its legislation criminalising abortion in all circumstances.”

With the stark realities of not having access to sexuality education, poor and adolescent women and girls not knowing how to properly manage their fertility and where to get the proper information and services, with policy restrictions in place such as the Manila EO 003 denying access to modern contraceptives and discouraging ligation to the poor women who need them, with the prevalence of rape, and the overall impact on reproductive health with more than half of all pregnancies being unintended and statistics ranging from 17% to one-third of these unintended pregnancies ending in abortion, 560,000 women who induced abortions, 90,000 women hospitalized and 1,000 women who died from complications from unsafe abortion in 2008alone,[14] we simply cannot be scared by the religious right or succumb to conservative discourse. The women who were hospitalized and maltreated by doctors and nurses and the families of the women who died due to complications from unsafe abortion, the rape victims who were tortured from the pregnancy resulting from rape have long been waiting for humane laws, policies, and practices. Not providing access to safe and legal abortion to women, especially poor women who want to terminate their unwanted pregnancies, is much like sentencing these women to death—since about a thousand of them die every year.

“We should prevent unwanted pregnancies through sexuality education and increased access to the full range of contraceptive methods, provide access to skilled birth attendants, provide emergency obstetric care, overturn policies that restrict access to reproductive health information and services, pass a comprehensive RH bill, and implement it to the full extent. At the same time, we should provide access to safe and legal abortion either on certain grounds (rape, danger to the health and life of the woman, fetal impairment) or on broader grounds to do away with judicial and medical interpretation,” concluded Atty. Padilla.***

[1] S.B. No.2497 is co-authored by Senator Estrada.
[2] S.B. No.2497 is co-authored by Senator Estrada.
[3] Representative Rodriguez co-authored HB 13.
[4] See England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court), Smeaton v Secretary of State for Health [2002] EWHC 610 (Admin),(18th April, 2002) at 3.
[5] Id. at 20.
[6] Id. at 27.
[7] Id. at 3.
[8] Id. at 52, citing Decision of the Judicial Section of France’s Conseil de’Etat, 25 April 2001.
[9] Id at 52, citing Decision of the Judicial Section of France’s Conseil de’Etat, 25 April 2001.
[10] United States, Margaret S. v. Edwards, 488 F. Supp. 181, 191 (E.D. La. 1980).
[11]The committee tasked to monitor the implementation of CEDAW by the Philippines as a state party.
[12] 2006 CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments.
[13]The committee tasked to monitor the implementation of CESCR by the Philippines as a state party.
[14] Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Meeting Women’s Contraceptive Needs in the Philippines, 1 In Brief 2 (2009), http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2009/04/15/IB_MWCNP.pdf

2011-05-23T18:28:00.001+08:00

The Catholic Church, Women’s Rights, and the RH Bill
by Atty. Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director, EnGendeRights

The fact that the Philippines is a pre-dominantly Catholic country has not stopped violence against women including rape, marital rape, incest, intimate partner abuse, sexual harassment and sex trafficking. These abuses against women happen every day but you don’t hear the Catholic Church and those who oppose the Reproductive Health Care Bill (RH) bill speak out about these abuses. If the Catholic Church is so concerned with “moral values,” then shouldn’t it take on a human rights stance where it should be upholding the equality and non-discrimination of women? Shouldn’t the Catholic Church examine its policies on increasing women’s participation in its ranks such as having women priests, women bishops, women members of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), and, yes, even a woman Pope?

In my practice as a feminist lawyer, I have interviewed, assisted, and represented countless victims of rape, marital rape, incest, intimate partner abuse, sexual harassment and trafficking. I challenge those who oppose the RH bill to do volunteer counseling for women victims of violence for at least 17 years—the same length of time I have been assisting women victims of violence--to personally witness how women are discriminated against in our culture and society and to understand the importance of the provision on eliminating violence against women in the RH bill. Perhaps with such exposure they will get a good grasp of the realities Filipino women face and they will realize how equality, non-discrimination, and empowerment of women are important in achieving effective changes in our country.

In my visits to poor communities and discussions with women, I have gotten to learn about women’s realities including husbands who threatened to leave their wives if their wives pushed through with ligation, women who were beaten by their husbands because they refused to have sex due to fear of another pregnancy, women who requested ligation in Manila City but were denied such service because Manny Pacquiao’s mentor, then-Mayor Atienza, declared Manila City as so-called “pro-life,” women in prostitution who were beaten by their clients when they asked them to use condoms, and women who were infected with HIV because they were unaware that their husbands were HIV positive.

Those who oppose the RH bill fail to recognize gender relations as a crucial issue that impacts women’s reproductive health and well-being including women’s access to reproductive health information, supplies, and services. The National Demographic and Health Survey 2008 (NDHS) show that married women who are denied participation in decision-making and who accept more justifications for wife beating[1] are less likely to use modern methods of contraception[2] and are less likely to seek ante-natal and post-natal care.[3] The NDHS also shows that the more children a woman has, the more likely she is to have experienced violence. These results show that disempowered women are unable to negotiate safe sex, they are unable to control their fertility, and they are unable to access ante-natal and post-natal care.

Take the case of women in the region of South Cotabato, Cotabato, Saranggani, and General Santos (SOCCSKSARGEN) where Manny Pacquiao is one of the congressional representatives. In this region, the results of the NDHS show that there is a high rate of women aged 15-24 who have begun childbearing, there is a high rate of women who justify reasons for wife beating, it has the highest rate of women who have experienced violence since age 15, and women are most likely to have experienced violence by their husbands.

The Catholic Church is an example of an institution with a male-dominated hierarchy with its wealth being controlled by men starting from the Pope to the bishops and priests.

The Catholic Church hierarchy does not allow women priests more so a woman Pope. Some people may take this as a given but, certainly, having no women priests manifestly discriminates against women.

The Philippine Catholic Church hierarchy’s opposition to the RH bill perpetuates discrimination and disempowerment of women.

Finally, perhaps the CBCP and the private Catholic schools should start paying taxes. After all, it is the obligation of every responsible citizen of this country to contribute to the coffers of the state.

I remember having stayed a week at the bishop’s residence in Cagayan as a law student. Oh, there was food, drinks, and wine galore. The bishop even rang a bell during dinnertime to call for his food attendant. Surely, the bishops can afford to pay taxes.

[1]NHHS 2008. Researchers placed questions on the justification in beating the wife, i.e., burns the food, argues with the husband, goes out without telling the husband, neglects the children, refuses to have sexual intercourse with the husband.
[2]NDHS 2008, Ttable 15.9, page 198 and Table 15.10 page 199.
[3]NDHS 2008, Table 15.11, page 200.

***

Description of the Author:

Clara Rita “Claire” Padilla is the founder and Executive Director of EnGendeRights. She is a widely published feminist lawyer and women’s rights activist. She has specialized expertise in the field of gender, gender-based violence, law, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and sexual orientation. She worked in the Philippines and in New York, United States. She has extensive experience in training, litigation, research, writing, and policy advocacy.

After graduating from law school, she has dedicated her life in changing laws, policies, and practices that are discriminatory against women and lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders and intersex (LGBTI). She has conducted trainings in urban poor communities and far-flung areas in the Philippines and has conducted trainings for judges, police, lawyers, doctors, government officials, crisis intervention counselors, academe, students, and members of civil society. She has also raised women’s and LGBTI concerns to the international level especially the United Nations mechanisms on various issues including sexual and reproductive rights, gender-based violence, sexual orientation and gender identity, migration and trafficking, among others.

She spearheaded the submission of a collaborative Shadow Report to the August 2006 Review of the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) on the Philippines and made an oral intervention in said CEDAW Committee Session in New York leading to the successful adoption of strong sexual and reproductive health and rights language in the CEDAW Committee’s Concluding Comments on six of the areas of concern stated in our Shadow Report (i.e., access to the full range contraceptive methods including emergency contraception, access to safe and legal abortion, sexuality education for adolescents, skills and education for women in prostitution, legalization of divorce and repeal of discriminatory Muslim Code provisions).

She wrote the EnGendeRights submission to the First Universal Periodic Review in November 2007 and made the oral intervention in June 2008 in Geneva. She was a member of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific (IWRAW-AP) delegation that advocated towards the adoption of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (OP ICESCR) in December 2008. She spearheaded the submission of a Request for Inquiry under the Optional Protocol to Convention on All Forms of Discrimination against Women (OP CEDAW) in 2008.

She was an International Visiting Legal Fellow at the Center for Reproductive Rights, New York , N.Y. , from July 2002 through July 2003. Her previous consultancies include drafting the very first version of the Reproductive Health Care Bill which was filed as HB 4110 in December 2001 (under consultancy with PLCPD), facilitating discussions on gender equality and CEDAW for the justices of the Philippine courts and trainings on sexual harassment for members of the committee on decorum and investigation of the Philippine judiciary in 2008 (a project under the European Commission), a comparative study of gender-based violence (GBV) and HIV/AIDS legislation in ASEAN member countries where she developed a model legislation addressing the link between GBV and HIV/AIDS in 2009 (under consultancy with the Philippine Commission on Women), conducting briefings for representatives of Cambodian government agencies and the UN Country Team in Cambodia on the Philippine request for inquiry related to reproductive rights violations and facilitating discussions on communications and inquiries under the Optional Protocol to CEDAW for Cambodian NGOs in 2011 (under consultancy with UN Women), facilitating discussion on international and local mandates on reproductive rights for PRISM2 staff in 2011 (under consultancy with USAID-PRISM2), drafting of briefs on the reproductive health care bill, amendments to the Anti-Trafficking Law and the proposed law prohibiting discrimination in employment advertising based on sex and a speech on the urgency of the passage of the reproductive health bill into law in 2011 (under short-term consultancy for the Office of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago), drafting a bill proposing amendments to the Philippine Anti-Rape Law which included the recommendations of the CEDAW Committee in the Karen Tayag Vertido vs. Philippines in 2010 (Communication No. 18/2008; under consultancy with the Philippine Commission on Women), and drafting of the “Country Analysis of the AIDS, Gender and Age Situation and Response in the Philippines” in 2010 (under the EnGendeRights consultancy with UNICEF).

She conducted trainings on gender, gender-based violence, sexual and reproductive rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, laws related to women, and international human rights standards including the following: (a) speaker on the Optional Protocol to CEDAW at the NGO Meeting on Engagement with National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 27-29 July 2008; (b) speaker in several trainings and meetings related to CEDAW with IWRAW-Asia Pacific particularly on “Human Rights Committee Gender Discrimination Cases” at the Consultation on Realising the Potential of the Optional Protocol: Litigation Strategies on the Claiming of Equality and Non-Discrimination in December 2007 in Nepal and “Advocating for an Optional Protocol to CEDAW” at the Southeast Asia Women’s Human Rights Implementation Meeting in Jakarta in September 2007; (c) speaker on Strategies in “Advocating for the Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders” for 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Reproductive and Sexual Health and Rights held in Hyderabad, India, on October 30, 2007; (d) speaker in April 2006 during the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Eastern Visayas Convention before an audience of more than 700 lawyers and judges on the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and “Gender Issues in Legal Ethics”, both of which were credited as Mandatory Continuing Legal Education units; (e) speaker on March 31, 2007 on sexual and reproductive health and rights before an audience of about 1200 lawyers, prosecutors, and judges during the 11th IBP National Convention of Lawyers in Cagayan de Oro. In these trainings, she includes discussions on international human rights standards including CEDAW and CEDAW Committee jurisprudence; (f) guest expert/presenter at the first annual meeting in New York of the Center for Reproductive Rights’ International Litigation Advisory Committee (ILAC) in June 2005; (g) panel presenter/participant in the Equality Now sponsored “International Lawyers’ Meeting: Using the Law to Promote Sex Equality” held in Nairobi, Kenya on June 9-11, 2001 where the other participants/presenters included Judge Navanethem Pillay, then President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the current High Commissioner for Human Rights, as Chair and Professor Catharine MacKinnon as Presenter.

She has always given time to invitations asking her to share her expertise on a rights-based approach to sexual and reproductive rights including the Reproductive Health Care Bill, gender issues, violence against women (VAW), laws related to women including the Magna Carta of Women (RA 9710), Anti-Rape Law (RA 8353, RA 8505), Anti-Sexual Harassment Law (RA 7877), paralegal workshops to effectively address VAW, the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act (Anti-VAWC or RA9262), migration and trafficking (RA 9208), the right to safe and legal abortion, CEDAW and Optional Protocol to CEDAW including jurisprudence, rights of lesbians against discrimination in international law, the mandate and views of the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, among others.

She wrote ground-breaking articles including: The Abortion Scare versus Human Rights Standards (2010), Reasons Why We Need the RH Law (2010), Primer on the Inquiry Procedure Under the OP CEDAW (2010); A Call for Philippine Implementation of Women’s Rights under CEDAW, 53 Ateneo Law Journal 765-803 (2008); Using CEDAW to Uphold Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (2006); Challenging Fundamentalist Catholic Dogma in Philippine Law with Freedom of Conscience and Religion” (2003); Lesbians & Philippine Law (2001; co-written).

She has won two Supreme Court en banc (by the full court) cases. In October 1997, she succeeded in the landmark case of Pioneer Texturizing Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Lourdes de Jesus (G.R. 118651) where the Supreme Court overturned its previous doctrine laid down in Maranaw vs. NLRC (238 SCRA 190). In the Pioneer case, she successfully argued that illegally dismissed employees should be automatically reinstated at work or in the payroll without need of a writ of execution. In April 2010, she and several other lawyers won their petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court granting the accreditation of of a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) party-list organization in the case of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections Ang Ladlad Party-List (G.R. No. 190582).

2011-05-23T18:26:00.000+08:00

Knock Out Manny Pacquiao
By Clara Rita Padilla

May 19, 2011 – “Manny Pacquiao may win his boxing bouts but he may be knocked out by the glaring realities that women and adolescent girls face in Saranggani,” said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

“The results of the National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) 2008 show that children and young adults aged 15-24 who have begun childbearing exhibited a higher percentage in those who live in the rural areas, with no schooling or elementary education, belong to the poorer quintile and live in the poorest provinces in the Philippines including Saranggani. The NDHS shows 35% of children and young adults who have began childbearing come from the region of South Cotabato, Cotabato, Saranggani, and General Santos (SOCCSKSARGEN). According to the 2010 UNFPA State of the World Population Report, there are 45 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19,” Atty. Padilla stressed.

Atty. Padilla added, “Based on the NDHS, Saranggani has a high number of women who justify wife beating. Researchers placed questions on the justification in beating the wife, i.e., burns the food, argues with the husband, goes out without telling the husband, neglects the children, refuses to have sexual intercourse with the husband. Results show that there is a high acceptance of justification in wife beating in the regions of ARMM, SOCCSKSARGEN, Ilocos, Cagayan valley, MIMAROPA. The RH bill seeks to address the issue of gender-based violence by including the elimination of violence against women as one of the urgent concerns that must be addressed.”

“Manny and the other legislators who oppose the RH bill should be mindful of the Philippines’ long-standing commitment to the 2000 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) where representatives of 189 nations including the Philippines adopted the MDGs. The eight goals include gender equality and empowerment of women (Goal 3), reduce child mortality (Goal 4), improve maternal health (Goal 5), and combat HIV/AIDS (Goal 6) with targets to be achieved by the year 2015. A comprehensive RH law will help the Philippines achieve these goals. As representatives of our Congress, their mandate is to immediately pass a comprehensive RH law,” concluded Atty. Padilla.

***

2011-05-12T23:36:00.001+08:00

Separation of Church and State, Non-Establishment of Religion and Human Rights Standards by Clara Rita A. Padilla

I, too, was baptized a Catholic. As a small child, my father used to give me a reward for completing each mass I attended by giving me barquillos. But, as a young five-year old, I questioned how the Catholic Church would make me sit down, kneel, and stand up several times during mass that seemed to last an eternity to me. At some point, no amount of barquillos could make me go to mass. In college, the service to the poor program of the University of the Philippines Student Catholic Action (UPSCA, for short) encouraged me to be part of UPSCA throughout my whole college life.

The exercise of one’s religion is a basic right. There is danger, however, when one dominant religion such as the Catholic Church imposes its views on others who do not share the same views.

What the Filipino Catholic bishops fail to recognize is that alongside the right to exercise one’s religion is the right to freedom of thought and conscience (Art. 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). The freedom of religion is protected equally with the freedom of thought and conscience (Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22).

With the constitutional guarantee of the right to practice one’s religion is the protection of the non-establishment of religion and the separation of church and state. The guarantee of non-establishment of religion means that the state must not establish any religion in its government and must not prefer one religion over another while the guarantee of separation of church and state guards against the views of one religion from influencing the laws and policies of the state. This means that government officials are representatives of the people and not of any religion.

In the case of Ang Ladlad Party-List which we argued before the Supreme Court, we argued on grounds of non-establishment of religion and separation of church and state. The Supreme Court ruled in our favor by holding that the standard to be used in government should not be religious morality but rather secular morality that is good for all the citizens.

The Spanish colonial rule brought us Catholicism and even some of its out-dated colonial laws. Around the world, countless Catholics are not against reproductive rights. In many predominantly Catholic countries, they allow access to contraceptives including emergency contraceptives, and sexuality education. Over thirty predominantly Catholic countries[1] have registered emergency contraceptive pills such as Postinor and the like. These emergency contraceptives are important in preventing pregnancies such as in cases of rape.

According to the UNFPA 2010 State of the World Population, the Philippine contraceptive prevalence rate for modern methods is 34% compared to 62% of Spain. The same report states that the Philippine maternal mortality ratio is 230 per 100,000 live births while Spain has only 4 per 100,000 live births (UNFPA SWP 2010). Spain allows abortion on certain grounds and was even the third country to allow same-sex marriage.

Even the Vatican Council itself declared in its 1965 Dignitatis Humanae Declaration that "the human person has a right to religious freedom” and that no person shall be coerced to act against one’s beliefs.[2] It further declared that "in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion…."[3] The Council added that "the Christian faithful, in common with all other men [and women], possess the civil right not to be hindered in leading their lives in accordance with their consciences."[4] In plain and simple language, “walang pilitan ng paniniwala.” The Filipino bishops, the likes of the Barangay Ayala Alabang officials and others who shove their anti-choice beliefs down our throats should uphold the Dignitatis Humanae Declaration which respects the right to religious freedom and conscience.

Pope Benedict XVI has been quoted to say that using condoms may be justified to stop the spread of AIDS citing the examples of women in prostitution and their use of condoms. By justifying the use of condoms to fight the spread of HIV and AIDS, the Pope is making a realistic stance to address the spread of a deadly virus which can be prevented by effective and consistent use of condoms and providing programs such as sex education to discuss vulnerabilities to infection, prevention and treatment of HIV and AIDS. The Pope’s relaxed stance is an example of how religious morality should be in line with secular standards, public health, and human rights.

It is time for us to separate the Catholic Church as an institution from the Catholic religion. I question the Philippine Catholic Church hierarchy’s stance on the Reproductive Health Care (RH) bill since such stance is detrimental to the health and lives especially of poor Filipino women who are the ones most affected by the delayed passage of a comprehensive RH law.

The realities of unintended pregnancies, maternal deaths and deaths related to unsafe abortion should be addressed. Surveys have come out showing that Filipinos clamor for the passage of the RH bill into law.

The 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey (2008 NDHS) cites health concerns and fear of side effects as the two foremost reasons why women do not use contraceptives while only three percent do not use contraceptives because of religious belief.

The job of the enlightened Catholics would be to urge our legislators and the executive branch of our government to ensure that reproductive rights are fulfilled---not tomorrow but now. At the end of the day, there should really be no other standard except human rights standards.
________________________________________
[1] Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lesotho, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
[2] Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae on the Right of the Person and of Communities to Social and Civil Freedom in Matters Religious Promulgated by his Holiness Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965.
[3] Id..
[4] Id.

Description of the Author:

Clara Rita “Claire” Padilla is the founder and Executive Director of EnGendeRights. She is a widely published feminist lawyer and women’s rights activist. She has specialized expertise in the field of gender, gender-based violence, law, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and sexual orientation. She worked in the Philippines and in New York, United States. She has extensive experience in training, litigation, research, writing, and policy advocacy.

After graduating from law school, she has dedicated her life in changing laws, policies, and practices that are discriminatory against women and lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders and intersex (LGBTI). She has conducted trainings in urban poor communities and far-flung areas in the Philippines and has conducted trainings for judges, police, lawyers, doctors, government officials, crisis intervention counselors, academe, students, and members of civil society. She has also raised women’s and LGBTI concerns to the international level especially the United Nations mechanisms on various issues including sexual and reproductive rights, gender-based violence, sexual orientation and gender identity, migration and trafficking, among others.

She spearheaded the submission of a collaborative Shadow Report to the August 2006 Review of the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) on the Philippines and made an oral intervention in said CEDAW Committee Session in New York leading to the successful adoption of strong sexual and reproductive health and rights language in the CEDAW Committee’s Concluding Comments on six of the areas of concern stated in our Shadow Report (i.e., access to the full range contraceptive methods including emergency contraception, access to safe and legal abortion, sexuality education for adolescents, skills and education for women in prostitution, legalization of divorce and repeal of discriminatory Muslim Code provisions).

She wrote the EnGendeRights submission to the First Universal Periodic Review in November 2007 and made the oral intervention in June 2008 in Geneva. She was a member of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific (IWRAW-AP) delegation that advocated towards the adoption of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (OP ICESCR) in December 2008. She spearheaded the submission of a Request for Inquiry under the Optional Protocol to Convention on All Forms of Discrimination against Women (OP CEDAW) in 2008.

She was an International Visiting Legal Fellow at the Center for Reproductive Rights, New York , N.Y. , from July 2002 through July 2003. Her previous consultancies include drafting the very first version of the Reproductive Health Care Bill which was filed as HB 4110 in December 2001 (under consultancy with PLCPD), facilitating discussions on gender equality and CEDAW for the justices of the Philippine courts and trainings on sexual harassment for members of the committee on decorum and investigation of the Philippine judiciary in 2008 (a project under the European Commission), a comparative study of gender-based violence (GBV) and HIV/AIDS legislation in ASEAN member countries where she developed a model legislation addressing the link between GBV and HIV/AIDS in 2009 (under consultancy with the Philippine Commission on Women), conducting briefings for representatives of Cambodian government agencies and the UN Country Team in Cambodia on the Philippine request for inquiry related to reproductive rights violations and facilitating discussions on communications and inquiries under the Optional Protocol to CEDAW for Cambodian NGOs in 2011 (under consultancy with UN Women), facilitating discussion on international and local mandates on reproductive rights for PRISM2 staff in 2011 (under consultancy with USAID-PRISM2), drafting of briefs on the reproductive health care bill, amendments to the Anti-Trafficking Law and the proposed law prohibiting discrimination in employment advertising based on sex and a speech on the urgency of the passage of the reproductive health bill into law in 2011 (under short-term consultancy for the Office of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago), drafting a bill proposing amendments to the Philippine Anti-Rape Law which included the recommendations of the CEDAW Committee in the Karen Tayag Vertido vs. Philippines in 2010 (Communication No. 18/2008; under consultancy with the Philippine Commission on Women), and drafting of the “Country Analysis of the AIDS, Gender and Age Situation and Response in the Philippines” in 2010 (under the EnGendeRights consultancy with UNICEF).

She conducted trainings on gender, gender-based violence, sexual and reproductive rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, laws related to women, and international human rights standards including the following: (a) speaker on the Optional Protocol to CEDAW at the NGO Meeting on Engagement with National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 27-29 July 2008; (b) speaker in several trainings and meetings related to CEDAW with IWRAW-Asia Pacific particularly on “Human Rights Committee Gender Discrimination Cases” at the Consultation on Realising the Potential of the Optional Protocol: Litigation Strategies on the Claiming of Equality and Non-Discrimination in December 2007 in Nepal and “Advocating for an Optional Protocol to CEDAW” at the Southeast Asia Women’s Human Rights Implementation Meeting in Jakarta in September 2007; (c) speaker on Strategies in “Advocating for the Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders” for 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Reproductive and Sexual Health and Rights held in Hyderabad, India, on October 30, 2007; (d) speaker in April 2006 during the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Eastern Visayas Convention before an audience of more than 700 lawyers and judges on the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and “Gender Issues in Legal Ethics”, both of which were credited as Mandatory Continuing Legal Education units; (e) speaker on March 31, 2007 on sexual and reproductive health and rights before an audience of about 1200 lawyers, prosecutors, and judges during the 11th IBP National Convention of Lawyers in Cagayan de Oro. In these trainings, she includes discussions on international human rights standards including CEDAW and CEDAW Committee jurisprudence; (f) guest expert/presenter at the first annual meeting in New York of the Center for Reproductive Rights’ International Litigation Advisory Committee (ILAC) in June 2005; (g) panel presenter/participant in the Equality Now sponsored “International Lawyers’ Meeting: Using the Law to Promote Sex Equality” held in Nairobi, Kenya on June 9-11, 2001 where the other participants/presenters included Judge Navanethem Pillay, then President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the current High Commissioner for Human Rights, as Chair and Professor Catharine MacKinnon as Presenter.

She has always given time to invitations asking her to share her expertise on a rights-based approach to sexual and reproductive rights including the Reproductive Health Care Bill, gender issues, violence against women (VAW), laws related to women including the Magna Carta of Women (RA 9710), Anti-Rape Law (RA 8353, RA 8505), Anti-Sexual Harassment Law (RA 7877), paralegal workshops to effectively address VAW, the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act (Anti-VAWC or RA9262), migration and trafficking (RA 9208), the right to safe and legal abortion, CEDAW and Optional Protocol to CEDAW including jurisprudence, rights of lesbians against discrimination in international law, the mandate and views of the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, among others.

She wrote ground-breaking articles including: The Abortion Scare versus Human Rights Standards (2010), Reasons Why We Need the RH Law (2010), Primer on the Inquiry Procedure Under the OP CEDAW (2010); A Call for Philippine Implementation of Women’s Rights under CEDAW, 53 Ateneo Law Journal 765-803 (2008); Using CEDAW to Uphold Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (2006); Challenging Fundamentalist Catholic Dogma in Philippine Law with Freedom of Conscience and Religion” (2003); Lesbians & Philippine Law (2001; co-written).

She has won two Supreme Court en banc (by the full court) cases. In October 1997, she succeeded in the landmark case of Pioneer Texturizing Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Lourdes de Jesus (G.R. 118651) where the Supreme Court overturned its previous doctrine laid down in Maranaw vs. NLRC (238 SCRA 190). In the Pioneer case, she successfully argued that illegally dismissed employees should be automatically reinstated at work or in the payroll without need of a writ of execution. In April 2010, she and several other lawyers won their petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court granting the accreditation of of a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) party-list organization in the case of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections Ang Ladlad Party-List (G.R. No. 190582).

2011-05-12T23:31:00.000+08:00

Reasons Why We Need the RH Law
By Clara Rita A. Padilla

1. To respond to the clamor of the Philippine population who want the Reproductive Health Care Bill passed into law
Filipinos are clamoring for the passage of the Reproductive Health Care Bill (RH bill) into law. The 2008 national and Manila City surveys of the Social Weather Stations (SWS) both confirm that majority of Filipinos want the RH bill passed into law, 71% and 86%, respectively.

Without a clear reproductive health care policy, we are at the mercy of national and local government officials who may choose to promote the natural family planning method (NFP) and deny access to the full range of contraceptive methods. In the past, we saw the examples of then Health Secretaries Dayrit and Duque who merely promoted NFP under clear instructions from Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the former Manila City Mayor Atienza who effectively banned access to modern contraceptives in Manila City as a result of his EO 003 (Series of 2000).

The poor women, adolescent women, rural and indigenous women are the ones most affected by the lack of a reproductive health care policy. They are the ones who have the most unintended pregnancies and closely-spaced pregnancies. Their births are commonly unattended by trained health professionals.

2. To prevent unintended pregnancies

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 recently-launched 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey (2008 NDHS), one in three births is either unwanted or mistimed; over half of married women age 15-49 do not want another child; 82 percent of married women want either to space their births or to limit childbearing altogether. The total unmet need for family planning2 is 22 percent with highest unmet need for women age 15-19, lowest quintile of wealth, rural women and women in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).3 Twenty-six percent of women age 15-24 have already began child-bearing.4 The contraceptive prevalence rate was only 36% using modern methods.5

In 2006, the CEDAW Committee recommended to the Philippines to “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 and by increasing knowledge and awareness about family planning.”6

The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR Committee) expressed concern in its 2008 Concluding Observations on the Philippines on the “inadequate reproductive health services and information, the low rates of contraceptive use and the difficulties in obtaining access to artificial methods of contraception, which contribute to the high rates of teenage pregnancies and maternal deaths” in the country.7 The CESCR Committee urged it to “adopt all appropriate measures to protect the sexual and reproductive rights of women and girls, inter alia, through measures to reduce maternal and infant mortality and to facilitate access to sexual and reproductive health services, including access to family planning, and information.”8
In its 2009 Concluding Observations on the Philippines, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee) expressed serious concern on “the inadequate reproductive health services and information, the low rates of contraceptive use (36 per cent of women relied on modern family planning methods in 2006) and the difficulties in obtaining access to artificial methods of contraception, which contribute to the high rates of teenage pregnancies and maternal deaths.”9

3. To prevent maternal deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth

According to the 2008 United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of the World Population report on the Philippines, at least 230 Filipino mothers die for every 100,000 live births, compared to only 11 in US (with modern method contraceptive prevalence rate of 68%), seven in Canada, four in Spain (with modern method contraceptive prevalence rate of 62%), three in Italy, six in Japan, 14 in South Korea, 14 in Singapore (with modern method contraceptive prevalence rate of 53%). Across Europe, with the exception of Albania, Romania, and Estonia, the maternal mortality ratio is below 15.

Daily, there are 11 women dying while giving birth in the Philippines. Not a single death should happen due to pregnancy and childbirth. These preventable deaths could have been avoided if more Filipino women have had access to reproductive health information and health care.

According to the 2008 NDHS, only 44 percent of births occur in health facilities and only 62% of births are assisted by a health professional.10 Maternal deaths related to childbirth can be reduced further by access to skilled birth attendants which would be addressed by a comprehensive reproductive health care policy.

4. To prevent infant mortality

Adequate birth spacing is important for the health of the woman and the children. Birth spacing of four or more years can increase the survival rate of children less than five years of age. The under-five mortality rate11 for children born less than two years after a previous birth is 54 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared with 25 deaths per 1,000 for children born after an interval of four or more years.

5. 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 individuals and 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.

The Constitution states that it shall “defend the right of spouses to form a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood” (Art. 15, Sec. 14). Every person must be free to make sexual and reproductive decisions according to her or his own conscience and religious beliefs free from interference, coercion or constraint.

The CRC Committee expressed concern “at the lack of effective measures to promote the reproductive rights of women and girls and that particular beliefs and religious values are preventing their fulfillment.”12 According to our obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which the Philippines ratified on August 3, 1981, the Philippines should ensure women “the same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights.”13

6. To reduce abortion rates

Increased access to information and services on modern contraceptive methods will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, eliminate the need for abortion, and prevent maternal deaths. It is unfortunate though that the proposed law that could reduce the number of abortions is being opposed by fundamentalist groups.

In the Philippines, there are half a million women who induce abortion procedures every year, 79,000 women who are admitted to hospitals for complications from unsafe abortion and there are 800 women dying from unsafe abortion.14

One-third of unintended pregnancies end in abortion and twelve percent of maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortion.15 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.16

The Philippine legal restriction on abortion, one of the vestiges of Spanish colonization in the Philippines, was lifted directly from the old Spanish Penal Code of 1870.17 Recognizing the high rates of deaths of women undergoing clandestine and unsafe abortion procedures due to its illegality, the Spanish government reconsidered its restrictive law and has allowed abortion on certain grounds in 1985, over 25 years now. Last February 24, 2010, Spain approved a new law on abortion that further eases restrictions by allowing the procedure without restrictions up to 14 weeks and gives 16- and 17-year olds the right to have abortions without parental consent. The law is the latest of a series of bold social reforms undertaken by Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who first took office in 2004. Spain has also legalized gay marriage and made it easier for Spaniards to divorce under Zapatero’s administration.

Spain has liberalized its laws to allow abortion on broad grounds and yet we are left to contend with our old colonial laws. Other predominantly Catholic countries that allow abortion are 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).

Recognizing that the criminalization of abortion does not lessen the number of women inducing abortion but only makes it dangerous for women who undergo clandestine and unsafe abortion, in 2006, the CEDAW Committee urged the Philippine government to “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.”18

The Philippine law on abortion does not even allow express exceptions based on rape, risks to the life and health of the woman and fetal impairment. Philippine law on abortion must be liberalized to allow it on demand. This change can happen through a specific law removing the penalties for the woman inducing abortion and the safe abortion providers assisting her.

Making abortion safe and legal will save the lives of about 800 Filipino women representing the number of women who die every year from unsafe abortion. The legalization of abortion does not increase the number of women inducing abortion instead it has led to a decrease in number of women dying from unsafe abortion. Where abortion is legal, like in Canada and Turkey, abortion rates did not increase while the Netherlands, with its liberal abortion law and widely accessible contraceptives and free abortion services, has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world.19 Deaths due to abortion fell 85 percent after legalization in the US.20

7. To give rape victims a better chance to heal from their ordeal

Giving rape victims access to emergency contraception (EC) like levonorgestrel can help them prevent unwanted pregnancies. The availability of Postinor, a brandname for levonorgestrel, has been prey to religious fundamentalist attack. Then Health Secretary Alberto Romualdez, Jr. issued a Position Paper in 1999 allowing its dispensation to rape victims through the hospital-based DOH network of Women and Children Protection Units (WCPU). Subsequently, however, Postinor was delisted by the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD)21 and, despite requests for its re-registration,22 it has not been allowed to be registered again by the BFAD.23

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines EC as a method of preventing pregnancy. According to WHO, EC does not interrupt pregnancy, therefore, it is not considered a method of abortion. Over 140 countries worldwide have registered EC pills such as Postinor and the like24 including 31 predominantly Catholic countries such as Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lesotho, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Uruguay, and Venezuela, Almost all of the ten ASEAN countries including Burma/Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam have registered levonorgestrel.

8. To prevent early pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases especially among adolescents

The Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Bill (RH bill) recommends that the government provide mandatory reproductive health education starting at Grade 5. According to our obligations under CEDAW, “teenage pregnancies…present a significant obstacle to girls’ educational opportunities and economic empowerment.”25 It is the government’s duty to “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.”26

The CRC Committee recommended the urgent adoption of the RH Bill, to “ensure access to reproductive health counse[ling] and provide all adolescents with accurate and objective information and culturally sensitive services in order to prevent teenage pregnancies, including by providing wide access to a broad variety of contraceptives without any restrictions and improving knowledge and conscience on family planning,” and to “strengthen formal and informal sex education, for girls and boys, focusing on the prevention of early pregnancies, STIs and family planning,” among other things.27

Many adolescents are sexually active and are not practicing any contraceptive method. In 2008, there were 47 births for every 1000 women aged 15-19.28 According to the Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality Study 3 (YAFS 3), by age 18, 10 % of young women would have been pregnant and by age 20, 25% would have already been pregnant. Twenty-six percent of women age 15-24 have already began child-bearing.29

The knowledge of many adolescents on reproductive tract infections (RTIs), sexually transmitted Infections (STIs), and HIV/AIDS is at a superficial level. Adolescents should know the risks of early sex such as the different RTIs and the possibility of acquiring STIs and HIV/AIDS through unprotected and unsafe sex.

Risks of transmission during intimate sexual contact include infections to the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) which causes most cervical cancers.30 At their young age, adolescents are prone to HIV infections to HPV.

Pregnancies of adolescent girls aged 18 years and below are considered high risk pregnancies. Complications due to high blood and maternal mortality are high for adolescent girls giving birth. They also tend to disregard basic pre-natal and post-natal care thereby putting themselves at risk and adding to occurrence of infant mortality.

The social impact of early childbirth for adolescent girls includes disruption of schooling and the resulting lack of career options due to low educational attainment and lack of necessary job skills. Lack of career options in turn result in lack of financial capability.31

Philippine law already requires schools to teach HIV and AIDS under the 1998 Philippine AIDS Prevention Act (RA 8504). The ordinances in the provinces of Aurora,32 Ifugao,33 Mt. Province,34 Sultan Kudarat,35 Sulu36 and Olongapo City37 all require adolescent reproductive health (ARH) education in schools. These laws manifest the need to uphold ARH education.

9. To address the rising HIV/AIDS cases

The HIV epidemic in the Philippines is steadily growing. At the start of 2010, there are already four new cases being reported every month compared to the two new cases reported monthly in 2009.38 According to the estimates of Dr. Enrique Tayag, Director of the National Epidemiology Center (NEC), there will be an additional 1,500 Filipinos newly-infected by HIV by December 2010 and around 4,000 - 7,000 by 2011.39

The cumulative total cases of HIV from Jan. 1984-Aug. 2009 is 4,082.40 The annual newly-reported HIV cases rose from 200 in 2004 to 528 in 2008 and the number nearly tripled in 15-24 year-olds from 41 in 2007 to 110 in 2008.41

As early as 2007, more and more young people were being infected with HIV, thus, it is important to reach the general youth population.42 HIV infected males in the age groups of 20-24 and 25-29 posted an increasing share (4 percent and 6 percent, respectively) for the period 2006-2009, while diminishing proportions are accounted by older age groups.43

A growing number of women are getting HIV at 28%. Of the 821 AIDS cases reported in 2009, more than half of sexual transmissions was through heterosexual contact (30% were women and 70% were men).44 An alarming 35% of OFWs with HIV are seafarers with a corresponding increase in the number of wives of seafarers infected with HIV.45

Condoms and educational campaigns discussing the modes of HIV transmission, risky sexual behavior, and prevention and treatment of HIV are ways to address the rising incidence of HIV/AIDS in the country. Access to life-saving supplies including condoms, Post Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) and anti-retrovirals and access to information regarding HIV prevention and treatment will be made available through a comprehensive RH law.

10. To avoid the negative impact of large families on poor families

For many poor families, a large family size results in further poverty and lack of access to education and health services, among others. There are also studies showing that the eldest or second eldest from poor, large families end up in prostitution to meet their families’ needs46 and many women from large families also end up being trafficked.

11. To free women’s bodies from being held hostage by politics and fundamentalism

Groups such as the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) have continuously opposed the passage of the RH bill into law. It even identified in its guidelines for the 2010 elections that voters should not vote for candidates who support the RH bill. The above findings on the negative impact of the non-passage of the RH bill and the restriction of access to modern contraceptives show that a stance that is against the passage of the RH bill is not responsive to the needs of the Filipinos—Catholics included. Such a stance on the RH bill is detrimental to women’s reproductive rights and to the lives and well-being of Filipinos especially the poor. In fact, the results of the 2010 election prove that many Catholic-backed candidates did not win in the elections.

In the past, the soft stance of some congressional representatives and those in the executive branch of the government was their way of not antagonizing the CBCP into campaigning against them, however, the CBCP should not be involved in politicking since our very constitution guarantees the separation of church and state and the principle of non-establishment of religion.

The guarantee of the separation of church and state is provided under Section 6, Art. II on Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the Philippine Constitution which states that “[t]he separation of [c]hurch and [s]tate shall be inviolable.” The reason for the principle of separation of church and state is to guard against the views of a dominant church from influencing the conduct of government and influencing policies to cater to a specific dominant church.47 The separation of church and state guarantees that one will not abuse the other or that one dominant religion or belief will not be used to govern the state and its people. It must likewise be noted that while the 1987 Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, it also guarantees the non-establishment of religion. Section 5, Article III of the Bill of Rights states: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion....” This clause was included in order to ensure that the government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion.48

The January 2010 SWS survey though would make the congressional representatives and those in the executive branch seriously consider their true stance on the RH bill since the results show that 38% of Filipinos opt to vote for candidates who support the RH bill while a meager 6% opt to vote for those who oppose it. Thirty-five percent did not know what the RH bill was about.49 Given the trend on the survey, it would mean that more Filipinos who know about the RH bill would vote for a candidate who clearly supports the RH bill. Politically, it is popular for congressional representatives and those in executive positions to support the RH bill.

The 2008 NDHS also cites health concerns and fear of side effects as the two foremost reasons why women do not use contraceptives while only three percent do not use contraceptives because of religious belief.

Our representatives in government must realize that our very own Constitution states that, “Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” Government 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 RH bill into law. Government 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. Fundamentalist public officials who restrict access to information and health care services do not deserve any place in governance.

True to their being representatives of the people, many public officials have enacted reproductive health ordinances such as in Luzon (the provinces of Aurora, Ifugao, Mt. Province; cities such as Quezon City, Antipolo City, Olongapo City; the municipalities of Tinoc, Sagada, Lagawe, Asipulo, Bontoc, and Paracelis), in Visayas (the municipalities of Talibon, Ubay and Carmen of Bohol province, and the municipalities of Llorente and Maydolong of Eastern Samar) and in Mindanao (the provinces of Sulu and Lanao Del Sur, General Santos City, and the municipalities of Lebak and Kapatagan).

Government officials should follow the lead of local government officials such as Governor Bellaflor Angara-Castillo of Aurora and Governor Glenn Prudenciano of Ifugao who have spearheaded the enactment of ordinances such as “The Aurora Reproductive Health Care Code of 2005” (Provincial Ordinance No. 125 (2005)) supporting increased reproductive health care services, including mandatory sexuality education, responsible parenthood counseling and “Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood Ordinance of Ifugao” (Ordinance 2006-33), respectively.

Despite the CBCP’s campaign against elective officials who advocate for reproductive rights especially those who support the reproductive health care bill, many politicians won in previous elections such as Nereus Acosta, Bellaflor Angara-Castillo, Darlene Antonino-Custodio, Rodolfo Biazon, Juan Flavier, Janette Garin, Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Edcel Lagman, Liza Largoza-Maza, Renato Magtubo, Satur Ocampo, Nerissa Corazon Soon Ruiz, and Lorenzo R. Tañada III.

Congressional representatives and those in executive positions should make a clear stand on not just respecting the rights of individuals and couples to informed choice. They must clearly make a stance that they will earmark funds to provide wide access to modern contraceptives and reproductive health care services. It is very easy for middle class and upper class women to pay for their own contraceptives and other reproductive health care services but this is not the case for poor women in the communities, rural areas, and in the ARMM. For poor women, they are unable to buy contraceptives, they cannot afford to pay for anti-biotics to treat their reproductive tract infection for them to be able to have an IUD inserted, they cannot afford to pay for a P2,500 ligation procedure even when they already have four or more children, they are unable to get pre-natal and post-natal check ups because they have to tend to the needs of their several children at home nor they can pay for a simple PAP smear procedure. We need the necessary budgetary allocation to increase access to reproductive health care information and services.

It has been almost nine years since the first RH bill has been filed in Congress in December 2001. The failure to pass the RH bill has been detrimental to the health and lives of Filipinos especially women and children.

Congressional representatives and those in executive positions must make a stand that clearly supports wide access to reproductive health information, supplies, and services. This will spell the difference for many women’s lives!

1 Singh S et al., Unintended Pregnancy and Induced Abortion in the Philippines : Causes and Consequences, New York : Guttmacher Institute, 2006 [Singh S et al].
2 Unmet need for family planning is defined as the percentage of currently married women who either do not want any more children or want to wait before having their next birth, but are not using any method of family planning as cited in the 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey [2008 NDHS]
3 Id., 2008 NDHS.
4 Id., 2008 NDHS.
5 UNFPA State of the World Population 2008.
6 August 25, 2006 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Concluding Comments on the Philippines, para. 28 [2006 CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments].
7 CESCR, Concluding Observations (2008) para. 31
8 CESCR, Concluding Observations (2008) para. 31
9 CRC, Concluding Observations (2009), para. 61.
10 UNFPA says that for every 500,000 people there should be at lea st 4 facilities offering Basic Emergency Obstetric Care (BEmOC) and for every 500,000 people there should be at lea st 1 facility offering Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric Care (CEmOC) which should be appropriately distributed.
11 Infant mortality is the probability of dying before the first birthday while under-five mortality is the probability of dying between birth and fifth birthday.
12 CRC, Concluding Observations (2009), para. 61.
13 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Article 16.1; Paragraph 7.3 of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Programme of Action provides “…the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so…the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. X x x [the] right to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence”; Paragraph 96 of the Beijing Platform for Action states,“The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters relating to their sexuality, including their sexual and reproductive health, free of discrimination, coercion and violence.”
14 Singh S et al supra note 1.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Pacifico Agabin, “The Legal Perspective on Abortion”, The Journal of Reproductive Health, Rights and Ethics, Vol. II, No. 1 (1995), at 2.
18 2006 CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments.
19 Center for Reproductive Rights, Safe Abortion: A Public Health Imperative.
20 Id.
21 Postinor was delisted by the Bureau of Food and Drugs in its Bureau Cir. 18, series 2001 on December 7, 2001.
22 In March 2007, EnGendeRights submitted its “Position Paper on Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg as Emergency Contraceptive Pill” to the Bureau of Food and Drugs and the Department of Health specifically the Technical Panel of Obstetrics-Gynecology Specialists.
23 Based on follow ups made with the BFAD in June 2010.
24 International Consortium on Emergency Contraception (ICEC) webpage, available at http://www.cecinfo.org last visited June 20, 2010; ICEC, EC Status and Availability, available at http://www.cecinfo.org/database/pill/viewAllCountry.php and http://www.cecinfo.org/database/pill/viewAll.php last visited June 20, 2010; See Not-2-LATE.com, The Emergency Contraception Website, available at http://ec.princeton.edu/worldwide; See International Planned Parenthood Federation, Directory of Hormonal Contraceptives, available at http://contraceptive.ippf.org/(0jzjzwj2kyllxp5541lljpuj)/introduction.aspx.
25 2006 CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments.
26 2006 CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments.
27 CRC, Concluding Observations (2009), para. 62.
28 UNFPA State of World Population, 2008.
29 2008 NDHS.
30 Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths to women. 2005 Philippine Cancer Facts and Estimate, p. 12.
31 See CEDAW General Recommendation No. 21 Equality in marriage and family relations, i.e., Comment No. 36 and 37 on Art. 16 (2) of the CEDAW Convention.
32 Aurora Ordinance 125 Series of 2005, Sec. 9
33 Ifugao 2006-033, Sec. 9
34 Mt. Province Ordinance 76, Sec. 9
35 Sultan Kudarat Ordinance 07-09, Sec. 9
36 Sulu 01-2008, Sec. 5.
37 Olongapo City Reproductive Health Care Code of 2007.
38 Philippine National AIDS Council, Country Report of the Philippines, January 2008 to December 2009.
39 Tayag, Tracking HIV, Proceedings 1st HIV Summit: Call for Action and Broad-Based Responses to AIDS by Leaders, 2010.
40 Aug. 2009 HIV/AIDS Registry.
41 Department of Health-Philippines, “HIV and AIDS Monthly Report”, 16 September 2009, available at http://www.doh.gov.ph/node/2145.
42 Proceedings of the National Dissemination Forum, 2008.
43 Cabigen, Emily Christi A., Health Sector Response to HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control: The Philippines Country Report 2008.
44 National Epidemiology Center, August 2009 Monthly Update, Philippine HIV & AIDS Registry, 2009, http://www.doh.gov.ph/files/NEC_HIV_Aug-AIDSreg2009%20.pdf
45 National Epidemiology Center, April 2006 Monthly Update, HIV/AIDS Registry, 2006, http://www.doh.gov.ph/NEC/hiv/april_2006.pdf (stating that out of the total cases of HIV, 17% are domestic helpers, 7% are entertainers and 6% are health workers).
46 Preliminary results of the NSO study on children engaged in commercial sex exploitation in Cebu City presented in January 2010.
47 See Board of Education v. Everson, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1946) where the Court stated that “[n]either a State nor the Federal Government can set up a church…[or] pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another…Neither…, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”
48 See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992). In Lee, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the performance of a nonsectarian prayer by clergy at a public school’s graduation ceremony; see also Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 310-312 where the court invalidated student-initiated and student-led prayers at football games because they coerce students to participate in religious observances; In Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996), the Seventh Circuit followed Lee in striking down prison programs where inmates’ sentences were affected by participation in substance abuse programs that stressed religion. It was held that the program runs “afoul of the prohibition against the state’s favoring religion in general over non-religion.”; see Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), Petition for Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Greenville Women’s Clinic v. Comm’r, S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control).
49 The Jan. 21-24, 2010, SWS survey was commissioned by The Forum for Family Planning and Development; Results of the Feb. 21-25, 2010 Pulse Asia survey show more than 6 out of 10 (or 64 percent) of respondents said they would vote for candidates who promote the use of contraceptives. Meanwhile, 75 percent of the voters among the respondents deem it important that family planning be included in a candidate’s program of action while a mere 6 percent said they will not support candidates backing modern family planning; 30 percent are undecided.

A Call for Philippine Implementation of Women’s Rights Under CEDAW By Clara Rita A. Padilla, 53 ATENEO Law Journal 765-803 (2008)

2011-04-03T20:06:00.003+08:00

I. INTRODUCTION
II. CEDAW APPLICATION IN PHILIPPINE COURTS
III. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
A. Rape
B. Sexual Harassment
C. Prostitution and Trafficking
D. Violence against Women in Intimate Relationships
IV. REMEDYING DISCRIMINATION IN LAWS RELATING TO FAMILY, SEXUALITY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY,
AND REPRODUCTION
A. Enactment of Divorce Law
B. Repeal or Judgment of Unconstitutionality of the Adultery and the
“Marital Infidelity Bills”
C. Repeal of the Punitive Provisions on Women who Marry Within
301-day Period
D. Repeal of the Discriminatory Provisions in the Family Code
E. Repeal of the Discriminatory Provisions in the Muslim Code
F. Address Lesbian Rights, Discrimination of Lesbians and Gender Identity Discrimination in Philippine Courts
G. Reproductive Rights
V. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND GOVERNANCE
VI. PHILIPPINE STATUS OF RATIFICATION AND REPORTING ON THE MAJOR HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES
VII.CONCLUSION

I. INTRODUCTION

There exists a de jure discrimination in the country rooted from reliance on Spanish colonial laws and the de facto non-separation of church and state. Such proves to be detrimental most especially to women’s rights both in law and in its implementation. Testaments to this prejudice are the preference on the padre de familia (father of the family) in the Family Code, [1] and the lack of a comprehensive reproductive health care law up to now, among others.

This Paper tackles the existing discrimination against women in law, policy, and practice and discusses Philippine obligations in light of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). [2] CEDAW is the second most ratified treaty [3] — second only to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. [4] The very essence of CEDAW is the principles of equality and non-discrimination of women and the concurring state obligations under it. [5]

“Discrimination against women” is defined under article 1 of CEDAW to cover “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex … in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field” [6] that has “the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.” [7]

Since the Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations,” [8] CEDAW, as a legally binding treaty, creates an obligation on the part of the national government to enact and implement laws and policies that comply with international laws and standards. Having ratified CEDAW on 3 August 1981 [9] or more than 26 years ago, the Philippines is legally bound to uphold its provisions. In addition, reviewing our compliance with CEDAW will place the country in perspective as to how far we have gone and what other steps are needed for us to gain equality and non-discrimination of women.

II. CEDAW APPLICATION IN PHILIPPINE COURTS

A survey of Philippine jurisprudence reveals that there are only few Supreme Court cases citing CEDAW. In the separate opinion of Justice Romero in Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections, [10] CEDAW was quoted to uphold a widow’s right to fix her domicile distinct from that of her deceased husband. [11] In Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, [12] the woman’s right to work and right against discrimination based on marriage were upheld when private respondent was terminated from work for having concealed the fact that she was married in violation of a company policy against hiring married women. [13] The constitutional provisions on the role of women in nation-building and fundamental equality before the law of women and men were also used to bolster respondent’s claim. [14] Lastly, in the 2004 case of Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, [15] CEDAW was used as basis for equality under international law. [16]

The responsibility of the judiciary is broadened with the promulgation by the Supreme Court of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. [17] This writ is particularly significant in giving aid to women who have disappeared, were tortured, and raped. [18] The role of the judiciary is crucial in effecting the release and in ending the continuous torture and sexual abuse being committed against the victims.

III. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Pursuant to General Recommendation No. 19 on Violence against Women (VAW) prepared by a committee specifically formed to monitor the implementation of CEDAW, gender-based violence is defined as “violence which is directed against a woman because she is a woman or which affects women disproportionately.” [19] The State, being a key player to end this cycle of violence, 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. [20]

Below is an appraisal of particular manifestations of VAW and the response of the Philippines on these matters.

A. Rape

Incidences of rape remain high, with an average of eight women raped every day [21] and an average of nine children raped daily. [22]

The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 [23] brought positive changes; however, the law imposes a lighter penalty for “rape by sexual assault” committed with the insertion of an object or instrument into the vaginal orifice, as opposed to rape by penile penetration. [24] Implicit in this provision is a disregard for the traumatic effects of an assault of this nature. [25]

The enactment of the Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998 [26] provides support to rape victims. Its rape shield provision prohibits admissibility of past sexual conduct of the rape victim. Then again, it further provides that past sexual conduct is admissible if found “relevant by the court.” [27] This exception subjects the provision to judicial interpretation that may undermine its very purpose. In the essence of CEDAW prohibiting discrimination against women, past sexual conduct of rape victims is never relevant as evidence in rape cases since no woman asks to be raped.

A clear example of the irrelevance of past sexual conduct and “manner of dress” of the rape victim is the fact that young children, six years old and below, are also raped. This certainly dispels the erroneous view of blaming the victim and clearly shows that the blame rests on no one else but the perpetrator. Judges and public prosecutors who rule on criminal cases and rape complaints must not yield to the lame excuses of perpetrators that perpetuate sexism, patriarchy, and discrimination against women.

Despite the enactment of both The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 and the Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998, numerous complaints for rape are dismissed at the level of preliminary investigation and in the Regional Trial Courts. [28] Definitive data on the number of dismissals and acquittals among rape complaints are unavailable from the Department of Justice and from the judiciary. However, there are judges and public prosecutors who still do not understand the realities of rape as gender-based violence, ignoring the fact that rape is life-threatening. [29] Others do not recognize that the demeanor of rape victims during investigations and while testifying may vary. They also fail to receive reports of rape with credulity. [30] Some disregard the findings of post-traumatic stress disorder among victims of sexual violence. [31] Although the Supreme Court ruled that the “[a]bsence of hymenal lacerations does not disprove sexual abuse,” [32] it is possible that many judges and public prosecutors may continue to mistake the absence of hymenal lacerations as conclusive proof that rape did not occur due to deeply entrenched personal beliefs and lack of sensitization.

Many private and public prosecutors and judges also fail to accept res gestae evidence in rape cases. When the rape occurred with only the perpetrator and the private complainant, res gestae evidence is very important since the very first persons to whom the private complainant related the rape incident while she was in a state of trauma are crucial witnesses. [33] There are also judges who due to lack of receptiveness toward rape survivors scold the women for crying in court while testifying. [34]

To comply with the due diligence obligation of the Philippines in preventing, investigating, and punishing acts of VAW specifically rape, it is imperative that misconceptions associated with rape cases be corrected, thus, eliminating disbelief and judgmental attitudes toward rape survivors. Hence, it is important to affirm the following line of jurisprudence:

(1.) The rape survivor’s testimony must be received with credence.
• “[W]hen a woman says that she had been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she had indeed been raped ... .” [35]

(2.) There is no standard form of human behavioral response.
• “It is settled doctrine that there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.” [36]
• “We have also stated before that the workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable and people react differently — some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion.” [37]
• Behavioral psychology teaches us that different people react to similar situations dissimilarly. Most women would resist a sexual assault with a wild struggle. Others become virtually catatonic because of mental shock they experience. Yet it can never be successfully argued that the latter are any less sexual victims than the former. [38]
• “[V]ictims of sexual transgression respond differently to their ordeal.” [39]
• “Different people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.” [40]

(3.) Failure to immediately report the crime to the authorities does not destroy the credibility of the complaint.
• “Failure in making prompt report to the proper authorities does not destroy the truth per se of the complaint.” [41]
• “Long silence and delay in reporting a crime of rape has not always been construed as an indication of false accusation. Under the circumstances, [private complainant’s] protracted silence and resistance in reporting the matter should not cast doubt on the veracity of her accusation.” [42]
• On the claim that the delay in reporting the crime to the authorities for around 6 months is reason enough to doubt the credibility of the complainant, the Court has held in a long line of cases that delay in reporting the crime is not sufficient to doubt the truthfulness of the accusation. [43]
• [T]he pronouncement of the appellant that the unreasonable delay in the filing of the complaint entitles him to an acquittal must also fail. We have already ruled that ‘the silence of the offended party in a case of rape, or her failure to disclose … without loss of time to persons close to her and to report the matter to the authorities, does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue, and fabricated.’ [44]

The 2006 CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments [45] on the Philippines raised its concerns about the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 provision extinguishing the criminal action upon subsequent forgiveness by the wife. [46]

In the communication by Karen Vertido to the CEDAW Committee, [47] she cited seven cases which led to the acquittal of rape perpetrators to highlight discrimination against women as evidenced by the following five elements:

(1.) the “sweetheart defense” or a variation thereof, which asserts that the sexual act is consensual because intimate or sexual relations existed or exist between the complainant and the accused
(2.) the court's appreciation of the complainant's conduct before, during and after the alleged rape. The main line of reasoning is that the complainant did not exhibit the “natural” reaction of a woman who claims to have been violated
(3.) the absence of injury, both on the part of the accused and of the complainant
(4.) the nature, the amount or severity, and the perceived effects of the force, threat or intimidation as applied to the complainant
(5.) the understanding of the concept of consent and how it is manifested or communicated [48]

In the same communication, Vertido asked the CEDAW Committee to recommend to the Philippines, as a State party to CEDAW, to
develop an education and training program for trial court judges and public prosecutors specifically on sexual violence designed to make them understand sexuality issues and the psychosocial sequelae of sexual violence, appreciate properly medical and other evidence, adopt an interdisciplinary approach in investigating and deciding cases, and rid them of myths and misconceptions about sexual violence and its victims; undertake a serious review of jurisprudential doctrines of rape and other forms of sexual violence towards abandoning those that are discriminatory or that violate the Women's Convention, among others. [49]

B. Sexual Harassment

To address another form of violence against women, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 [50] embodied the noble intent of proscribing sexual harassment in the workplace, education, and training environment. However, the actual provisions of the law are problematic. It provides that there is demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor with the use of “authority, influence, or moral ascendancy.” [51] The way that the law is phrased subjects it to judicial interpretation where strict interpretation has led to countless dismissals in the preliminary investigation level and acquittals in the courts.

It would be best to amend the law to cover any unwanted conduct of a sexual nature in the workplace, educational, and training environment. Sexual harassment should be defined as “an act, or a series of acts involving any unwelcome sexual advance, request or demand for a sexual favor, or other verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, committed in a work-related, training or education related environment” [52] to expressly cover all acts of sexual harassment and do away with judicial interpretation. The penalty for sexual harassment should also be increased to clearly show the strong intent to proscribe sexual harassment. As of now, the law provides lower penalties than acts of lasciviousness with only one month to six months imprisonment and/or fine of P 10,000.00 to P 20,000.00. [53]

Like rape, sexual harassment, can happen anywhere and anytime. In cases of sexual harassment, the psychological impact on the victim is important and not the intent of the harasser. [54] That is why it is very unfortunate that in the 2002 case of Aquino v. Acosta, [55] the Supreme Court found no convincing evidence to sustain the charge for sexual harassment by ruling that, “[w]hat we perceive to have been committed by respondent judge are casual gestures of friendship and camaraderie, nothing more, nothing less. In kissing complainant, we find no indication that respondent was motivated by malice or lewd design.” [56] It was also erroneous for the Supreme Court to uphold the finding of the Investigating Justice that, “[a] mere casual buss on the cheek is not a sexual conduct or favor and does not fall within the purview of sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877.” [57] It is dangerous to rule that “there is no showing that respondent judge demanded, requested or required any sexual favor from complainant in exchange for ‘favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotion or privileges’ specified under Section 3 of R.A. 7877,” [58] since this strict interpretation can perpetuate the commission of sexual harassment in the workplace with impunity. With such a restricted interpretation, forced kisses and embraces that are unwanted sexual acts to the victim will not fall under the law. Such limited interpretation will perpetuate discrimination against women — sexual harassment generally being a gender-based violence with most women as victims.

It is also unfortunate that in the 2007 case of Alcuizar v. Carpio, [59] the Supreme Court did not find evidence constituting sexual harassment despite the finding of Executive Justice Investigator, Associate Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores that respondent judge be adjudged guilty of sexual harassment. Reversing the finding of investigating justice is seldom done by the Supreme Court. [60] Moreover, there were clear forced kisses despite protests by complainant, and even touching of complainant’s legs, among others. The standard used by the Supreme Court which required that, “[t]he quantum of proof required to support the administrative charges or to establish the ground for the removal of a judicial officer should … be proven beyond reasonable doubt” [61] is contrary to the usual substantial evidence standard. Unwittingly, the standard used in this particular case will tend to embolden judicial officers to continue committing sexual harassment instead of exacting the high standards of conduct that is mandated from judicial officials under the canons.

Until the law is amended, however, it is imperative for prosecutors, judges, and justices to rule that any unwanted act of a sexual nature to which a woman is subjected to, such as forced kisses, grabbing of breast, is already a “demand or requirement of a sexual favor” as held in the 2008 case of Rayala v. Domingo. [62] In Rayala, the Supreme Court stated that,

It is not necessary that the demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned…from the acts of the offender. … It is enough that the respondent’s acts result in creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee. [63]

Furthermore, it is essential that prosecutors, judges, and justices rule that male co-workers can sexually harass a female co-worker and even male subordinates can sexually harass a female on a higher position because of the reality of gender relations. Thus, not only those in a position of power in the workplace, educational, and training institution sexually harass — vertical type or quid pro quo type of sexual harassment — but also any co-worker and subordinate can sexually harass because of gender relations between men and women, known as horizontal or hostile environment type of sexual harassment, that falls under the use of “influence” under the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.

The existing gender relations between men and women manifest in the way male sexual harassers view women as “sex objects” is clear subordination of women. These male harassers believe that they can sexually harass women and get away with it.
Women have the right to a safe and healthy workplace, educational and training environment where their right to work and to study should be respected. Sexual harassment must be addressed effectively, otherwise, it will perpetuate and pervade the workplace, educational, and training environment without being punished. Sexual harassment must not be committed with impunity and the perpetrators must be held accountable for their actions to effectively eliminate sexual harassment.

C. Prostitution and Trafficking

In 2005, about 800,000 women and children were victims of prostitution. [64] The overwhelming figures of victims of prostitution and trafficking have triggered global awareness and global action against these crimes.

In the domestic level, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code [65] continue to focus law enforcement attention on women in prostitution, rather than on their exploiters. Article 202 on vagrancy is still being used to round up and imprison women in prostitution or is sometimes used to extort money or sexual favors. [66] Furthermore, the existing criminal law imposing imprisonment on women in prostitution disregards the fact that many are lured in to prostitution because of poverty and lack of alternative sources of income. Many women were forced in to prostitution because they were rape or incest victims or their families were abusive to them in the past. [67]

Detaining women in prostitution is not the answer. The CEDAW Committee recommended “educational and economic opportunities” [68] for women in prostitution to provide them adequate options “thereby reducing and eliminating their vulnerability to exploitation and traffickers” [69] and “reintegrat[ing them] into society and provid[ing] rehabilitation, social integration and economic empowerment programmes to women and girls who are victims of exploitation and trafficking.” [70] The CEDAW Committee also urged the Philippines to “prosecute and punish traffickers and those who exploit the prostitution of women, and provide protection to victims of trafficking.” [71]

On the other hand, the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 [72] affords legal protection to trafficked persons by recognizing them as victims who should not be penalized for crimes directly related to the acts of trafficking or in obedience to the order made by the trafficker. [73] A Quezon City ordinance also recognizes persons in prostitution as victims — imposing penalties only on the perpetrators, such as the pimps and recipients of the sexual act, while providing services to persons in prostitution through education campaigns against prostitution, crisis intervention service, education and socio-economic assistance, sustainable livelihood skills training, financial support for scale businesses, integration and complete after-care programs, health services, counseling, and temporary shelter. [74]

It would be good for legislators and members of the judiciary to emulate the Quezon City Regional Trial Court decision [75] of Judge Marcelino F. Bautista, Jr. where he declared the vagrancy provision under art. 202, paragraph 2 unconstitutional. Judge Bautista stated in the decision, “we cannot see how poverty should be a criminal act. … [T]he very thought of punishment of a person because of poverty smacks of elitism and a violation of the equal protection of the law clause.” [76]

It is time to remove the penalty imposed on women in prostitution and to uphold their rights as protected by CEDAW.

D. Violence against Women in Intimate Relationships

Violence against women in intimate relationships is prevalent in the Philippines. Studies show that three out of five women in the Philippines have experienced some form of battery and other physical abuse. [77]

Although the Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 [78] is a very potent law, there is still an ongoing disjunct between the law and how the law is being implemented in barangays, police stations, and courts. There are judges who do not issue Protection Orders [79] and some judges are hesitant to issue contempt orders against respondent husbands who clearly violate the provisions of Protection Orders. [80] There are husbands who sought to eject their wives from their homes as a form of abuse. [81] Will the courts allow wives or even common-law wives to be ejected despite the law protecting the woman’s right to stay in her residence regardless of its ownership? There are husbands who dissipate the couples’ property. Will the courts allow banks and Registers of Deeds to allow the dissipation of the couples’ property in clear violation of protection orders or will the courts issue contempt orders?

In the CEDAW Committee case of A.T. v. Hungary, [82] it was alleged in the communication or complaint that Hungary failed to provide effective protection from domestic violence from L.F. amounting to a breach of articles 2 and 5 (a) in conjunction with article 16 of CEDAW. [83] The CEDAW Committee recommended that Hungary, inter alia, provide regular training on CEDAW and its Protocol to judges, lawyers, and law enforcement officials. [84] It also recommended A.T. to receive reparation proportionate to the harm undergone and to the gravity of the violations. [85]

In light of the Philippine obligations under the CEDAW, the Philippines should also provide regular training on the CEDAW and its Protocol to judges, lawyers, and law enforcement officials pursuant to the CEDAW Committee’s recommendation in the Hungary case.

IV. REMEDYING DISCRIMINATION IN LAWS RELATING TO FAMILY, SEXUALITY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY, AND REPRODUCTION

After identifying the status of Philippine compliance in the many faces of violence committed against women, it is high time to lobby for more effective and beneficial laws directed to combat this ongoing oppression. The present state calls for greater vigilance from the lawmakers in filling the void in the legal landscape and rethinking particular provisions of currently operating laws.

A. Enactment of Divorce Law

One of the leading issues confronting Filipino women in the context of marriage and family life includes the absence of a clear divorce law. Women whose husbands are abusing them can only obtain nullity of marriage under article 36 of the Family Code where it must be shown that either or both of the parties are psychologically incapacitated. [86] Although the Supreme Court rules provide that expert opinion need not be presented, [87] some courts still require expert evidence of medical or clinical causes of psychological illness. [88] Hence, court decisions nullifying marriages are difficult to obtain because of varying judicial interpretations as to what constitutes psychological illness and the lack of appreciation of evidence of physical, emotional, and psychological abuses. [89] Moreover, cases for nullity of marriage are costly and inaccessible to poor women. Without specific divorce legislation, article 36 makes it hard for women in abusive relationships to leave their abusive husbands [90] thereby allowing the continuance of domestic violence and abusive marriages.

The CEDAW Committee expressed “its concern about the lack of a law on divorce, making it impossible for women to obtain legal divorce” [91] and urged the Philippines “to introduce and support vigorously legislation which permits divorce, allows women to remarry after divorce, and grants women and men the same rights to administer property during marriage and equal rights to property on divorce.” [92]
As a result of the lack of divorce, many women cohabit with their current partners without having their marriage nullified [93] and some women are dismissed from government service precisely because of these “immorality issues.” [94] Such dismissals for “immorality” do not take into consideration the fact that there are many married women who were previously in abusive relationships and now may have found comfort in their current loving relationships. [95]

B. Repeal or Judgment of Unconstitutionality of the Adultery and the “Marital Infidelity Bills”

Under the Revised Penal Code, a married woman commits adultery if she has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband. [96] A married male, on the other hand, can be convicted of “concubinage” only if his mistress cohabits with him in the conjugal dwelling or in another dwelling, or if he has intercourse with a woman other than his wife under “scandalous” circumstances. [97]

In many countries around the world, the criminal provisions imposed on adultery have already been repealed. [98] The intended purpose of the criminal provision on adultery under Philippine law is to protect the rights of real heirs. Many adultery cases, however, had been filed by estranged husbands who had long been separated from their wives and who had no intention of reuniting with their wives nor did they have any intention of supporting the illegitimate child of their wives. Moreover, the outdated concern of protecting the right of real heirs could easily be proven by DNA tests proving paternity.

The pending bills on “marital infidelity” [99] seeking to equalize the penalty between the wife and the husband infringe upon the right to have sexual relations. Equality in law does not simply mean equalizing the penalties for certain crimes for both women and men and especially not for “marital infidelity” cases. The essence of CEDAW provides for substantive equality such that the effect of laws would not discriminate against women. Equalizing the penalty for marital infidelity cases would discriminate women since the reality is that most marital infidelity cases are filed by men rather than women — more men still have more money than women and men use these marital infidelity cases against their wives as a form of abuse and torture and as a means to coerce their wives to transfer contested property to them. [100] Criminalizing marital infidelity is not the answer. It is time to repeal or declare unconstitutional the adultery and even the concubinage laws in the Philippines.

C. Repeal of the Punitive Provisions on Women who Marry Within 301-day Period

The Penal Code penalizes widows, divorced women or women whose marriages have been annulled or dissolved if they get married within 301 days from the death, divorce, or separation of their husbands. [101] This provision clearly discriminates against women and violates women’s sexual and reproductive rights [102] and women’s right to marry. [103]

D. Repeal of the Discriminatory Provisions in the Family Code

Marital laws that are biased in favor of the husband violate article 16 of CEDAW. Some of the laws that regulate marriage under the Family Code discriminate against women. For example, the husband’s decision prevails where there is a disagreement on the administration or enjoyment of community property and over the exercise of parental authority. [104]

Article 16 of the Convention mandates states parties to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations. Particularly, such measures shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution; [105] the same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children, provided that in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount; [106] the same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation; [107] and the same rights for both spouses in respect of the ownership, acquisition, management, administration, enjoyment and disposition of property, whether free of charge or for a valuable consideration. [108]

E. Repeal of the Discriminatory Provisions in the Muslim Code

Certain provisions of the Muslim Code [109] discriminate against women such as those pertaining to polygamy, [110] early marriages (allowed at age 15), [111] arranged marriages of females aged 12-14, [112] and unequal rights of women and men in marriage relations including the husband’s authority to choose the family residence, [113] the husband’s denial of permission to his wife to practice a profession or occupation of her choice, [114] and the husband’s authority over children prevailing over the wife. [115]

The provision under article 27 of the Muslim Code allowing polygamy under certain conditions [116] is inherently discriminatory and, as cited by the CEDAW Committee General Recommendation No. 21, a harmful traditional practice that “contravenes a woman’s right to equality with men,” [117] that can have “serious emotional and financial consequences for her and her dependents.” [118]

In predominantly Muslim countries such as Tunisia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan, polygamy has already been prohibited. In Tunisia, polygamy was abolished under the Personal Status Code immediately after Tunisia gained independence in 1956. [119] In Turkey, the 1926 code, which replaced the Ottoman system, prohibited both polygamy and repudiation. [120]

The provisions of the Muslim Code allowing marriages under 18 are inherently discriminatory against female children. In the CEDAW General Recommendation No. 21 on Equality in Marriage and Family Relations, the CEDAW Committee identified 18 as the appropriate legal age of marriage for both men and women. [121] The Committee also cited the finding of the World Health Organization that when girls marry and have children, their health can be adversely affected and their education impeded. [122] In CEDAW General Recommendation No. 19, the Committee defined forced marriage as a form of violence posing actual threats to women and perpetuating their subordinate roles in society. [123]

In Morocco, the minimum age for marriage was raised from 16 to 18 years. [124] In Bangladesh, child marriage and betrothal are prohibited and shall have no legal effect. [125]

The CEDAW Committee also specifically raised its concerns on the “existing discriminatory provisions of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, which permit marriage of girls under the age of 18, polygamy and arranged marriages,” [126] “the practice of early Marriage… among Muslim women,” [127] and “encourage[d] the State party to intensify dialogue with the Muslim community in order to remove discriminatory provisions from the Code of Muslim Personal Laws.” [128]

F. Addressing Lesbian Rights, Discrimination of Lesbians and Gender Identity Discrimination in Philippine Courts

The CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendation No. 21 recognized that “[t]he form and concept of the family can vary from State to State, and even between regions within a State.” [129] The Committee also asked states parties to re-conceptualize lesbianism as a sexual orientation and to abolish penalties for its practice. [130] The Human Rights Committee (HRC), the committee tasked to monitor the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), [131] 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. [132]

There is widespread discrimination against lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender women 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, [133] in Makati City, a dress code is imposed on gay men working for the city government. [134] There are anti-discrimination bills based on sexual orientation pending in the 14th Congress, but none has yet been passed into law. [135]

The 2007 Yogyakarta Principles [136] affirming the rights to sexual orientation applies international human rights standards in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. The members of the human rights experts’ group were the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and former President of Ireland Mary Robinson; United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteurs 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; and current and former members of human rights treaty bodies, judges, academics and human rights defenders. 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.” [37]

To state the truth about the freedom to express one’s sexuality, there are many countries allowing same-sex marriages, 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. [138] 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. [139] In Lebanon, a small public campaign exists to legalize homosexual relations in private between consenting adults. [140]

In the Philippines, there is no legal recognition of marriage or partnership with regard to lesbians, bisexuals 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 of 2004 since section 3 includes “any person with whom the woman has or had a sexual dating relationship.”[141]

The ICCPR, a treaty that the Philippines has ratified, protects lesbians against discrimination on the basis of equal protection. [142] 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 HRC uphold the right to sexual orientation. In the case of Toonen v. Australia, [143] the HRC found that the prohibition of private homosexual behavior is an arbitrary intrusion on privacy rights [144] under article 17 of the ICCPR and the right against discrimination [145] under article 2 of the same document. After the decision, Tasmania repealed the law in question. [146] In the case of Young v. Australia, [147] the Repatriation Commission denied Young’s application for pension for his war veteran same-sex partner of 38 years. [148] The HRC decision found a violation by Australia of article 26 of the ICCPR on equality before the law and non-discrimination [149] 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. [150]

In the 2003 Concluding Observations on the Philippines, [151] the HRC urged the Philippine government to “take the necessary steps to adopt legislation explicitly prohibiting discrimination” [152] and “to pursue its efforts to counter all forms of discrimination” [153] pertaining to sexual orientation. The Committee further urged the Philippines to “strengthen human rights education to forestall manifestations of intolerance and de facto discrimination.” [154]

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.” [155]

However, in the case of Pablo-Gualberto v. Gualberto V, [156] the Philippine Supreme Court held that sexual preference does not prove parental neglect or incompetence. [157] 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. It was, however, mentioned in the decision that the husband failed to “demonstrate that [the respondent Joycelyn] carried on her purported relationship with a person of the same sex in the presence of their son” [158] or that “the son was exposed to the mother’s alleged sexual proclivities or that his proper moral and psychological development suffered as a result.” [159] It is discriminatory against lesbians to suggest that there would be a different ruling given such evidence presented in court. [160] It would discriminate against lesbians to view that the show of affection of a lesbian couple’s love negatively influences the well-being of the child. [161] This continues to perpetuate the homophobic situation where heterosexual couples can show affection in front of their children while lesbian couples cannot do the same simply because they are lesbians. [162]

In the recent Philippine Supreme Court case of Silverio v. Republic, [163] a male to female transgendered person was denied her petition to change her sex and name in her birth certificate. 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. [164] In the cases of Goodwin v. United Kingdom [166] and Case of I. v. United Kingdom, [166] 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).

G. Reproductive Rights

CEDAW provides that States Parties must take “appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services ....” [167] Women are denied access to reproductive health information and reproductive health care services as shown in the discriminatory laws, policies, and practices below:

a. Lack of access to the full range of contraceptive methods

About half of all pregnancies in the Philippines, approximately 1.43 million a year, [168] are unintended. The Health Department has noted that Filipino women on the average have one child more than they want. According to the United Nations Population Fund, State of the World Population 2007 report on the Philippines, at least 200 Filipino women die for every 100,000 live births, compared to only 17 deaths in the United States, six in Canada, four in Spain, five in Italy, 41 in Malaysia, 30 in Singapore, and 44 in Thailand. [169] These deaths could have been avoided if more Filipino women had access to reproductive health information and health care.

At the core of reproductive rights lies the right to reproductive self-determination. This right is defined as the right to decide the number and spacing of one’s children and to have the information and means to do so. [170] Knowing which medically safe and effective methods of contraception will help individuals and couples to determine freely and responsibly the number, spacing, and timing of their children. This in turn should ensure that all children are properly provided for by their parents.

The failure of the Philippine government to ensure universal access to the full range of contraceptive methods and reproductive health services exposes women to health risks associated with unplanned pregnancy including unsafe abortion and maternal mortality. The CEDAW Committee, tasked to monitor the implementation of the convention, in its General Recommendation No. 24 on Women and Health called upon states parties to prioritize the prevention of unwanted pregnancy through family planning and sex education and to reduce maternal mortality rates through safe motherhood services and prenatal assistance. [171]

Article 10 (h) of the CEDAW requires states parties to take measures to guarantee access to “information to help to ensure the health and well-being of families, including information and advice on family planning.” [172] The CEDAW Committee has further elaborated on these rights:

Decisions to have children or not, … must not … be limited by… Government. In order to make an informed decision about safe and reliable contraceptive measures, women must have information about contraceptive measures and their use, and guaranteed access to sex education and family planning services, as provided in article 10 (h) of the Convention. [173]

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

In the concluding observations issued by the CEDAW Committee on the Philippine combined third and fourth periodic report in 1997, the Committee already explicitly recommended that reproductive and sexual health services, including family planning and contraception, be made available and accessible to women throughout the country. [174] The 2006 CEDAW Concluding Comments reiterated its concern about the “inadequate recognition and protection of the reproductive health and rights of women in the Philippines” [175] and “the high maternal mortality rates particularly the number of deaths resulting from induced abortions, high fertility rates, inadequate family planning services, the low rates of contraceptive use and difficulties in obtaining contraceptives.” [176] The CEDAW Committee urged the Philippines as a State party to

take concrete measures to enhance women’s access to health care, in particular to sexual and reproductive health services, in accordance with article 12 of the Convention and the Committee’s general recommendation 24 on women and health. It requests the State party to strengthen measures aimed at the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, including by making a comprehensive range of contraceptives more widely available and affordable and without any restriction and by increasing knowledge and awareness about family planning. [177]

b. Denial of access to emergency contraception

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 act upon 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.

Countries with constitutional protection of life from the moment of conception allow EC. These are Chile (Supreme Court of Chile approved the sale and distribution of Postinor); Peru (Peruvian Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology supported access to EC); and Hungary (has registered levonorgestrel). Other predominantly Catholic countries allowing access to levonorgestrel are Poland and Spain, among others. [178]

c. Lack of a comprehensive reproductive health care law including lack of sexuality education for adolescents and lack of accountability of government officials denying access to the full range of contraceptive methods
The proposed Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Law [179] includes compliance with the obligation of the government to “provide sex education targeted at girls and boys, with special attention to the prevention of early pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases” under CEDAW. [180] According to the CEDAW Committee, “the high rate of teenage pregnancies, … present a significant obstacle to girls’ educational opportunities and economic empowerment.” [181]

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 intrauterine devices (IUDs) on a later date with projections that stock-out will occur 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 suitable contraceptive methods has seeped down to local politics and ordinances, as in Executive Order No. 3 [182] which led the city government of Manila in 2000 to refuse distribution of modern contraceptives in government clinics. Such policies reflect religious fundamentalism in our laws, where the beliefs of those in government are imposed on others. Government officials should respect plurality in our society and respect the rights of its citizens, regardless of their faith. Clear laws and policies upholding our reproductive rights should address these anomalies.

d. Repeal of criminal provisions imposed on women who induce abortion and those who assist them

Many countries all over the world have been liberalizing their abortion laws. The CEDAW Committee stated that “barriers to women’s access to appropriate health care include laws that criminalize medical procedures only needed by women and that punish women who undergo those procedures” [183] and that “[w]hen possible, legislation criminalizing abortion could be amended to remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion.” [184]

The CEDAW Committee has recognized that restrictive abortion laws result in a violation of women’s right to life. [185] It has, on several occasions, recommended that State parties remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion. [186] It has praised at least one State party for amending its restrictive legislation. [187] Furthermore, the CEDAW Committee has emphasized the vital link between illegal, unsafe abortion, and high rates of maternal mortality [188] by consistently making the point that 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. [189]

The Philippines has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world — penalizing the woman who undergoes abortion and the person assisting the woman without providing clear exceptions even when the woman’s life or health is in danger, the pregnancy is the result of rape, or fetal impairment. [190] The Philippine Constitution provides that “[t]he State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” [191] This provision has no counterpart in the 1935 and 1973 constitutions. Although the provision equally protects the unborn from conception, it does not explicitly prohibit abortion.
Hungary also has a constitutional provision protecting life from conception but still permits abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation. [192] The life of the unborn is not placed exactly on the same level as the life of the woman [193] as shown by laws and jurisprudence of countries worldwide allowing abortion on various grounds. [194] Furthermore, international human rights standards provide tremendous support for the right to safe and legal abortion. [195]

As stated above, Filipino women do not have access to safe and legal abortion despite statistics in 2000 showing 473,000 women induced abortions; [196] 79,000 women were hospitalized for complications; [197] 800 women died due to complications [198] (or two women die every day) and 12% of maternal deaths were due to unsafe abortion. [199] The statistics also shows the following: nine in 10 women are married/consensual union; more than half have at least three children; two-thirds are poor; nearly 90% are Catholic; 27 out of every 1,000 women induce abortion; and 18 induced abortions per 100 pregnancies. [200]

In 2000, the DOH introduced the Prevention and Management of Abortion and its Complications (PMAC) policy, [201] which aims to improve the health care services for women suffering complications from induced abortion. Although the PMAC policy was enacted in 2000, it has only been implemented in pilot hospitals. [202] Hence, there is an urgent need to broaden the policy to include more hospitals and to support it with enforceable guidelines and mechanisms to protect women from discrimination by health care providers. Safe abortion service providers who provide the much-needed services that only women seek have been subjected to harassment by police operatives, with some even facing baseless criminal charges. [203]

In the case of Colombia, a Colombian citizen challenged in the Constitutional Court on 14 April 2005 the former Colombian abortion law that outlawed the procedure under all circumstances. [204] The argument in the petition included CEDAW and Human Rights Committee’s recommendations that Colombia decriminalize abortion under the most extreme cases. [205] In the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Colombian abortion law was declared unconstitutional. Colombia now permits abortion on the following circumstances: when the woman’s life or health is in danger; when the pregnancy is the result of rape; and when the fetus has malformation incompatible with life outside the uterus. [206] Compare this with the Philippine law that provides no expressed exceptions.

In the communication K. Llantoy v. Peru [207] filed with the Human Rights Committee, a 17-year old woman was prevented from terminating her risky pregnancy of an anencephalic fetus — a fetus with a partial brain. [208] In KL’s case, the fetus died five days after birth and KL fell into a deep depression. [209]

The finding of the Human Rights Committee was: forcing her to carry her pregnancy to a term constituted cruel and inhuman treatment in violation of article 7 of the ICCPR; [210] violated her right to privacy under article 17; [211] and violated her right to receive the special care she required as an adolescent girl from the health system under article 24. [212] 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. [213]

To state the truth about other predominantly Catholic countries allowing abortion, there is Spain, [214] Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, [215] and Hungary whose constitution protects life from conception but permits abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation. Recent ones are from Colombia, and Mexico City, which legalized abortion in the first trimester without restriction, and Portugal which 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.

In its August 2006 Concluding Comments on the Philippines, the CEDAW Committee recommended for the Philippines as a State party 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. [216]

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. Having ratified the CEDAW, the Philippines is obligated to make abortion safe and legal.

V. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND GOVERNANCE

CEDAW General Recommendation No. 23 on Political and Public life provides that
States parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, shall ensure to women, on equal terms with men, … the right: … (b) [t]o participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof … .” [217]

In predominantly Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, quota systems were instituted to increase women’s participation in political life. The use of temporary special measures, in accordance with article 4, paragraph 1, of CEDAW [218] and the Committee’s General Recommendation No. 25 on temporary special measures to increase women’s equal participation in political and public life is one way to achieve marked improvement in women’s de facto and de jure equality.

The CEDAW Committee raised its concern on

the persistence of patriarchal attitudes and deep-rooted stereotypes regarding the roles and responsibilities of women and men in the family and society. These stereotypes present a significant impediment to the implementation of the Convention … as well as of the disadvantaged position of women in a number of areas, including in all sectors of the labour market and in political and public life. [219]

The Committee called upon the Philippines

to establish concrete goals and timetables and to take sustained measures, including temporary special measures, in accordance with article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention and the Committee’s general recommendation 25 on temporary special measures, to accelerate women’s equal participation in political and public life and ensure that the representation of women in political and public bodies reflects the full diversity of the population, particularly indigenous women and Muslim women. [220]

It also recommended to the Philippines to “implement training programmes and awareness-raising campaigns to highlight the importance to society as a whole of women’s full and equal participation in leadership positions at all levels of decision-making.” [221]

The intentional failure on the part of the Philippine government to ensure the protection and fulfillment of sexual and reproductive rights is a clear violation of its obligations under international law. The impunity with which the Philippine government has been routinely violating the sexual and reproductive rights of Filipino women under the cloak of executive power of its officials, violates the basic rights of its citizens. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s failure to uphold Filipino women’s sexual and reproductive rights is an example of poor governance. As enunciated in 1987 Constitution, “[s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” [222] Thus, as a representative of the Filipino people, the President is obligated to uphold women’s sexual and reproductive rights.

VI. PHILIPPINE STATUS OF RATIFICATION AND REPORTING ON THE MAJOR HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES

The Philippines has ratified several treaties including the CEDAW, the Civil and Political Rights Covenant, [223] the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant, [224] the Convention on the Rights of the Child, [225] the Convention Against Torture, [226] the Convention on Racial Discrimination, [227] the Migrants Convention, [228] and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. [229] The Philippines has not ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, [230] the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, [231] and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. [232]

The Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions, [233] situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, [234] the human rights of migrants, [235] and the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons [236] have issued reports on the Philippines. The Philippines, however, has not issued a “standing invitation” to the Special Rapporteurs despite having been pointed out in the April 2008 United Nations Human Rights Council review on the Philippines. [237]

The Philippines has been delayed in submitting its reports to the treaty- monitoring bodies. The delayed and combined country reports due are the following: the CEDAW Committee 7th and 8th country reports in 2010; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 5th country report on 30 June 2010; Human Rights Committee 3rd country report overdue since 1 November 2006; Committee on the Rights of the Child 3rd and 4th country report overdue since 19 September 2007; and Committee against Torture 2nd to 5th reports overdue since 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004.

VII. CONCLUSION

Having ratified CEDAW, the Philippines signified its intent as a State party to be bound by its obligations to the convention. As a State party, it has to fulfill its obligation to enact laws and policies, establish case laws and practices that are in line with very the basic principles of CEDAW on equality and non-discrimination of women. The CEDAW must be used to the fullest extent possible, through “all appropriate means” [238] and even through “temporary special measures” [239] or more popularly known as affirmative action, for the “full realization” [240] of women’s rights as recognized under the Convention. Whether in the legislative, executive, or judicial field, or as private actors, all are called to fulfill their obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill women’s rights.

[1]The Family Code of the Philippines [FAMILY CODE], Executive Order No. 209 (1988).
[2]Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, G.A. Res. 34/180, 34 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 46) at 193, U.N. Doc. A/34/46, entered into force Sep. 3, 1981 [hereinafter CEDAW].
[3]CEDAW has undergone 185 ratifications. See, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, CEDAW Status of Ratification, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/8.htm (last accessed May 19, 2008).
[4]Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989), entered into force Sep. 2, 1990. This has been ratified 193 times. See, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, CRC Status of Ratification, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/11.htm (last accessed May 19, 2008).
[5]CEDAW, arts. 2 & 3.
[6] Id. art. 1.
[7] Id.
[8] PHIL. CONST. art. II, § 2.
[9] See, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, CEDAW Status of Ratification, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ ratification/8.htm (last accessed May 19, 2008).
[10]Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections, 248 SCRA 300 (1995).
[11] Id. at 346. (Romero, J., separate opinion).
[12] Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, 272 SCRA 596 (1997).
[13] Id. at 598-99.
[14] Id. at 601-02. See, PHIL. CONST. art. II, § 14 & art. XIX, § 3.
[15] Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 446 SCRA 299 (2004).
[16] Id. at 376.
[17] RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO, A.M. No. 7-9-12-SC (Oct. 24, 2007).
[18] Take for instance the case of two university students, Sheryll Cadapan and Karen Empeño, who were disappeared since June 26, 2006. See, Jim Loughran, The Philippines: kidnapping and ill-treatment of human rights defenders Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeño in military custody, available at http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/1358 (last accessed May 19, 2008); Dabet Castañeda, 2 Missing UP Students Tortured, Raped inside Military Camp, available at http://www.bulatlat.com/2007/11/2-missing-students-tortured-raped-inside-military-camp (last accessed May 19, 2008).
[19] 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].
[20] 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.
[21] National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women, VAW Statistics, Violent Crimes Against Women and Children, available at http://www.ncrfw.gov.ph/ vaw_watch/vaw_stats.htm (last accessed Oct. 1, 2003).
[22] Id.
[23] An Act Expanding the Definition of the Crime of Rape, Reclassifying the Same as a Crime Against Persons, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code, and for Other Purposes [The Anti-Rape Law of 1997], Republic Act No. 8353 (1997).
[24] Clara Rita Padilla, Philippine Submission to Equality Now Workshop on Litigating for Sex Equality (June 9-11, 2001) (transcript available on file with the Center for Reproductive Rights) at 17 [hereinafter Padilla, Litigating for Sex Equality]. This workshop was held in Nairobi, Kenya.
[25] WOMEN’S LEGAL BUREAU, WOMEN’S HEALTH AND THE LAW, 69-71 (1997).
[26] An Act Providing Assistance and Protection for Rape Victims, Establishing for the Purpose a Rape Crisis Center in Every Province and City, Authorizing the Appropriation of Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes [Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998], Republic Act No. 8505 (1998).
[27] See, Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998, § 6.
[28] Padilla, Litigating for Sex Equality, supra note 25, at 18 (citing People v. Miranda, Criminal Case No. Q96-65569 (Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 103, Quezon City 1998). See, SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR., ET AL., JUSTICE AND HEALING: TWIN IMPERATIVES FOR THE TWIN LAWS AGAINST RAPE (2001).
[29] Padilla, Litigating for Sex Equality, supra note 25, at 19 (citing People v. Miranda, Criminal Case No. Q96-65569 (Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 103, Quezon City 1998) and People v. Ortega, Criminal Case No. 42865-99 (Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 17, Davao City; hearings on Feb. 29, 2000, Apr. 17, 2000, and Apr. 18, 2000). See, SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR., ET AL., JUSTICE AND HEALING: TWIN IMPERATIVES FOR THE TWIN LAWS AGAINST RAPE (2001).
[30] See, People v. Salarza, Jr., 277 SCRA 578, 588 (1997). The Supreme Court held that:
Rape is a charge easy to make, hard to prove and harder to defend by the party accused, though innocent. Experience has shown that unfounded charges of rape have frequently been proferred by women actuated by some sinister, ulterior or undisclosed motive … On more than one occasion it has been pointed out that in crimes against chastity the testimony of the injured women should not be received with precipitate credulity.
[31] Padilla, Litigating for Sex Equality, supra note 24, at 18.
[32] People v. Llanita, 364 SCRA 505, 519 (2001).
[33] See, REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, rule 130, § 42. The provision refers to res gestae evidence as “[s]tatements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof ... .”
[34] Padilla, Litigating for Sex Equality, supra note 24, at 18 (citing People v. Miranda, Criminal Case No. Q96-65569 (Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 103, Quezon City 1998) and People v. Ortega, Criminal Case No. 42865-99 (Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 17, Davao City; hearings on Feb. 29, 2000, Apr. 17, 2000, and Apr. 18, 2000)).
[35] People v. Lascuna, 225 SCRA 386, 399 (1993); See, People v. Joya, 227 SCRA 9 (1993); People v. Budol 143 SCRA 241 (1986); People v. Pasco, 181 SCRA 233 (1990).
[36] People v. Arnan, 224 SCRA 37, 43 (1993) (citing People v. Flores, 217 SCRA 613 (1993).
[37] People v. Malunes 247 SCRA 317, 326 (1995) (citing People v. Caradilla, 133 SCRA 413 (1983); See, People v. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613 (1992); People v. Miranda, 262 SCRA 351 (1996); People v. Talledo, 262 SCRA 544 (1996); People v. Villanueva, 254 SCRA 202 (1996); People v. Talaboc, 256 SCRA 441 (1996).
[38] People v. Ibay, 233 SCRA 15, 25 (1994).
[39] People v. Cabebe, 290 SCRA 543, 555 (1998).
[40] People v. Luzorta, 286 SCRA 487, 491 (1998) (citing People v. Talaboc, 256 SCRA 441 (1996)).
[41] People v. Sagun, 303 SCRA 382, 385 (1999).
[42] People v. Plaza, 242 SCRA 724, 729-30 (1995).
[43] People v. Jimenez, 250 SCRA 349, 357 (1995).
[44] People v. Abendaño 242 SCRA 531, 539-40 (1995) (citing People v. Junio, 227 SCRA 826 (1994)).
[45] Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Concluding Comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: Philippines, available at http://www.ncrfw.gov.ph/inside_pages /downloads/cedaw/concluding_comments.pdf (last accessed May 19, 2008) [hereinafter Concluding Comments].
[46] The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, art. 266-C, ¶ 2. The provision states:
Art. 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - …
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
[47] Communication under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Letter from Karen Vertido to CEDAW Committee (Nov. 29, 2007).
[48] Id. at 78-89.
[49] Id. at 99. Part of the relief in Vertido’s communication included:
(b) Develop an education and training program for trial court judges and public prosecutors specifically on sexual violence that is designed to make them understand sexuality issues and the psychosocial sequelae of sexual violence, appreciate properly medical and other evidence, adopt an interdisciplinary approach in investigating and deciding cases, and rid them of myths and misconceptions about sexual violence and its victims. The program should include a system of monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the education and training on the judges and prosecutors concerned;
(c) Undertake a serious review of jurisprudential doctrines ort rape and other forms of sexual violence towards abandoning those that are discriminatory or that violate the rights guaranteed under general international human rights law, the Women's Convention and other human rights conventions;
(d) Establish a monitoring system for trial court decisions in cases of rape and other sexual offenses to ensure their compliance with the proper standards in deciding cases and their consistency with the provisions of the Women's Convention and other human rights conventions;
(e) Compile and analyze data on the number of sexual violence cases filed in the prosecution offices and in the courts, the number of dismissals and their bases, towards addressing discriminatory practices and decisions through education and training and other appropriate measures; and
(f) Provide for the right to appeal of victims of rape in cases of acquittals that are anchored on discriminatory grounds.
Id. at 99-100.
[50] An Act Declaring Sexual Harassment Unlawful in the Employment, Education or Training Environment, and for Other Purposes [Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995], Republic Act No. 7877 (1995).
[51] Id. § 3.
[52] See, Civil Service Commission, Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases, Resolution No. 01-0940, § 3 (2001).
[53] Id. § 7.
[54] Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F. 2d 934 (1981)
[55] Aquino v. Acosta, 380 SCRA 1 (2002).
[56] Id. at 9.
[57] Id. at 10.
[58] Id. at 11.
[59] Alcuizar v. Carpio, 529 SCRA 216 (2007).
[60] Id. at 223-25.
[61] Id. at 225.
[62] Domingo v. Rayala, G.R. Nos. 155831, 155840, & 158700, Feb. 18, 2008.
[63] Id.
[64] Alexander Martin Remollino, ‘Palit-Bigas’ Prostitution, available at http://www.bulatlat.com/news/5-37/5-37-prosti.htm (last accessed May 19, 2006).
[65] An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws [REVISED PENAL CODE], Act No. 3815 (1930).
[66] Padilla, Litigating for Sex Equality, supra note 25, at 20.
[67] Clara Rita Padilla, Rethinking Policies on Women, SOROPTIMIST BALITA, Sep. 2005, at 3 [hereinafter Padilla, Rethinking Policies on Women].
[68] Concluding Comments, supra note 45, ¶ 20.
[69] Id.
[70] Id.
[71] Id.
[72] An Act to Institute Policies to Eliminate Trafficking In Persons Especially Women and Children, Establishing the Necessary Institutional Mechanisms for the Protection and Support of Trafficked Persons, Providing Penalties for its Violations, and for Other Purposes [Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003], Republic Act No. 9208 (2003).
[73] Id. § 17.
[74] An Ordinance Addressing the System of Prostitution, Imposing Penalties on its Perpetrators, Providing Protective Measures and Support Services for the Prostituted Persons, and for Other Purposes, Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1516, §§ (i) & (ii), (2005).
[75] JP v. LN-D, Civil Case No. Q96-26153 (Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 215, Quezon City 1996).
[76] Id. at 7.
[77] Gina Mission, The Economic Cost of Violence Against Filipino Women, available at http://gina.ph/CyberDyaryo/features/cd1999_0520_014.htm (last accessed May 19, 2008).
[78] An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for Other Purposes [Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004], Republic Act No. 9262 (2004).
[79] CBS v. ACC, CA-G.R. CV No. 88682, Civil Case No. Q-04-52761 (Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 222, Quezon City 2006).
[80] Padilla, Rethinking Policies on Women, supra note 68; See, LOP v. ASDP, Special Civil Action No. Q07-61077 (Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 220, Quezon City 2008).
[81] ALC v. CBS, Civil Case No. 35-34201 (Municipal Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 35, Quezon City 2005).
[82] A.T. v. Hungary, Communication No. 2/2003, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/32/D/ 2/2003 (2005).
[83] Id. ¶ 1.1.
[84] Id. ¶ 9.6 (II) (iv).
[85] Id. ¶ 9.6 (I) (i).
[86] Padilla, Litigating for Sex Equality, supra note 24, at 16.
[87] RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID MARRIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (2003), § 2 (d), ¶ 2.
[88] Padilla, Litigating for Sex Equality, supra note 24, at 18.
[89] Id.
[90] Padilla, Rethinking Policies on Women, supra note 67, at 3.
[91] Concluding Comments, supra note 45, ¶ 31.
[92] Id. ¶ 32.
[93] Padilla, Rethinking Policies on Women, supra note 67, at 3.
[94] Id.
[95] Id.
[96] REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 333.
[97] Id. art. 334.
[98] Agence France-Presse, Sexual Violence, Abortion in the Spotlight on Women's Day, available at http://news.inq7.net/world/index.php?index=1&story_id= 68774 (last accessed Aug. 2, 2006).
[99] See, An Act Defining and Penalizing Marital Infidelity Amending for the Purpose Articles 333, 334 and 344 of Act No. 3815, Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code, House Bill No. 999, 14th Cong. (2007); An Act Repealing the Law on Adultery and Concubinage and Defining in Lieu Thereof the Crime of Marital Infidelity, Amending for the Purpose Articles 333, 334, and 344 of Act Numbered Three Thousand Eight-Hundred and Fifteen, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code, House Bill No. 1820, 14th Cong. (2007).
[100] There have been cases where the author has defended married women against adultery cases that have been filed by the estranged husbands merely to harass or threaten these women.
[101] REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 351.
[102] See, CEDAW, art. 12.
[103] See, CEDAW, art. 16.
[104] See, FAMILY CODE, arts. 96 & 211.
[105] CEDAW, art. 16 (c).
.[106] Id. art. 16 (f).
[107] Id. art. 16 (g).
[108] Id. art. 16 (h).
[109] A Decree to Ordain and Promulgate a Code Recognizing the System of Filipino Muslim Laws, Codifying Muslim Personal Laws, and Providing for its Administration and for Other Purposes [CODE OF MUSLIM PERSONAL LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES], Presidential Decree No. 1083 (1977).
[110] Id. arts. 27-29.
[111] Id. art. 16 (1) & (2).
[112] Id. art. 16 (3).
[113] Id. art. 35.
[114] Id. art. 36 (3).
[115] CODE OF MUSLIM PERSONAL LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES, arts. 71 (1) & 79.
[116] Id. art. 27. The provision states:
By a husband. Notwithstanding the rule of Islamic law permitting a Muslim to have more than one wife but not more than four at a time, no Muslim male can have more than one wife unless he can deal with them with equal companionship and just treatment as enjoined by Islamic law and only in exceptional cases.
[117] Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendations Made by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation No. 21, ¶ 14, available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations /recomm.htm (last accessed May 19, 2008) [hereinafter General Recommendation No. 21].
[118] Id.; See, EnGendeRights, Discussions at the Pre-Test of the Paralegal Trainers’ Training Module for Muslim Religious Leaders, Provincial Health Officers, Shari’a Lawyers, Councilors, and Judges (Nov. 24- 25, 2005). This training was held in Davao City.
[119] See, Human Rights Council, National Report Submitted in Accordance with Paragraph 15 (a) of the Annex to the Human Rights Council Resolution, 5/1: Tunisia, A/HRC/WG.6//1/TUN/1 (Apr. 7-18 2003), available at http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session1/TN/A_HRC_WG6_1_TUN_1_E.pdf (last accessed May 19, 2008).
[120] Mona Eltahawy, Turkish Law Recognizes Women, Men as Equals, available at http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/777 (last accessed May 19, 2008).
[121] General Recommendation No. 21, supra note 117, ¶ 36.
[122] Id.
[123] General Recommendation No. 19, supra note 19, ¶ 11. The comment of the Committee on articles 2 (f), 5, and 10 (c) reads: “Traditional attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate to men or as having stereotyped roles perpetuate widespread practices involving violence or coercion, such as family violence and abuse, forced marriage, dowry deaths, acid attacks and female circumcision.”
[124] Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2005, Morocco, http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/mar-summary-eng (last accessed Jan. 31, 2006).
[125] Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Fifth Periodic Report of State Parties: Bangladesh, CEDAW/C/BGD/5 (Jan. 3, 2003).
[126] Concluding Comments, supra note 45, ¶ 11.
[127] Id., ¶ 29.
[128] Id., ¶ 12.
[129] General Recommendation No. 21, supra note 117, ¶ 11. [check]
[130] Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Concluding Observations on Kyrgyzstan, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, ¶¶ 95-142, ¶ 128 (1999).
[131] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16), U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976 [hereinafter ICCPR].
[132] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Covenant on Civil and Political Rights General Comment 19, ¶ 2, available at http://www.wunrn.com/reference/pdf/Gen_Comment23_on19.PDF (last accessed May 19, 2008).
[133] An Ordinance Prohibiting All Acts of Discrimination Directed Against Homosexuals in Any Office in Quezon City Whether in the Government or in the Private Sector, and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof, Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1309 (2004).
[134] Clara Rita Padilla & Flordeliza C. Vargas, Lesbians and Philippine Law, WOMEN’S JOURNAL ON LAW & CULTURE, July-Dec. 2001, at 61. The article cited Makati City Memorandum dated Aug. 16, 2000 which imposes a dress code for gay men working for the city government “prohibiting wearing of girl’s attire by gay employees including putting on make-up and lipstick.”
[135] An Act Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Providing Penalties Therefor, House Bill No. 956, 14th Cong. (2007); An Act Prohibiting Discrimination Against Persons on Account of Ethnic Origin and/or Religious Belief, House Bill No. 3012, 14th Cong. (2007); An Act to Establish Criminal Liability for Unlawful Discrimination Based on Disparate Treatment, House Bill No. 2902, 14th Cong. (2007); An Act to Prohibit Discrimination and Preferential Treatment on the Basis of Sex, Ethnicity, Physical Condition, Religious Belief or Political Affiliation in Connection with Admission to an Institution of Higher Education Participating in Any Program Authorized under the Commission on Higher Education, House Bill No. 2683, 14th Cong. (2007).
[136] Yogyakarta Principles - Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, available at http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain/ opendocpdf.pdf?docid=48244e602 (last accessed May 19, 2008).
[137] International Gar and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Experts Release Groundbreaking Principles on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Human Rights: “Yogyakarta Principles” Call for Action Worldwide Against Discrimination and Abuse (Mar. 26, 2007).
[138] See, Wikipedia, Homosexuality laws of the world, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world (last accessed May 20, 2008). The following are the same-sex unions recognized in other countries: (1) Civil Partnerships in United Kingdom and Falkland Islands; (2) Civil Unions in Mexico City, New Zealand, Buenos Aires City, Colombia, and Uruguay; (3) Registered Partnerships in Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, and Switzerland; (4) Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, Same-Sex Marriage in certain states in the United States; and (5) Registered and Domestic Partnerships in Australia.
[139] Id.
[140] Id.
[141] Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, § 3.
.[142] See, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, supra note 131, art. 26.
[143] Toonen v. Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (1994).
[144] Id. ¶ 8.6.
[145] Id. ¶ 7.3.
[146] Toonen v. Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (Hum. Rts. Comm. 1994).
[147] Young v. Australia, Communication No. 941/2000, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000 (2003).
[148] Id. ¶ 2.1.
[149] Id. ¶ 10.4.
[150] Id. ¶ 12.
[51] Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Philippines, CCPR/CO/79/PHL, available at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/5c1a26dde6327ef0c1256df300525589?Opendocument (last accessed May 20, 2008).
[152] Id. ¶ 18.
[153] Id.
[154] Id.
[155] In the Matter of Petition for Habeas Corpus of Minors ASC, et al. v. JRP, Special Proceeding No. Q04-52635 (Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 86, Quezon City) (petition for habeas corpus with a subsequent application for a Temporary/Permanent Protection Order under Republic Act No. 9262).
[156] Pablo-Gualberto v. Gualberto V, 461 SCRA 450 (2005).
[157] Id. at 477.
[158] Id. at 478.
[159] Id.
[160] Clara Rita A. Padilla, What is Best for Our Children?, SOROPTIMIST BALITA (Dec. 2005).
[161] Id.
[162] Id.
[163] Silverio v. Republic, 537 SCRA 373 (2007).
[164] See, Coeriel and Aurik v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 453/1991, UN Doc. CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991 (1994).
[165] Goodwin v. United Kingdom, Application No. 28957/95, 35 EHRR 447 (2002).
[166] Case of I v. United Kingdom, Application No. 25680/94 (2002).
[167] CEDAW, art. 12, ¶ 1.
[168] Susheela Singh, et al., Unintended Pregnancy and Induced Abortion in the Philippines: Causes and Consequences, available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/08/PhilippinesUPIA.pdf (last accessed May 20, 2008).
[169] See, United Nations Population Fund, State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth, 86-95 (2007).
[170] See, CEDAW, art. 16.1 (e); Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 177/20 & A/CONF. 177/20/Add. 1, ¶ 96 (1995); International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), ICPD Programme of Action, ¶ 7.3 (1994).
[171] Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendations Made by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation No. 24, ¶ 31 (c), available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations /recomm.htm (last accessed May 20, 2008) [hereinafter General Recommendation No. 24].
[172]. CEDAW, art. 10 (h).
[173] General Recommendation No. 21, supra note 117, ¶ 22.
[174] Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: Philippines. 12/08/96. A/52/38/Rev.1,paras.275-305. (Concluding Observations/Comments), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/a82151e7b0b3b8768025649d002df415?Opendocument#top [hereinafter CEDAW Concluding Observations on the Philippines (1997)].
[175] Concluding Comments, supra note 45 ¶ 27.
[176] Concluding Comments, supra note 45 ¶ 27.
[177] Concluding Comments, supra note 45 ¶ 28.
[178] See, Clara Rita A. Padilla EnGendeRights Position Paper on Levonorgestrel as an Emergency Contraceptive Pill (2007). This paper was submitted to the Technical Panel of Obstetrics-Gynecology Specialists created by the Philippine Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD). Predominantly Catholic countries that allow levonorgestrel are Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Venezuela.
[179] See, An Act Providing for Reproductive Health Care Structures and Appropriating Funds Therefor House Bill No. 812, 14th Cong. (2007).
[180] Concluding Comments, supra note 45, ¶ 536.
[181] Id. ¶ 535.
[182] Jaileen F. Jimeno, In Manila, Pills and Condoms Go Underground, available at http://www.pcij.org/stories/2005/pills.html (last accessed May 20, 2008).
[183] General Recommendation No. 24, supra note 171, ¶ 14.
[184] Id.
[185] See, The Center for Reproductive Rights & University of Toronto Programme of Reproductive Sexual Health Law, Bringing Rights To Bear: An Analysis of the Work of UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies on Reproductive and Sexual Rights, at 145, available at http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/ pub_bo_tmb_full.pdf (last accessed May 12, 2008) [hereinafter Bringing Rights to Bear]. See, e.g., Belize, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, ¶ 56 (July. 1, 1999); Chile, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, ¶ 228 (July 9, 1999); Colombia, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, ¶ 393 (Feb. 4, 1999); Dominican Republic, U.N. Doc. A/53/38, ¶ 337 (May 14, 1998); Paraguay, U.N. Doc. A/51/38, ¶ 131 (May 9, 1996).
[186] General Recommendation No. 24, supra note 171, ¶ 31 (c). See also, Bringing Rights To Bear, supra note 185, at 145. See, e.g., Argentina, U.N. Doc. A/52/38 Re v.1, Part II, ¶ 319 (July 23, 1997); Chile, U.N. Doc. A/50/38, ¶ 158 (May 31, 1995); Colombia, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, ¶ 394 (Feb. 4, 1999); Dominican Republic, U.N. Doc. A/53/38, ¶ 349 (May 14, 1998); Ireland, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, ¶ 186 (July 1, 1999); Mexico, U.N. Doc. A/53/38, ¶ 408 (May 14, 1998); Panama, U.N. Doc. A/55/38/Re v.1, ¶ 201 (July 2, 1998); Paraguay, U.N. Doc. A/51/38, ¶ 131 (May 9, 1996); Peru, U.N. Doc. A/53/38/Rev.1, ¶ 340 (July 8, 1998).
[187] Bringing Rights To Bear, supra note 185, at 146. See, e.g., Belgium, U.N. Doc. A/51/38, ¶ 181 (May 9, 1996).
[188] Bringing Rights To Bear, supra note 185 at 146; See, e.g., Antigua and Barbuda, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Re v.1, Part II, ¶ 258 (Aug. 12, 1997); Chile, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, ¶¶ 209, 228 (July 9, 1999); Georgia, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, ¶ 111 (Jan. 7, 1999); Greece, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, ¶ 207 (Feb. 1, 1999); Guyana, U.N. Doc. A/50/38, ¶ 621 (May 31, 1995); Hungary, U.N. Doc. A/51/38, ¶ 254 (May 9, 1996); Lithuania, U.N . Doc . A/55/38, ¶ 158 (June 6, 2000); Mauritius, U.N. Doc. A/50/38, ¶ 196 (June 31, 1995); Mongolia, U.N. Doc. A/56/38, ¶ 273 (Feb. 2, 2001); Paraguay, U.N. Doc. A/51/38, ¶ 131 (May 9, 1996).
[189] Bringing Rights To Bear, supra note 185, at 146. See, e.g. Antigua and Barbuda, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Re v.1, Part II, ¶ 258 (Aug. 12, 1997); Chile, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, ¶¶ 209, 228 (July 9, 1999); Georgia, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, ¶ 111 (July 2, 1999); Greece, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, ¶ 207 (Feb. 1, 1999); Guyana, U.N. Doc. A/50/38,¶ 621 (May 31, 1995); Hungary, U.N. Doc. A/51/38, ¶ 254 (May 9, 1996); Lithuania, U.N. Doc. A/55/38, ¶ 158 (June 16, 2000); Mauritius, U.N. Doc. A/50/38, ¶ 196 (May 31, 1995); Mongolia, U.N. Doc. A/56/38, ¶ 273 (June 2, 2001); Paraguay, U.N. Doc. A/51/38, ¶ 131 (May 9, 1996); Ukraine, U.N. Doc. A/51/38, ¶ 287 (May 9, 1996); Venezuela, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Rev.1, ¶ 236 (Aug. 12, 1997).
[190] REVISED PENAL CODE, arts. 256-59; See, Pacifico Agabin, The Legal Perspective on Abortion, J. OF REPROD. HEALTH, RTS. & ETHICS 2 (1995). The Philippine restriction on abortion, one of the vestiges of Spanish colonization in the Philippines, was lifted directly from the old Spanish Penal Code of 1870.
[191] PHIL. CONST. art. II, § 12.
[192] Law No. 79 of Dec. 17, 1992 (Hu.), translated in 44 IDHL 249-50 (1993).
[193] Glanville Williams, The fetus and the “right to life,” 33 CAMBRIDGE L. J. 71, at 78 (1994); See R.J. Cook & B.M. Dickens, Human Rights and Abortion Laws, 65 INT’L J. OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS 85 (1999) (citing Christian Lawyers Association of South Africa v. The Minister of Health, Case No. 16291/97 (1998)). The Christian Lawyers Association case involves a group that sued the South African Minister of Health to declare the 1996 Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act unconstitutional based on section 11 of the 1996 Constitution providing that “everyone has the right to life” and on the argument that a fetus is included in “everyone” since life of a human being starts at conception. The Court ruled that “everyone” was a legal alternative expression to “every person,” and historically legal personhood commences only at live birth. The Court ruled that it was not necessary to address the claim on the biological beginning of human life, since it cannot be concluded that the human life that had begun was that of a legal person. The Court followed the observation that “the question is not whether the conceptus is human but whether it should be given the same legal protection as you and me.”
Under article 41 of the New Civil Code, a fetus must be born alive, that is, completely delivered from the mother’s womb, to be considered a person endowed with legal personality.
[194] See, Poster, Center for Reproductive Rights, The World’s Abortion Laws 2005.
[195] Karen Llantoy v. Peru, Communication No. 1153/2003, CCPR/C/85/D/ 1153/2003 (2005); See, Bringing Rights to Bear, supra note 185.
[196] Singh, et al., supra note 168, at 4.
[197] Id. at 5. The global statistics shows that 585,000 women die annually from pregnancy-related causes. 80,000 of these women die from unsafe abortion. I.H. Shah et al., Unsafe Abortion, World Health Organization Annual Technical Report (1999). There are 20 million unsafe abortions each year, 95% of which take place in developing countries with Southeast Asia accounting for about 40% of global maternal mortality. World Health Organization, Making Pregnancy Safer in South-East Asia, Regional Health Forum, (2002).
[198] Id.
[199] Id.
[200] Id.
[201] Department of Health, Prevention and Management of Abortion and Its Complications (PMAC) Policy, Administrative Order No. 45-B (May 2, 2000).
[202] Id. at 2. For the coverage of PMAC, Administrative Order No. 45-B provides: that, “For the first year of implementation, PMAC shall initially be implemented in four (4) pilot hospital sites … . By the end of the fifth year of implementation (end of 2004), 50 DOH-retained hospitals shall be providing quality PMAC services.”
[203] Clara Rita A. Padilla, Presentation Before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Eastern Vizayas Convention, Gender Issues in Legal Ethics (Apr. 28, 2006). This presentation was held in Cebu.
[204] Women’s Heath Journal, Abortion law challenged in constitutional court, Jan.-Mar. 2005, available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MDX/ is_1_2005/ai_n17209597 (last accessed May 20, 2008).
[205] Id.
[206] Women’s Link Worldwide, Colombia’s highest court rules in favor of easing one of the world’s most restrictive abortion laws, available at http://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/pdf_press/press_release_2006510_col.pdf (last accessed May 13, 2008).
[207] K. Llantoy v. Peru, Case No. 1553/2003, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/ 1153/2003 (2005).
[208] Id. ¶ 2.1.
[209] Id. ¶¶ 2.5 & 2.6.
[210] Id. ¶ 6.3.
[211] Id. ¶ 6.4.
[212] Id. ¶ 6.5.
[213] K. Llantoy. v. Peru, Case No. 1553/2003, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/ 1153/2003, ¶ 8 (2005).
[214] Center for Reproductive Rights, Spain permits abortion on grounds of rape and fetal impairment. See, Poster, Center for Reproductive Rights, The World’s Abortion Laws 2005.
[215] Center for Reproductive Rights, Religious Voices Worldwide Support Choice: Pro-choice Perspectives in Five World Religions, available at http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_atkrel.html (last accessed May 20, 2008). See, Poster, Center for Reproductive Rights, The World’s Abortion Laws 2005.
[216] Concluding Comments, supra note 46, ¶ 28.
[217] Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 23, art. 7, U.N. Doc. No. A/52/38 (1997), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/ca12c3a4ea8d6c53c1256d500056e56f?Opendocument (last accessed May 20, 2008).
[218] Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 25, art. 4, ¶ 1, A/59/38 Part I; CEDAW/C/2004 /I/WP.1/Rev.1 (2004), available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/ cedaw/recommendations/General%20recommendation%2025%20(English).pdf (last accessed May 20, 2008).
[219] Concluding Comments, supra note 45, ¶ 17.
[220] Id. ¶ 24.
[221] Id.
[222] PHIL. CONST. art. II, § 1.
[223] ICCPR, supra note 131.
[224] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 993 U.N.T.S. 3; G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N.GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), entered into force Jan. 3, 1976.
[225] Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3; G.A. Res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989), entered into force Sep. 2, 1990.
[226] Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85; GA Res. 39/46, annex, 39 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, UN Doc. A/39/51 (1984), entered into force June 26, 1987.
[227] International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 660 U.N.T.S. 195; G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), Annex, 20 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 14) at 47, U.N. Doc. A/6014 (1966), entered into force Jan. 4, 1969.
[228] International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, 30 I.L.M. 1517; G.A. Res. 45/158, annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A) at 262, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (1990), entered into force July 1. 2003.
[229] Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, G.A. Res. 61/611, U.N. Doc. A/61/611 (2006), entered into force May 3, 2008.
[230] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90; U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9 (1998), entered into force July 1, 2002.
[231] Optional Protocol on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UN Doc. A/61/611 (2006), entered into force May 3, 2008.
[232] International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, E/CN.4/2005/WG.22/WP.1/Rev.4 (2005).
[233] United Nations Human Rights Council, Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 Entitled “Human Rights Council:” Preliminary Note on the Visit of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, to the Philippines (Feb. 12-21, 2007), A/HRC/4/20/Add.3 (Mar. 22, 2007).
[234] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, E/CN.4/2003/90/Add.3 (Mar. 5, 2003).
[235] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro, E/CN.4/2003/85/Add.4 (Nov. 1, 2002).
[236] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons, Mr. Francis M. Deng, E/CN.4/2003/86/Add.4 (Feb. 3, 2003).
[237] United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, A/HRC/WG.6/1/PHL/4 (Apr. 16, 2008). A standing invitation is an open invitation for the Rapporteurs to visit the Philippines.
238] CEDAW, art. 2.
[239] Id. art. 4.
[240] Id. art. 24.

2011-04-03T16:56:00.002+08:00

Challenging Fundamentalist Catholic Dogma in Philippine Law
With Freedom of Conscience and Religion
(Published in RRights Now! Vol. 3, Nos. 1 & 2 Double Issue Jan. to Dec.2003, WAM & 3RG)

By Clara Rita A. Padilla, J.D.

The exercise of one’s religion is a basic right. There is danger, however, when the beliefs of one
dominant religion such as the Catholic Church is enacted into law and policy. In such case, the religious beliefs and rights of others--who do not share the Catholic Church hierarchical views on, inter alia, contraception, emergency contraception, and abortion--are infringed.

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Every woman must be free to make sexual and reproductive decisions according to her own conscience and religious beliefs free from governmental interference, coercion or constraint.

Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects the individual’s right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Article 27 of the ICCPR ensures the rights of minorities, inter alia, to enjoy their own culture and to practice their own religion. Both of these rights are violated when a predominant religion imposes their religion and beliefs on other faiths and believers such as the fundamentalist Catholic and moralist beliefs being adopted as part of the Philippine government’s laws and policies.

The Human Rights Committee (HRC), the United Nations committee tasked to monitor the implementation of the ICCPR, defined the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion in General Comment 22 as encompassing freedom of thought on all matters including personal conviction and emphasized that the freedom of thought and the freedom of conscience are protected equally with the freedom of religion and belief. [1] The Committee stated that the fact that a religion is established as official or that its followers comprise the majority of the population shall not result in any impairment of the enjoyment of the rights under the Covenant, including articles 18 and 27, nor in any discrimination against adherents to other religions or non-believers. [2] The government's role in protecting religious freedom is critical, otherwise, the predominant religion, or even well mobilized minorities, can invoke the state's power to curb the religious freedoms of others whose views differ from theirs. [3]

In the Philippines, the constitutional guarantee on the free exercise of religion is protected in Section 5, Article III on Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution, as follows:

Section 5, Article III (Bill of Rights): "No law shall be made…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. X x x"

Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s (GMA) policies restricting access to information and services to the full range of contraceptives, and the penal provision on the woman who undergoes abortion and the physician who performs the abortion drastically curtails an individual's reproductive rights. Such laws and policies interfere with the individual's right to privacy, freedom of religion and conscience.

Separation of Church and State

The guarantee of the separation of church and state is provided under Section 6, Art. II on Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the Philippine Constitution which states that “[t]he separation of [c]hurch and [s]tate shall be inviolable.”

The reason for the principle of separation of church and state is to guard against the views of a dominant church from influencing the conduct of government and influencing policies to cater to a specific dominant church. [4] The separation of church and state guarantees that one will not abuse the other or that one dominant religion or belief will not be used to govern the state and its people. That is why the Philippine Constitution has constitutional guarantees against public funds to be used for religious purposes and against religious denominations and sects from being registered as political parties. These are, as follows:

Section 29 paragraph 2, Article VI (Legislative Department): "No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the Armed Forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.”

Section 2 paragraph 5, Article IX, C (Commission on Elections): "Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered [as political parties]."

When GMA justified the diversion of 50 million pesos of the Department of Health (DOH) contraceptive funds to the Couples for Christ to promote a nationwide campaign on “natural family planning” (NFP) with the words “since the majority of Filipino families are Catholics," such use of government funds and denial of access to information and services to the full range of contraceptive methods is in furtherance of Catholic religious beliefs. [5] Further, the appropriation of millions of pesos for the use, benefit, and support of the program led by Couples for Christ, whether directly or indirectly, is unconstitutional for violating the constitutional guarantee against the use of public funds for religious purposes.

It must likewise be noted that while the 1987 Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, it also guarantees the non-establishment of religion. Section 5, Article III of the Bill of Rights states: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion....” This clause was included in order to ensure that the government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion. [6] The use of government funds for the Couple’s for Christ-led program on NFP violates the non-establishment clause since it expressly advances the Catholic religion.

The policy forces DOH officials to include religious content within their medical practices and governmental functions. It establishes a formal relationship with Couples for Christ, a Catholic Church-backed group opposed to modern methods of contraception, and compels government officials to support the Couples for Christ’s beliefs, and religion, regardless of their own beliefs. [7] The policy also implies the DOH’s belief that NFP should solely be practiced disregarding the promotion of the more effective modern methods of contraception. This conveys that DOH favors the Couples for Christ's religion or belief over other religions and religious beliefs. [8]

Religious Conservatism and the 1987 Philippine Constitution

It is interesting to note that all members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission who drafted the Philippine Constitution were appointed by then President Corazon C. Aquino. The forty-eight delegates represented a range of political stances, from leftists to nationalists but the majority was composed of moderate conservatives including a nun, a priest and a bishop representing the interests of the Catholic Church. [9]

It is thus no wonder that the religious members in the Constitutional Commission were successful in inserting certain provisions in the Constitution that advances their religion and interests. One example is the provision on tax exemption of churches, mosques and buildings used for religious purposes found in Section 28 paragraph 3, Article VI and the provision that allows religion to be taught in public schools during regular class hours under Section 3 paragraph 3, Article XIV. Both provisions violate the principle of separation of church and state by advancing religion and religious interests.

The Constitutional provision on equal protection of life of the unborn from conception tends to advance the Catholic Church hierarchical view. This provision was not present in the 1935 and 1973 constitutions. Such provision, however, does not prohibit abortion. Hungary also has a constitutional provision protecting life from conception but still permits abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation. [10] The life of the unborn is not placed exactly on the same level as the life of the woman [11] as proven by the fact that countries worldwide allow abortion on various grounds [12] and international standards support the right to safe and legal abortion.

Included in the laws and policies that advance fundamentalist Catholic dogma is the fact that the Philippines has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world--penalizing the woman who undergoes abortion and the person assisting the woman. Another example is the fact also that the Philippines is one of the countries in the world where Postinor, an emergency contraceptive, is denied to women even as over 100 countries worldwide have registered and are promoting dedicated emergency contraceptive products or products specially packaged and labeled for emergency contraception (EC). [13] It is interesting to note that the petition to delist Postinor was filed by Abay Pamilya, an ally of the Catholic Church, and that the head of the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration and DOH--the government agencies that delisted Postinor--were appointees of GMA. With GMA's policies courting the support of the Catholic Church hierarchy, it is no wonder that the BFAD delisted Postinor with the finding that it was “abortifacient.” [14] Such blatant disregard of the World Health Organization finding that EC is a proven, safe, and effective method of modern contraception bespeaks of the violation of the principle of the separation of church and state.

The Philippine restriction on abortion, one of the vestiges of Spanish colonization in the Philippines, was lifted directly from the old Spanish Penal Code of 1870. [15] It is ironic that Spain, from which we inherited the Catholic religion and this particular criminal provision, has already liberalized its laws by making abortion legal under certain conditions. Indeed, staunchly Catholic Italy permits abortion on even broader grounds. Belgium, a predominantly Catholic country, has an abortion law that is among the world’s most liberal. [16]

There are many religions with differing views. Most of the world’s religions, however, recognize the importance of safe and legal abortion under certain circumstances¬. These include the various Protestant denominations, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. [17] The principle of separation of church and state guarantees that our laws and policies must not adopt the position of one religion over all others.

Reviewing Abortion Laws

Prosecution of women who undergo abortion and those who perform abortion is not the answer. Recognizing that the criminalization of abortion does not lessen the number of abortion but makes it dangerous for women, the Cairo and Beijing Conferences urged countries to review penalties against women who undergo abortions. [18] The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the treaty monitoring body tasked to monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination (Women’s Convention) likewise recommended that State parties remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion [19] and has praised States parties for amending their restrictive legislation. [20] Other treaty monitoring bodies that have also explicitly asked States parties to review legislation criminalizing abortion are the Committee on the Rights of the Child [21] (CRC) and the HRC. [22] CEDAW, CRC, HRC and the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR) have declared the vital connection between illegal, unsafe abortion and high rates of maternal mortality. [23] The HRC also acknowledged that restrictive abortion laws have discriminatory and disproportionate impact on poor, rural women. [24] In the case of Nepal, the CESCR asked the State party to legalize abortion, specifically when a pregnancy is life-threatening or the result of rape or incest. [25] CEDAW and HRC have declared restrictive abortion laws as a violation of women’s right to life. [26]

Moreover, recognizing that access to the full range of contraceptives reduce the need for abortion, the Women’s Convention [27] and the Beijing and Cairo Conference documents require the provision of information and access to family planning methods. [28]

There is a global trend of liberalization of abortion laws around the world with almost all laws liberalized in industrialized countries since 1950, over 20 countries across the world liberalizing their laws since 1985 and at least seven countries from different regions between 1995 and 2002. [29] In Southeast Asia, Malaysia allows exceptions when the life, physical or mental health of the woman is at risk. The abortion laws of Cambodia, Singapore and Vietnam are the most liberal. Cambodia allows abortion without restriction as to reason up to the 14th week of pregnancy, Singapore allows abortions up the 24th week, and Vietnam without any gestational limits. [30]

The principle of separation of church and state is also undermined when Philippine legislators refrain from needed law reform because of their religious views or because they want to cater to a predominant religion. Just as Presidential Decree 772 on anti-squatting—seen as an injustice to the urban poor and not a solution to the problem of squatting—was repealed, so must the 1932 Revised Penal Code provision penalizing the woman who undergoes abortion and those assisting her be repealed. In the case of Geluz v. Court of Appeals, 2 SCRA 801 (1961), the Philippine Supreme Court stated that abortion is warranted when there exists a medical necessity.

Making abortion safe and legal helps save the lives of thousands of women all over the world. [31] Where abortion is legal, like in Canada and Turkey, abortion rates did not increase while the Netherlands, with its liberal abortion law and widely accessible contraceptives and free abortion services, has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world. [32] Deaths due to abortion fell 85 percent after legalization in the US. [33]

The Philippines--having ratified various treaties and having adopted conference documents upholding women’s right to choose--has a commitment to make abortion safe and legal for Filipino women.

Respecting and Upholding Freedom of Conscience and Religion

The Vatican Council itself declared in 1965 that "the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men [and women] are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his [or her] own beliefs…." [34] It further declared that "in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion…." [35] The Council added that "the Christian faithful, in common with all other men [and women], possess the civil right not to be hindered in leading their lives in accordance with their consciences." [36] Respect for one's freedom of conscience and religion demands that the Catholic Church hierarchy and its fundamentalist allies uphold this declaration.

The Catholic Church hierarchy is free to exercise its own beliefs but it must respect the free exercise of beliefs of others. What the principle of separation of church and state safeguards is against a particular religion influencing government laws and policies. It is the duty of public officials to ensure that laws and policies do not further the views of one religion but rather ensure that the rights of all citizens are protected.

[1] Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion ( Art. 18) (48th Session 1993), para. 1, available at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR+General+comment+22.En?OpenDocument.
[2] Id., at para. 9.
[3] See Brief of Amici Curiae of Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), et al. in Don Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, et al. v. Leroy Carhart (No. 99-830) 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
[4] See Board of Education v. Everson, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1946) where the Court stated that “[n]either a State nor the Federal Government can set up a church…[or] pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another…Neither…, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”
[5] See “Arroyo steps into birth-control minefield”, Asia Times, January 31, 2003; “Health dept admits diverting funds to buy low-cost drugs”, The Philippine Daily Inquirer, Nov. 25, 2003; GMA March 8, 2003 speech in celebration of International Women’s Day.
[6] See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992). In Lee, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the performance of a nonsectarian prayer by clergy at a public school’s graduation ceremony; see also Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 310-312 where the court invalidated student-initiated and student-led prayers at football games because they coerce students to participate in religious observances; In Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996), the Seventh Circuit followed Lee in striking down prison programs where inmates’ sentences were affected by participation in substance abuse programs that stressed religion. It was held that the program runs “afoul of the prohibition against the state’s favoring religion in general over non-religion.”; see Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), Petition for Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Greenville Women’s Clinic v. Comm’r, S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control).
[7] See CRR, Petition for Certiorari in Greenville Women’s Clinic.
[8] Id..
[9] Library of Congress, Philippines, A Country Study, Federal Research Division, edited by Ronald E. Dolan (Research Completed June 1991), available at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/phtoc.html
[10] Hungary, Law No. 79 of 17 Dec. 1992 on the Protection of the Life of the Fetus, translated in 44 International Digest of Health Legislation 249-50 (1993).
[11] Certain cases do not try to answer the question of when human life begins but give answers that human personhood begins with birth. Williams, Glanville, The fetus and the “right to life” Cambridge law J 1994; 33:71-78, at 78; see R.J. Cook, B.M. Dickens, Human Rights and Abortion Laws, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 65 (1999), at 85, citing Christian Lawyers Association of South Africa v. The Minister of Health, Case No. 16291/97 (10 July 1998) where a group sued the South African Minister of Health to declare the 1996 Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act unconstitutional based on section 11 of the 1996 Constitution providing that “everyone has the right to life” and on the argument that a fetus is included in “everyone” since life of a human being starts at conception. The Court ruled that “everyone” was a legal alternative expression to “every person,” and historically legal personhood commences only at live birth. The Court ruled that it was not necessary to address the claim on the biological beginning of human life, since it cannot be concluded that the human life that had begun was that of a legal person. The Court followed the observation that “the question is not whether the conceptus is human but whether it should be given the same legal protection as you and me.”; Under Article 41 of the Philippine Civil Code, a fetus must be born alive (completely delivered from the mother’s womb) to be considered a person endowed with legal personality.
[12] See CRR, The World’s Abortion Laws 2003.
[13] International Consortium on Emergency Contraception (ICEC), Dedicated Products and their Availability, available at http://www.cecinfo.org/html/res-product-issues.htm last visited February 24, 2003; ICEC, ECPs Status and Activity by Country, available at http://www.cecinfo.org/files/ecstatusavailability.pdf last visited February 24, 2003; Not-2-LATE.com, The Emergency Contraception Website, available at http://ec.princeton.edu/worldwide/default.asp last visited February 24, 2003; International Planned Parenthood Federation, Directory of Hormonal Contraceptives, available at http://contraceptive.ippf.org/(0jzjzwj2kyllxp5541lljpuj)/introduction.aspx last visited February 24, 2003.
[14] See Bureau of Food and Drug Administration (BFAD) Circular No. 18 s. 2001, December 7, 2001.
[15] Pacifico Agabin, "The Legal Perspective on Abortion", The Journal of Reproductive Health, Rights and Ethics, Vol. II, No. 1 (1995), at 2.
[16] CRR, Religious Voices Worldwide Support Choice.
[17] See Frances Kissling, Opposition to Legal Abortion: Challenges and Questions, Planned Parenthood Challenges 1991/1; see Brief of Amici Curiae of RCRC, et al. in Stenberg v. Carhart citing the 71st General Convention, Episcopal Church, Resolution No. 1994-A054 (1994); the United Church of Christ, Abortion, A Resolution of the 12th General Synod of the United Church of Christ (1979) reaffirming the right of women to choose abortion in 1981, 1985, 1987, 1989, and 1991 and later upheld in the United Church of Christ, Sexuality and Abortion: A Faithful Response, A Resolution of the 16th General Synod of the United Church of Christ (1987); the Minutes of the 204th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 372 (1992); the United Methodist Church, Resolution on Responsible Parenthood (1988); the Churchwide Assembly on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Social Teaching Statement on Abortion (1991); the Central Conference of American Rabbis in 1980; the Unitarian Universalist Association affirmed a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy in 1963 and resolved to reaffirm in 1987 its historic position “supporting the right to choose contraception and abortion as legitimate aspects of the right to privacy.”
[18] International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action (ICPD) (paragraph 8.25) and Beijing Platform for Action (paragraph 106 (k)).
[19] Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), General Recommendation No. 24 (20th session, 1999), paragraph 31 (c); see CRR, Bringing Rights To Bear (An Analysis of the Work of UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies on Reproductive and Sexual Rights); see CEDAW jurisprudence asking states parties to review legislation making abortion illegal, e.g., Ar gentina, Chile, Chile, Colombia, Dominic an Republic, Ireland, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Peru.
[20] Se e e.g., Be lgium.
[21] See e.g., Chad, Palau.
[22]Se e e.g., Ar ge ntina, Chile, Cost a R ic a, Ec uador , Guat emala, Pe ru, Pe ru, Tr inidad and Tobago, Venezuela.
[23]See CRC jurisprudence link illegal, unsafe abortion and high rates of maternal mortality, e.g., Colombia, Guatemala, Nicaragua.
[24] Se e e.g., Argentina.
[25] See Ne pal.
[26] See CEDAW jurisprudence declaring such laws as a violation of the rights to life and health, e.g., Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Paraguay; see supra note 20 on HRC recommendations advising States Parties to review or amend legislation criminalizing abortion as a violation of the right to life.
[27] CEDAW, Article 10 (h) and Article 12 par. 1.
[28] ICPD, pars. 7.2, 7.12, 7.15; Beijing Platform for Action, pars. 98, 106 (e).
[29] CRR, A Global Perspective on Abortion Law, February 6, 2003 (unpublished).
[30] Id..
[31] Estimates show that 585,000 women die annually from pregnancy-related causes and 80,000 women die from unsafe abortion. I.H. Shah et al., Unsafe Abortion, Annual Technical Report 1999, WHO; Div. of Reproductive Health, WHO, Unsafe Abortion 9 (3d. ed. 1998); There are 20 million unsafe abortions each year, 95% of which take place in developing countries with South-East Asia accounting for about 40% of global maternal mortality. World Health Organization, Making Pregnancy Safer in South-East Asia, Regional Health Forum, Volume 6, Number 1, 2002, at 1, available at http://w3.whosea.org/rhf6-1/3pregnancy.htm.
[32] CRR, Safe Abortion: A Public Health Imperative.
[33] Id..
[34] Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae on the Right of the Person and of Communities to Social and Civil Freedom in Matters Religious Promulgated by his Holiness Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965.
[35] Id..
[36] Id.

States Call to End Criminal Sanctions and Violence Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Clara Rita A. Padilla

2011-04-03T15:20:00.001+08:00

March 23, 2011 – “Eighty-five states issued a Joint Statement at the UN Human Rights Council yesterday, March 22, in Geneva urging states to end violence, criminal sanctions and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The statement was delivered by Colombia in behalf of the 85 states from all regions of the world during the General Debate (Agenda Item 8) on the follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action,” said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

Atty. Padilla added, “The joint statement was supported by predominantly Catholic countries such as Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Timor-Leste, Uruguay, and Venezuela.”

“The Philippines did not express support to the Joint Statement just like its failure to support the December 22, 2010 United Nations General Assembly resolution which included protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people from extrajudicial executions (EJE) and other unlawful killings based on sexual orientation,” continued Atty. Padilla.

Even the Holy See spoke out against violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation through its intervention stating, “A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person’s feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings.” In December 2008, the Holy See publicly urged states "to do away with criminal penalties" against homosexuals and again in December 2009 with its statement before the UN stating, "The Holy See also opposes all forms of violence and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, including discriminatory penal legislation which undermines the inherent dignity of the human person."

Atty. Padilla added, “It is a dangerous precedent for the Philippine government not to express support for such UN statements denouncing human rights violations based on one’s sexual orientation and gender identity. The Philippines should uphold universal human rights where all rights apply to everyone including if one is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. In this important statement, the Philippine government failed to stand up for the rights of LGBTs not just in the Philippines but around the world.”

“In the past years, there have been numerous reports in the Philippines of gay men being murdered and transgender people being beaten and harassed without clear investigations and active prosecution being conducted leading to the perpetuation of abuses with impunity. The Philippines must perform its obligation to prevent, investigate and prosecute human rights abuses including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,” Atty. Padilla concluded.

***

Barangay Ayala Alabang Officials May Be Dismissed for Implementation of a Suspended Ordinance by Clara Rita A. Padilla

2011-04-03T15:18:00.001+08:00

Manila, February 27, 2011 –“On January 11, 2011, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Muntinlupa City exercised its power of review on the Ayala Alabang Ordinance No. 1 and returned the same with its comments to the Ayala Alabang Sangguniang Barangay. Having done so, the effectivity of the barangay ordinance is suspended. Should the Ayala Alabang barangay officials try to enforce the suspended ordinance, they may be suspended or dismissed under Sec. 58 of the Local Government Code (LGC). Furthermore, under Sec. 391 of the LGC, a barangay cannot create ordinances that impose the penalty of imprisonment,” said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

“The Barangay Ayala Alabang Ordinance No. 1 may be overturned by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Muntinlupa, through initiative and plebiscite of the registered voters in Barangay Ayala Alabang or through judicial review. The provisions of the Barangay Ayala Alabang ordinance can be struck down for violating the Constitution, the Local Government Code, and the Magna Carta of Women. It infringes on the right to reproductive health, equal protection of the law and privacy by unduly restricting access reproductive health information and to legal, safe and effective methods of contraception. The Local Government Code requires local government units to provide family planning while the Magna Carta of Women (RA 9710) ensures access to legal, safe, and effective methods of family planning,” said Atty. Padilla.

Atty. Padilla added, “Oral hormonal contraceptives, injectables, IUDs, condoms, diaphragms, and implants are all included in the World Health Organization (WHO) Model List of Essential Medicines. The WHO has even submitted position papers to the House of Representatives during its committee hearings on the RH bill that these contraceptives are not abortifacients. Our very own Food and Drug Administration allows access to these contraceptive methods.”

“RA 5921 cannot be used as a basis for the ordinance since RA 5921 refers to drugs or devices provoking abortion or preventing conception. Hormonal contraceptives and condoms prevent fertilization not conception,” continued Atty. Padilla.

Atty. Padilla added, “By requiring a prescription for condoms, the ordinance imposes unreasonable restrictions on access to condoms when these are already available over-the-counter in pharmacies. The ordinance also discriminates against the poor residents of Ayala Alabang since the costs of getting a prescription for condoms will be prohibitive to them.”

“This barangay ordinance clearly illustrates why we need the immediate passage of the RH bill into law. An RH law will prohibit local government officials from enacting these kinds of unreasonable and discriminatory ordinances,” concluded Atty. Padilla.

***

Ways to Overturn the Barangay Ayala Alabang Ordinance by Clara Rita A. Padilla

2011-04-03T15:12:00.000+08:00

Manila, February 26, 2011 – “The Barangay Ayala Alabang Ordinance No. 1 may be overturned by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Muntilupa, through initiative and plebiscite of the registered voters in Barangay Ayala Alabang or through judicial review. The provisions of the Barangay Ayala Alabang ordinance can be struck down for violating the Constitution, the Local Government Code, and the Magna Carta of Women. It infringes on the right to reproductive health, equal protection of the law and privacy by unduly restricting access reproductive health information and to legal, safe and effective methods of contraception. The Local Government Code requires local government units to provide family planning while the Magna Carta of Women (RA 9710) ensures access to legal, safe, and effective methods of family planning,” said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

Atty. Padilla added, “Oral hormonal contraceptives, injectables, IUDs, condoms, diaphragms, and implants are all included in the World Health Organization (WHO) Model List of Essential Medicines. The WHO has even submitted position papers to the House of Representatives during its committee hearings on the RH bill that these contraceptives are not abortifacients. Our very own Food and Drug Administration allows access to these contraceptive methods.”

“RA 5921 cannot be used as a basis for the ordinance since RA 5921 refers to drugs or devices provoking abortion or preventing conception. Hormonal contraceptives and condoms prevent fertilization not conception,” continued Atty. Padilla.

Atty. Padilla added, “By requiring a prescription for condoms, the ordinance imposes unreasonable restrictions on access to condoms when these are already available over-the-counter in pharmacies. The ordinance also discriminates against the poor residents of Ayala Alabang since the costs of getting a prescription for condoms will be prohibitive to them.”

“This barangay ordinance clearly illustrates why we need the immediate passage of the RH bill into law. An RH law will prohibit local government officials from enacting these kinds of unreasonable and discriminatory ordinances,” concluded Atty. Padilla.

***

LGBTs Won Vote in the UN General Assembly Resolution Protecting Against Extrajudicial Executions Based on Sexual Orientation by Clara Rita A. Padilla

2011-04-03T15:09:00.000+08:00

Manila, December 21, 2010 – Yesterday, Tuesday, December 22, lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trangenders (LGBTs) won the inclusion of a provision in a resolution on extrajudicial executions protecting them from extrajudicial executions based on sexual orientation at the United Nations General Assembly.

“This a very important resolution for LGBTs especially since there are countless extrajudicial executions made on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It is the only UN resolution to ever include an explicit reference to sexual orientation,” said Atty. Clara Rita Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

Ninety-three States voted to include the reference to sexual orientation, 55 rejected the inclusion and 27 States abstained including the Philippines (see attached list of votes).

Atty. Padilla added, “Despite our efforts in lobbying with the Philippine government, it is unfortunate that the Philippines abstained in supporting the inclusion of such provision. I am personally dismayed. With the Philippines’ abstention, it is as if the Philippine government is making a pronouncement that it is fine for anyone to execute on the basis on one’s sexual orientation. Instead of abstaining, the Philippine government should have clearly supported the provision thereby sending a strong message that no extrajudicial executions should be done including on the basis of one’s sexual orientation. The Philippines should uphold universal human rights where all rights apply to everyone including if one is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. The Philippine government also failed in its obligation to uphold equal protection of the rights of LGBTs. In this important resolution, the Philippine government failed to stand up for the rights of LGBTs not just in the Philippines but around the world.”

“The abstention of the Philippines is a step backwards from its previous support when it voted to include sexual orientation in the EJE resolution at UN GA in 2008. In the past years, there have been numerous reports of gay men being murdered in the Philippines without clear investigations and active prosecution being conducted leading to the perpetuation of the gay murders with impunity. The Philippines must perform its obligation to prevent, investigate and prosecute all killings including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,” Atty. Padilla concluded.

***

Copy furnished through email:

Amb. Lesbie B. Gatan
Asec. for UNIO
Dept. of Foreign Affairs, Philippines

Amb. Libran N. Cabactulan
Ambassador and Permanent Representative, New York

Philippine Mission, Geneva

Office of the Executive Secretary

Office of the Presidential Management Staff

Presidential Human Rights Committee

Office of the Press Secretary

Philippine Commission on Women

ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights – Philippine Representative

Commission on Human Rights

Urgent Call for the Government to Support the UN General Assembly Resolution Protecting LGBTs from Extrajudicial Executions by Clara Rita A. Padilla

2011-04-03T15:05:00.001+08:00

Manila, December 17, 2010 – This Monday, December 20, the United Nations General Assembly will vote on whether to include protection for LGBT people in a crucial resolution on extrajudicial executions (EJE) and other unlawful killings.

Since 2000, this resolution has urged States "to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including... all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation." It is the only UN resolution to ever include an explicit reference to sexual orientation.

Last November, a number of States proposed an amendment to remove the reference to sexual orientation from this important resolution and this amendment surprisingly passed. Seventy-nine States voted to remove the reference to sexual orientation, 70 supported its retention, and 43 States abstained including the Philippines.

“The abstention of the Philippines is a step backwards from its previous support when it voted to include sexual orientation in the EJE resolution at UN GA in 2008. The removal of LGBTs in the resolution is a setback, however, the States will have the opportunity to restore the reference to sexual orientation and even extend it to include gender identity when the resolution comes up before the UN General Assembly this Monday, December 20. We urge the Philippine government to support the resolution and send a clear message to uphold the rights of LGBTs. In the past years, there have been numerous reports of gay men being murdered in the Philippines without clear investigations and active prosecution being conducted leading to the perpetuation of the gay murders with impunity. The Philippines must perform its obligation to prevent, investigate and prosecute all killings including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,” said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

***

Filipino Bishops Are More Popish Than the Pope by Clara Rita A. Padilla

2011-04-03T14:43:00.001+08:00

Manila, November 22, 2010 – “The problem with Filipino bishops and those who are against the RH bill including some anti-choice legislators is that they are more popish that the Pope. Pope Benedict XVI has been quoted to say that using condoms may be justified to stop the spread of AIDS citing the examples of women in prostitution and their use of condoms. By justifying the use of condoms to fight the spread of HIV and AIDS, the Pope is making a realistic stance to address the spread of a deadly virus which can be prevented by effective and consistent use of condoms and providing programs such as sex education to discuss vulnerabilities to infection, prevention and treatment of HIV and AIDS. The Pope’s relaxed stance is an example of how religious morality should be in line with secular standards, public health and human rights,” said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

The HIV incidence in the Philippines is steadily growing. According to the National AIDS Registry data (passive surveillance), there has been sudden increases in reported HIV positive cases yearly since 2007 – 54% increase in 2008 compared to 2007 and 58% increase from 2008 to 2009.[1] At the start of 2010, there are already four new cases being reported every day compared to the two new cases reported daily in 2009.[2] According to the projections of the National Epidemiology Center (NEC), by December 2010, there will be an additional 1,500 Filipinos newly-infected by HIV; by 2011, the newly infected will number 4,000 - 7,000.[3]

Of the total 4,424 reported cases of HIV, 90% was infected through sexual contact. The Philippine National AIDS Council United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) 2010 Country Report cites sexual transmission as the most common mode of HIV transmission with 96% of reported infections in 2009. Of these sexual transmissions, 41.73% was from homosexual contact, 31.34 % from bisexual contact and 26.87% from heterosexual contact.[4] From 1984 to March 2010, there are more men who are HIV infected than women at 74% men infected with the ratio of 3.5 men infected to 1 woman.[5]

The 2009 Integrated HIV Behavioral and Serologic Surveillance (IHBSS)[6] showed an increase of HIV prevalence among most-at-risk populations (MARPs)[7] from .08% in 2007 to .47% in 2009 (70 individuals among 14,976 MARPs)[8] with the breakdown of incidence, as follows: men who have sex with men (MSM) at .30% (45 individuals), women in prostitution (WIP) at .15% (23 individuals; with increased incidence among freelance WIPs compared to registered WIPs at .39% incidence among all freelance WIPs and 13% incidence among all registered WIPs) and people who inject drugs (PWIDs) at .01% (2 individuals).[9] In 2009, the MSMs[10] and PWIDs showed a dramatic rise in prevalence which could be explained by the previous IHBSS report showing low prevention coverage, low knowledge among MARPs and low condom use specifically among MSMs[11] and PWIDs.[12] The 2009 IHBSS showed some improvement in reach of prevention programs among MARPs especially WIPs, however, increase in knowledge of HIV did not result in an increase in condom use among WIPs and MSMs[13] from the previous report.[14]

A steady number of overseas contract workers (OCWs) also contract HIV outside the country and then infect their spouses or partners when they return to their homes. In 2009, 164 of returning OFWs were HIV infected.[15] An alarming 35% of OFWs with HIV are seafarers with a corresponding increase in the number of wives of seafarers infected with HIV.[16]

As early as 2007, more and more young people were being infected with HIV.[17] The number of young women and men aged 15-24 who are HIV infected rose from 110 in 2008 (males= 102; females=8) to 218 in 2009 (males=201; females 17).[18]
Atty. Padilla added, “The Filipino bishops and the rest of the anti-choice groups should do intensive reflection on their stance against the RH bill and other issues related to sexual and reproductive health. In 2009, our HIV incidence in the Philippines had over 70% transmission through homosexual and bisexual contact. The lack of legal recognition of homosexual rights impacts their access to information and services that would otherwise curb the spread of HIV. Even the Catholic Church’s discriminatory stance on homosexuality should be examined since the lack of recognition of homosexual rights impact on the discrimination that homosexuals suffer in the Philippines.”
“The Filipino anti-choice groups are in the minority as has been shown in the surveys of the Filipino population who have long been clamoring for the passage of the RH bill. These minority anti-choice groups should not be allowed to further delay the passage of the RH bill into law. Our legislators should do what they are supposed to do and that is to pass the RH bill into law in the soonest possible time,” added Atty. Padilla.
“The executive branch of the government should actively implement the Magna Carta of Women which requires access to family planning methods and the Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998 (Republic Act 8504) which requires HIV/AIDS education on transmission and prevention in local communities, in schools, health facilities, and workplaces which necessarily includes education on risky sexual behavior, safe sex and the use of male and female condoms to prevent transmission. The denial of access to modern contraceptive information, supplies, and services impact poor, rural, indigenous women, women in ARMM, adolescents, MSMs and transgenders disproportionately,” added Atty. Padilla.
In 2006, the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), the committee tasked to monitor the implementation in the Philippines of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), recommended to the Philippines to “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 and by increasing knowledge and awareness about family planning.”[19]

The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR Committee), the committee tasked to monitor the implementation in the Philippines of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Rights (ICESCR), expressed concern in its 2008 Concluding Observations on the Philippines on the “inadequate reproductive health services and information, the low rates of contraceptive use and the difficulties in obtaining access to artificial methods of contraception, which contribute to the high rates of teenage pregnancies and maternal deaths”[20] in the country. The CESCR Committee urged it to “adopt all appropriate measures to protect the sexual and reproductive rights of women and girls, inter alia, through measures to reduce maternal and infant mortality and to facilitate access to sexual and reproductive health services, including access to family planning, and information.”[21]

In its 2009 Concluding Observations on the Philippines, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee), the committee tasked to monitor the implementation in the Philippines of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), expressed serious concern on “the inadequate reproductive health services and information, the low rates of contraceptive use (36 per cent of women relied on modern family planning methods in 2006) and the difficulties in obtaining access to artificial methods of contraception, which contribute to the high rates of teenage pregnancies and maternal deaths.”[22]

.
[1] PNAC, UNGASS 2010 Country Report, page 7.
[2] Tayag, Tracking HIV, Proceedings 1st HIV Summit: Call for Action and Broad-Based Responses to AIDS by Leaders, 2010 [hereafter Tayag, Tracking HIV]
[3] Tayag, Tracking HIV. Also according to Tayag – “All regions have reported at least one case in the last 25 years. Only eight of our provinces have yet to report their first case.”
[4] PNAC UNGASS 2010 Country Report, page 14.
[5] Tayag, Tracking HIV.
[6] The IHBSS measures behavioral risk factors through face-to-face surveys and HIV and Syphilis prevalence through blood testing, DOH conducts the IHBSS every two (2) years since 2005. The 2009 IHBSS is the 3rd round.
[7] MARPS include MSMs, WIPs and PWIDs.
[8] PNAC UNGASS 2010 Country Report, page 14, citing 2009 IHBSS.
[9] PNAC UNGASS 2010 Country Report, page 13, citing 2009 IHBSS. .
[10] Used in this context to Include transgenders.
[11] Used in this context to Include transgenders.
[12] PNAC UNGASS 2010 Country Report, page 20.
[13] Used in this context to Include transgenders.
[14] PNAC UNGASS 2010 Country Report, page 20.
[15] PNAC UNGASS 2010 Country Report, page 14. In 2007, 31% of newly-infected were OFWs.
[16] National Epidemiology Center, April 2006 Monthly Update, HIV/AIDS Registry, 2006, http://www.doh.gov.ph/NEC/hiv/april_2006.pdf (stating that out of the total cases of HIV, 17% are domestic helpers, 7% are entertainers and 6% are health workers).
[17] Proceedings of the National Dissemination Forum, 2008.
[18] 2008 & 2009 Philippine HIV & AIDS Registry.
[19] August 25, 2006 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Concluding Comments on the Philippines, para. 28 [2006 CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments].
[20] CESCR, Concluding Observations (2008) para. 31
[21] CESCR, Concluding Observations (2008) para. 31
[22] CRC, Concluding Observations (2009), para. 61.

***

Good Governance Dictates Not Having a Dialogue with Catholic Bishops by Clara Rita Padilla

2011-04-03T14:30:00.000+08:00

Manila, October 3, 2010 – “Good governance dictates that PNoy should not dialogue with the Catholic bishops on the government’s policy on reproductive health. Meeting with the bishops erodes the essence of the state and its purpose in upholding secular standards, public health, and human rights. PNoy should instead meet with community women in Vitas and Permanent Housing, Tondo (Smokey Mountain) where many poor women have six to ten children, many of the mothers are anemic due to closely-spaced and multiple pregnancies some of whom even died due to pregnancy-related causes, and many children from big families stopped schooling to earn money just so they can help feed their siblings. The bishops are unjustifiably against modern contraceptives when it is the poor, the majority of the Philippine population, who would most benefit from the government’s support for increased access to modern contraceptive information, supplies, and services. Government officials meeting with the bishops is something that should not be happening in this day and age where our elected representatives in government should be upholding the constitutional guarantees of separation of church and state and non-establishment of religion. This is not what the Filipino citizens expect from PNoy and his administration,” said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

Atty. Padilla added, “The Catholic church must not be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on the Philippine government and the creation and implementation of laws. The government should instead actively implement the Magna Carta of Women which requires access to family planning methods and the Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998 (Republic Act 8504) which requires HIV/AIDS education on transmission and prevention in local communities, in schools, health facilities, and workplaces which necessarily includes education on risky sexual behavior, safe sex and the use of male and female condoms to prevent transmission. The denial of access to modern contraceptive information, supplies, and services impact poor, rural, indigenous women, women in ARMM, adolescents, men who have sex with men (MSMs) and transgenders disproportionately.”

In 2006, the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), the committee tasked to monitor the implementation in the Philippines of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), recommended to the Philippines to “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 and by increasing knowledge and awareness about family planning.”[1]

The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR Committee), the committee tasked to monitor the implementation in the Philippines of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Rights (ICESCR), expressed concern in its 2008 Concluding Observations on the Philippines on the “inadequate reproductive health services and information, the low rates of contraceptive use and the difficulties in obtaining access to artificial methods of contraception, which contribute to the high rates of teenage pregnancies and maternal deaths”[2] in the country. The CESCR Committee urged it to “adopt all appropriate measures to protect the sexual and reproductive rights of women and girls, inter alia, through measures to reduce maternal and infant mortality and to facilitate access to sexual and reproductive health services, including access to family planning, and information.”[3]

In its 2009 Concluding Observations on the Philippines, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee), the committee tasked to monitor the implementation in the Philippines of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), expressed serious concern on “the inadequate reproductive health services and information, the low rates of contraceptive use (36 per cent of women relied on modern family planning methods in 2006) and the difficulties in obtaining access to artificial methods of contraception, which contribute to the high rates of teenage pregnancies and maternal deaths.”[4]

Atty. Padilla concluded, “If PNoy truly wants to be a president for the Filipino people, he should provide support to increase access to information, supplies and services to the full range of contraceptive methods. This is one way of actually making a difference in the lives of our poor, rural, indigenous women, women in ARMM, adolescents, MSMs and transgenders.”

[1] August 25, 2006 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Concluding Comments on the Philippines, para. 28 [2006 CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments].
[2] CESCR, Concluding Observations (2008) para. 31
[3] CESCR, Concluding Observations (2008) para. 31
[4] CRC, Concluding Observations (2009), para. 61.
***

PNoy’s Administration Is Obligated to Uphold Reproductive Rights by Clara Rita A. Padilla

2011-04-03T14:28:00.000+08:00

Manila, September 30, 2010 – “There should not be any dialogue by PNoy with the Catholic groups since such act violates our constitutional guarantees on separation of church and state and non-establishment of religion. The Catholic church must not be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on governance and the creation and implementation of laws. Instead the government should actively implement the Magna Carta of Women which requires access to family planning methods. The denial of access to family planning information, supplies, and services impacts poor, rural, indigenous women, women in ARMM and adolescent women disproportionately,” said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

In 2006, the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), the committee tasked to monitor the implementation in the Philippines of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), recommended to the Philippines to “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 and by increasing knowledge and awareness about family planning.” [1]

The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR Committee), the committee tasked to monitor the implementation in the Philippines of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Rights (ICESCR),_ expressed concern in its 2008 Concluding Observations on the Philippines on the “inadequate reproductive health services and information, the low rates of contraceptive use and the difficulties in obtaining access to artificial methods of contraception, which contribute to the high rates of teenage pregnancies and maternal deaths” in the country. [2] The CESCR Committee urged it to “adopt all appropriate measures to protect the sexual and reproductive rights of women and girls, inter alia, through measures to reduce maternal and infant mortality and to facilitate access to sexual and reproductive health services, including access to family planning, and information.”[3]

In its 2009 Concluding Observations on the Philippines, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee), the committee tasked to monitor the implementation in the Philippines of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),_expressed serious concern on “the inadequate reproductive health services and information, the low rates of contraceptive use (36 per cent of women relied on modern family planning methods in 2006) and the difficulties in obtaining access to artificial methods of contraception, which contribute to the high rates of teenage pregnancies and maternal deaths.”[4]

In July 13, 2010, the Task Force CEDAW Inquiry together with international non-governmental organizations submitted their Fourth Supplement to their Request for Inquiry to the CEDAW Committee requesting the CEDAW Committee to visit the Philippines to conduct an on-site visit to investigate the reproductive rights violations in relation to the Manila City Executive Order 003 Series of 2000 (EO 003) [5] which effectively bans Manila City-run hospitals and clinics from providing modern contraceptives such as pills, condoms, IUDs and surgical methods such as ligation.

The submission mentions recent violations where the Manila Social Hygiene Clinic under the Office of Mayor Lim did not distribute condoms during the May 2010 election campaign period thereby reducing its effectiveness as an institution in curbing HIV infections. It also mentions July 2010 evidence of the continued ban on modern contraceptives contrary to the claims of the Office of Mayor Lim that they are not implementing the EO.

The July 2010 evidence gathered by EnGendeRights staff includes the following:

I. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS CONFIRMING THE SOLE PROVISION OF NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING IN MANILA CITY HOSPITALS AND HEALTH CENTERS

• Manila City-operated hospitals continue to deny information and services regarding modern contraceptives. They currently only provide counseling on natural family planning. Individuals who have visited hospitals and health centers in Manila City have confirmed that there were unable to locate any printed materials on modern contraception.[6]

• A representative of Gat Andres Bonifacio Memorial Medical Center confirmed that “Wala kaming ganyan kasi pro-life kami. Di namin ginagawa ang ligation, ang IUD meron yan sa health centers samantalang ang injectables available sa private lang.” (We don’t have [modern contraceptives] because we are pro-life. We don’t perform ligation while IUDs are available at the health centers and injectables are available at private clinics). [7]

• A high-ranking officer of Gat Andres Bonifacio Hospital has confirmed that he believes that community health centers should be responsible for providing counseling on family planning. He further confirmed that his hospital will not provide family planning information and services until the Manila City Health Department issues a memorandum ordering them to do so. [8]

• A health provider at Ospital Ng Sampaloc who asked to not be identified has confirmed that “wala kaming IUD at injectables dito sa ospital. Dapat magpunta na lang kayo sa private clinics.” (We don’t have IUDs and injectables at the hospital. You should go to private clinics).[9]

• A representative of Ospital Ng Tondo confirmed that “dati na kaming walang ganyang serbisyo kasi pro-life ang Ospital ng Tondo. Yung contraceptives sa centers lang yan meron tulad ng pills at IUD at injectables sa private meron talaga.” (We don’t provide modern family planning services because Ospital ng Tondo is pro-life. You can get pills and IUDs at the centers while injectables are available at private clinics).[10]

• A high-ranking official of Ospital ng Tondo has confirmed that the hospital does not provide information and services on family planning because they believe this service should be provided by community health centers.[11]

• A representative of Ospital Ng Maynila who did not identify herself confirmed that “walang ligation, IUD at injectables kasi pro-life kami.” (There’s no ligation, IUDs and injectables because we are pro-life). [12]

• When a health provider at the Tondo Foreshore Health Center was asked about what kind of family planning services the health center provided and she responded that “wala ako sa pusisyon . . . . Kung nais daw ng direktang sagot ay sa Manila City Hall daw magtanong.” (I’m not in a position . . . . if you want a direct answer, ask the Manila City Hall).[13]

• A health provider at the Tondo Foreshore Health Center and Lying-In Clinic has confirmed that the health centers are only providing counseling on natural family planning (one-on-one counseling held every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon). She further confirmed that initially women would be interested in natural family planning, however, not one woman continued the program after they were asked to return to the health center after a one-month abstinence period. She admitted that the natural family planning is complicated for women who visit their center. [14]

• A health provider at Barrio Fugoso Health Center and Lying-in Clinic, has stated that “pro-life kasi kami mula pa nung kay Atienza, wala din kaming available supplies na mga contraceptives dito sa amin.” (We’re pro-life ever since the time of Atienza and we don’t have contraceptive supplies available here).[15]

• A health provider at the Fugoso Health Clinic in Tondo, Manila has refused to answer questions regarding family planning. She claims that the hospital would be liable to the Manila City Health Department if she responded to the question. She then conceded that the clinic only provided information on natural family planning.[16]

• A health provider of Juan Posadas Health Center in Tondo, Manila, has confirmed that the Center only provides information on natural family planning since Lito Atienza’s mayorship, and that there has been no change in policy since Mayor Alfredo Lim was elected Mayor for two consecutive terms.[17]

II. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MANILA CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL CONFIRMING THE SOLE PROVISION OF NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING

• A staff member of the Manila Health Department has confirmed that “wala po kaming ganyan dahil natural family planning po ang aming advocacy.” (We don’t have that because our advocacy is on natural family planning (NFP)).18]

• A high-ranking official of the Maternal Health and Childcare Unit of the Manila City Health Office (CHO) has confirmed that the CHO only provides counseling for natural family planning. The CHO does not provide information on modern contraceptives such as condoms, pills, etc. She believes that couples can choose their method of contraception, but that the City government will not spend public money to buy contraceptive supplies, as ordered by the Manila City Mayor. She also believes that the Mayor has no intention of reversing EO 003 because he did not reverse it during his 2007-2010 term. Finally, she confirmed that women who decide to undergo ligation must go to other hospitals to obtain this service. The Manila City government cannot do anything if the hospitals do not provide ligation services for free. [19]
• Members of the EnGendeRights team who visited the CHO confirmed that on the date of their visit there were no posters, flyers or informational materials on modern contraception and/or natural family planning. The only information they noted was a sign pointing to a room where counseling on natural family planning was being held.

The actual visit of the CEDAW Committee can only happen with the consent of the Philippine government. It is imperative that the government under PNoy’s administration consents to the visit to allow the CEDAW Committee to investigate on the reproductive rights violations in the country. Allowing such an investigation in the country is a step towards its compliance with its obligations under the CEDAW Convention to eliminate discrimination against women. Allowing the visit is also in compliance with the Philippine obligations under the ICESCR and the CRC.

Until now, Manila Mayor Lim has not overturned EO 003 which was an executive order of Mayor Atienza. Atty. Padilla said, “The Office of PNoy has the power to review such restrictive and discriminatory policy. If PNoy truly wants to be a president for the Filipino people, he should overturn the policy and fully implement the Magna Carta of Women. This is one way of actually making a difference in the lives of our poor, rural, indigenous women, women in ARMM, and adolescent women.

***

[1]August 25, 2006 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Concluding Comments on the Philippines, para. 28 [2006 CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments].
[2]CESCR, Concluding Observations (2008) para. 31
[3]CESCR, Concluding Observations (2008) para. 31
[4]CRC, Concluding Observations (2009), para. 61.
[5]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 four 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, April 22, 2009 and July 13, 2010, 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 Philippine-based Task Force CEDAW Inquiry consists of twenty members: EnGendeRights (co-convenor; see http://www.engenderights.org), WomenLEAD (co-convenor); Alternative Law Groups (ALG); Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP); Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP); Health Action Information Network (HAIN); Health & Development Initiatives Institute, Inc. (HDII); Institute for Social Studies and Action, Philippines (ISSA); Kapisanan ng mga Kamag-anak ng Migranteng Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc (KAKAMMPI); MAKALAYA; Philippine Legislators' Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD); Philippine NGO Council on Population, Health and Welfare, Inc., (PNGOC); Population Services Pilipinas, Inc. (PSPI); Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panlegal/Alternative Legal Assistance Center (SALIGAN-ALAC); Save the Children USA-Philippines Country Office; The Forum for Family Planning and Development, Inc.; Woman Health Philippines; Women’s Crisis Center; Women’s Legal Bureau (WLB); Women’s Media Circle Foundation, Inc.
[6]Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 1, 2010; Personal visits conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 5 and 7..
[7]Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 1, 2010.
[8]Personal Interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 5, 2010.
[9]Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 1, 2010.
[10]Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 1, 2010.
[11]Personal interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 5, 2010.
[12]Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 1, 2010.
[13]Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 2, 2010.
[14]Personal interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff at the Tondo Foreshore Health Center and Lying-In Clinic on July 7, 2010.
[15]Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 2, 2010.
[16]Personal Interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 5, 2010.
[17]Personal Interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 5, 2010.
[18]Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 2, 2010.
[19]Personal interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff at the Maternal Health and Childcare Unit, Manila City Health Office on July 6, 2010.

The Abortion Scare versus Human Rights Standards by Clara Rita A. Padilla (August 17, 2010)

2011-04-03T14:26:00.000+08:00

The abortion scare is truly just a scare. The religious right would use all kinds of scare tactics and disinformation by claiming that contraceptives are abortifacients and that the reproductive health care bill (RH bill) promotes abortion. They have long been using these arguments in public fora and debates. Both these two arguments of the religious right are, of course, untrue. Their arguments are not based on medical science and factual content of the RH bill which, in truth, does not allow a single ground for safe and legal abortion.

What legislators, reproductive rights and women’s rights activists, people in government and the public should bear in mind is, in this day and age, our discourse should be raised to the level of international human rights standards, realities women face, public health, medical science, and legal reform.

The criminal law on abortion is an outdated colonial law that violates the rights to health and life of Filipino women. It was a direct translation of the old Spanish Penal Code of 1870s that used to criminalize abortion—in the time of the Spanish friars and conquistadores. Without knowing the full consequences of such a harsh and restrictive law, our congress enacted the criminal provision in our Revised Penal Code of 1930. At the time the law was adopted, Filipino women did not even have the right to vote, there was no Universal Declaration of Human Rights and no international human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1976), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1976), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, 1981), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1990). These came much later.

In this day and age, we talk about a humane society where no woman should die from pregnancy, childbirth, and unsafe abortion. We talk about the right to control one’s fertility with proper access to reproductive health information and services, the right to sex and sexuality education where we should be discussing delaying sexual debut, safe sex, risks of early sex, sexually transmitted infections, reproductive tract infections, risks of early pregnancy, risks of early marriage, violence against women, empowerment of women and girls, and the right to sexual orientation and gender identity, among others.

Our discourse and standards should include separation of church and state where the church should not be meddling with affairs of the state, where there is non-establishment of religion, where the standard is not religious standards from the Catholic, Islam or whatever religion but the standard should be secular morality. All these constitutional guarantees are there to maintain public good and uphold human rights.

The international human rights standard is to liberalize abortion laws to make it safe and accessible to women and thereby lessen maternal mortality related to unsafe abortion. The Philippines is duty-bound to fulfill its treaty obligations to uphold the right to equality, equal protection of the law, non-discrimination of women, right to health and life under the ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, and CRC. Recognizing that the criminalization of abortion does not lessen the number of women inducing abortion but only makes it dangerous for women who undergo clandestine and unsafe abortion, in 2006, the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee),[1] urged the Philippine government to “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.”[2]

In 2008, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)[3] expressed its concern that “abortion is illegal in all circumstances, even when the woman’s life or health is in danger or pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and that complications from unsafe, clandestine abortions are among the principal causes of maternal deaths.” The Committee encouraged the Philippines “to address, as a matter of priority, the problem of maternal deaths as a result of clandestine abortions, and consider reviewing its legislation criminalising abortion in all circumstances.”

With the stark realities of not having access to sex and sexuality education, poor and adolescent women and girls not knowing how to properly manage their fertility and where to get the proper information and services, with policy restrictions in place such as the Manila EO 003 denying access to modern contraceptives and discouraging ligation to the poor women who need them, with the prevalence of rape, and the overall impact on reproductive health with more than half of all pregnancies being unintended and statistics ranging from 17% to one-third of these unintended pregnancies ending in abortion, 560,000 women who induced abortions, 90,000 women hospitalized and 1,000 women who died from complications from unsafe abortion in 2008alone, we simply cannot be scared by the religious right or succumb to conservative discourse. The women who were hospitalized and maltreated by doctors and nurses and the families of the women who died due to complications from unsafe abortion, the rape victims who were tortured from the pregnancy resulting from rape have long been waiting for humane laws, policies, and practices. Not providing access to safe and legal abortion to women, especially poor women, who want to terminate their unwanted pregnancies is much like sentencing these women to death—since about a thousand of them die every year.

How do we prevent such discrimination and violation of human rights? On one hand, we should prevent unwanted pregnancies through sex education and increased access to the full range of contraceptive methods, provide access to skilled birth attendants, provide emergency obstetric care, overturn policies that restrict access to reproductive health information and services, pass a comprehensive RH bill, and implement it to the full extent. At the same time, we should provide access to safe and legal abortion either on certain grounds (rape, danger to the health and life of the woman, fetal impairment) or on broader grounds to do away with judicial and medical interpretation.***

[1]The committee tasked to monitor the implementation of CEDAW by the Philippines as a state party.
[2]2006 CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments.
[3]The committee tasked to monitor the implementation of CESCR by the Philippines as a state party.
[4] Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Meeting Women’s Contraceptive Needs in the Philippines, 1 In Brief 2 (2009), http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2009/04/15/IB_MWCNP.pdf

Filipino Women Need Access to Safe and Legal Abortion in the Philippines by Clara Rita Padilla

2011-04-03T14:25:00.000+08:00

Quezon City, August 2, 2010 –“Filipinos should address the issue of access to safe and legal abortion in the country. The impact of lack of access to safe and legal abortion is a grave public health issue as shown in the report of New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights entitled, “Forsaken Lives: The Harmful Impact of the Philippine Criminal Abortion Ban”, which was released today at Annabel’s restaurant. In the Philippines, over half of all pregnancies are unintended and one-third of these unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Due to the illegality of abortion, Filipino women induce abortion clandestinely through unsafe methods. The report cites recent statistics showing about half a million Filipino women yearly who, because of various reasons including rape and dire socio-economic reasons, induce abortion with about 1000 women dying and 90,000 being hospitalized due to complications from unsafe abortion. This means that the illegality of abortion does not stop abortion but only makes it dangerous for the health and lives of Filipino women,” said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights, and former Visiting International Legal Fellow at Center for Reproductive Rights.

The Philippine legal restriction on abortion, one of the vestiges of Spanish colonization in the Philippines, was lifted directly from the old Spanish Penal Code of 1870.[1] Recognizing the high rates of deaths of women undergoing clandestine and unsafe abortion procedures due to its illegality, the Spanish government reconsidered its restrictive law and has allowed abortion on certain grounds in 1985, over 25 years now. Last February 24, 2010, Spain approved a new law on abortion that further eases restrictions by allowing the procedure without restrictions up to 14 weeks and gives 16- and 17-year olds the right to have abortions without parental consent. The law is the latest of a series of bold social reforms undertaken by Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who first took office in 2004. Spain has also legalized gay marriage and made it easier for Spaniards to divorce under Zapatero’s administration.

Atty. Padilla added, “Spain has liberalized its laws to allow abortion on broad grounds and yet we are left to contend with our old colonial laws. Other predominantly Catholic countries that allow abortion are 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).”

Recognizing that the criminalization of abortion does not lessen the number of women inducing abortion but only makes it dangerous for women who undergo clandestine and unsafe abortion, in 2006, the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) urged the Philippine government to “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.”[2]

In 2008, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) expressed its concern that “abortion is illegal in all circumstances, even when the woman’s life or health is in danger or pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and that complications from unsafe, clandestine abortions are among the principal causes of maternal deaths.” The Committee encouraged the Philippines “to address, as a matter of priority, the problem of maternal deaths as a result of clandestine abortions, and consider reviewing its legislation criminalising abortion in all circumstances.”

Atty. Padilla added, “The Philippine law on abortion does not even allow express exceptions based on rape, risks to the life and health of the woman and fetal impairment. The Philippine law on abortion must be liberalized to allow it on demand. This change can happen through a specific law removing the penalties for the women inducing abortion and safe abortion providers assisting them. Our constitution provides equal protection of life from conception and the life of the woman. This constitutional provision does not prohibit abortion as exemplified in the case of Hungary which has the same constitutional provision at the same permits abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation. In the case of Colombia, the Constitutional Court declared the Colombian abortion law unconstitutional and permitted abortion on the following circumstances: when the woman’s life or health is in danger; when the pregnancy is the result of rape; and when the fetus has malformation incompatible with life outside the uterus.”[3]

“Our Congress should address this issue by passing a law that expressly allows safe and legal abortion. The Philippine Judiciary should rule on the constitutionality of safe abortion when raised in court. Women’s rights advocates and reproductive rights advocates should also demand access to safe and legal abortion to address this public health issue,” added Atty. Padilla.

Atty. Padilla added, “The executive department through the Philippine National Police should stop arresting women who induce abortion because this drives women to undergo clandestine and unsafe abortion and contributes to the hospitalization and deaths of women from complications arising from unsafe abortion. Hospitals and clinics that are run by both the DOH and local government should provide increased access to information and services on modern contraceptive methods to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, eliminate the need for abortion, and prevent maternal deaths. It is unfortunate though that the proposed RH law that could reduce the number of abortions is being opposed by fundamentalist groups.”

The report also cites a “WHO study on women’s health in the Philippines…identi[fying] the reduction of unsafe abortion as one of three key challenges for women’s health as it accounts for up to 20% of the country’s maternal deaths.” Atty. Padilla stressed, “Making abortion safe and legal will save the lives of about 1000 Filipino women representing the number of women who die every year from unsafe abortion. The legalization of abortion does not increase the number of women inducing abortion instead it has led to a decrease in number of women dying from unsafe abortion. Where abortion is legal, like in Canada and Turkey, abortion rates did not increase while the Netherlands, with its liberal abortion law and widely accessible contraceptives and free abortion services, has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world.[4] Deaths due to abortion fell 85 percent after legalization in the US.”[5]***

[1] Pacifico Agabin, "The Legal Perspective on Abortion", The Journal of Reproductive Health, Rights and Ethics, Vol. II, No. 1 (1995), at 2.
[2] 2006 CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments.
[3] Women’s Link Worldwide, Colombia’s highest court rules in favor of easing one of the world’s most restrictive abortion laws, available at http://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/pdf_press/press_release_2006510_col.pdf (last accessed May 13, 2008).
[4] Center for Reproductive Rights, Safe Abortion: A Public Health Imperative.
[5] Id.

Advocates Submit New Evidence on Reproductive Rights Violations in Manila City to the CEDAW Committee by Clara Rita Padilla

2011-04-03T13:39:00.004+08:00

New York, NY, July 20, 2010 –Attorney Clara Rita Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights, representing the Task Force CEDAW Inquiry together with international non-governmental organizations submitted their Fourth Supplement to their Request for Inquiry to the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee).

With this fourth supplement, they are requesting the CEDAW Committee to visit the Philippines to conduct an on-site visit to investigate the reproductive rights violations in relation to the Manila City Executive Order 003 Series of 2000 (EO 003) which effectively bans Manila City-run hospitals and clinics from providing modern contraceptives such as pills, condoms, IUDs and surgical methods such as ligation.

The submission mentions recent violations where the Manila Social Hygiene Clinic under the Office of Mayor Lim did not distribute condoms during the May 2010 election campaign period thereby reducing its effectiveness as an institution in curbing HIV infections. It also mentions July 2010 evidence of the continued ban on modern contraceptives contrary to the claims of the Office of Mayor Lim that they are not implementing the EO.

The July 2010 evidence gathered by EnGendeRights staff includes the following:

I. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS CONFIRMING THE SOLE PROVISION OF NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING IN MANILA CITY HOSPITALS AND HEALTH CENTERS

• Manila City-operated hospitals continue to deny information and services regarding modern contraceptives. They currently only provide counseling on natural family planning. Individuals who have visited hospitals and health centers in Manila City have confirmed that there were unable to locate any printed materials on modern contraception. [1]

• A representative of Gat Andres Bonifacio Memorial Medical Center confirmed that “Wala kaming ganyan kasi pro-life kami. Di namin ginagawa ang ligation, ang IUD meron yan sa health centers samantalang ang injectables available sa private lang.” (We don’t have [modern contraceptives] because we are pro-life. We don’t perform ligation while IUDs are available at the health centers and injectables are available at private clinics). [2]

• A high-ranking officer of Gat Andres Bonifacio Hospital has confirmed that he believes that community health centers should be responsible for providing counseling on family planning. He further confirmed that his hospital will not provide family planning information and services until the Manila City Health Department issues a memorandum ordering them to do so. [3]

• A health provider at Ospital Ng Sampaloc who asked to not be identified has confirmed that “wala kaming IUD at injectables dito sa ospital. Dapat magpunta na lang kayo sa private clinics.” (We don’t have IUDs and injectables at the hospital. You should go to private clinics). [4]

• A representative of Ospital Ng Tondo confirmed that “dati na kaming walang ganyang serbisyo kasi pro-life ang Ospital ng Tondo. Yung contraceptives sa centers lang yan meron tulad ng pills at IUD at injectables sa private meron talaga.” (We don’t provide modern family planning services because Ospital ng Tondo is pro-life. You can get pills and IUDs at the centers while injectables are available at private clinics). [5]

• A high-ranking official of Ospital ng Tondo has confirmed that the hospital does not provide information and services on family planning because they believe this service should be provided by community health centers. [6]

• A representative of Ospital Ng Maynila who did not identify herself confirmed that “walang ligation, IUD at injectables kasi pro-life kami.” (There’s no ligation, IUDs and injectables because we are pro-life). [7]

• When a health provider at the Tondo Foreshore Health Center was asked about what kind of family planning services the health center provided and she responded that “wala ako sa pusisyon . . . . Kung nais daw ng direktang sagot ay sa Manila City Hall daw magtanong.” (I’m not in a position . . . . if you want a direct answer, ask the Manila City Hall). [8]

• A health provider at the Tondo Foreshore Health Center and Lying-In Clinic has confirmed that the health centers are only providing counseling on natural family planning (one-on-one counseling held every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon). She further confirmed that initially women would be interested in natural family planning, however, not one woman continued the program after they were asked to return to the health center after a one-month abstinence period. She admitted that the natural family planning is complicated for women who visit their center. [9]

• A health provider at Barrio Fugoso Health Center and Lying-in Clinic, has stated that “pro-life kasi kami mula pa nung kay Atienza, wala din kaming available supplies na mga contraceptives dito sa amin.” (We’re pro-life ever since the time of Atienza and we don’t have contraceptive supplies available here). [10]

• A health provider at the Fugoso Health Clinic in Tondo, Manila has refused to answer questions regarding family planning. She claims that the hospital would be liable to the Manila City Health Department if she responded to the question. She then conceded that the clinic only provided information on natural family planning. [11]

• A health provider of Juan Posadas Health Center in Tondo, Manila, has confirmed that the Center only provides information on natural family planning since Lito Atienza’s mayorship, and that there has been no change in policy since Mayor Alfredo Lim was elected Mayor for two consecutive terms. [12]

II. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MANILA CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL CONFIRMING THE SOLE PROVISION OF NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING

• A staff member of the Manila Health Department has confirmed that “wala po kaming ganyan dahil natural family planning po ang aming advocacy.” (We don’t have that because our advocacy is on natural family planning (NFP)).[13]

• A high-ranking official of the Maternal Health and Childcare Unit of the Manila City Health Office (CHO) has confirmed that the CHO only provides counseling for natural family planning. The CHO does not provide information on modern contraceptives such as condoms, pills, etc. She believes that couples can choose their method of contraception, but that the City government will not spend public money to buy contraceptive supplies, as ordered by the Manila City Mayor. She also believes that the Mayor has no intention of reversing EO 003 because he did not reverse it during his 2007-2010 term. Finally, she confirmed that women who decide to undergo ligation must go to other hospitals to obtain this service. The Manila City government cannot do anything if the hospitals do not provide ligation services for free. [14]
• Members of the EnGendeRights team who visited the CHO confirmed that on the date of their visit there were no posters, flyers or informational materials on modern contraception and/or natural family planning. The only information they noted was a sign pointing to a room where counseling on natural family planning was being held.

Once the CEDAW Committee decides to send a letter to the Philippine government regarding its intent to conduct an on-site visit, the actual visit can only happen with the consent of the Philippine government. It is imperative that the government under President Noynoy Aquino’s administration consents to the visit to allow the CEDAW Committee to investigate on the reproductive rights violations in the country. Allowing such an investigation in the country is a step towards its compliance with its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Convention) to eliminate discrimination against women. Allowing the visit is also in compliance with the Philippine obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

In 2006, the CEDAW Committee recommended to the Philippines to “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 and by increasing knowledge and awareness about family planning.”[15]

The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR Committee) expressed concern in its 2008 Concluding Observations on the Philippines on the “inadequate reproductive health services and information, the low rates of contraceptive use and the difficulties in obtaining access to artificial methods of contraception, which contribute to the high rates of teenage pregnancies and maternal deaths” in the country. 16] The CESCR Committee urged it to “adopt all appropriate measures to protect the sexual and reproductive rights of women and girls, inter alia, through measures to reduce maternal and infant mortality and to facilitate access to sexual and reproductive health services, including access to family planning, and information.” [17]

In its 2009 Concluding Observations on the Philippines, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee) expressed serious concern on “the inadequate reproductive health services and information, the low rates of contraceptive use (36 per cent of women relied on modern family planning methods in 2006) and the difficulties in obtaining access to artificial methods of contraception, which contribute to the high rates of teenage pregnancies and maternal deaths.” [18]

Until now, Manila Mayor Lim has not overturned EO 003 which was an executive order of Mayor Atienza. Atty. Padilla said, “The Office of President Noynoy Aquino has the power to review such restrictive and discriminatory policy. If President Noynoy truly want to be a president for the Filipino people, he should overturn the policy. This is one way of actually making a difference in the lives of our poor Filipino women living in Manila City.

[1]Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 1, 2010; Personal visits conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 5 and 7..
[2]Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 1, 2010.
[3]Personal Interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 5, 2010.
[4] Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 1, 2010.
[5] Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 1, 2010.
[6]Personal interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 5, 2010.
[7] Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 1, 2010.
[8]Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 2, 2010.
[9] Personal interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff at the Tondo Foreshore Health Center and Lying-In Clinic on July 7, 2010.
[10] Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 2, 2010.
[11]Personal Interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 5, 2010.
[12]Personal Interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 5, 2010.
[13] Telephone interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff on July 2, 2010.
[14] Personal interview conducted by EnGendeRights staff at the Maternal Health and Childcare Unit, Manila City Health Office on July 6, 2010.
[15]August 25, 2006 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Concluding Comments on the Philippines, para. 28 [2006 CEDAW Committee Concluding Comments].
[16] CESCR, Concluding Observations (2008) para. 31
[17] CESCR, Concluding Observations (2008) para. 31
[18] CRC, Concluding Observations (2009), para. 61.

***

We Urge the Next President to Support the Passage of the RH Bill into Law by Clara Rita A. Padilla

2010-03-13T16:54:00.000+08:00

Quezon City, March 6, 2010 –“The public pronouncements of presidentiables saying either that they do not support the RH bill or that they will respect the informed choice of couples without committing the budget to provide wide access to reproductive health information, supplies, and services undermines the work of women’s rights and reproductive rights advocates. We are the ones who have witnessed the dismal state of women’s reproductive health in the poor communities in Tondo and elsewhere in the Philippines. The bishops are detached from the realities that poor women face,” Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights,

Atty. Padilla added, “The poor women, adolescent women, rural and indigenous women, and women from ARMM are the ones most affected by the lack of a reproductive health care policy. They are the ones who have the most unintended pregnancies and closely-spaced pregnancies. Their births are commonly unattended by trained health professionals putting their health and lives at risk. What will happen to the reproductive health needs of adolescent women and the poor women in communities, rural areas, indigenous women and women in ARMM? Claiming to end poverty and provide for the needs of Filipinos, will the next president turn a blind eye and not provide for the proper budget to provide wide access to reproductive health information, supplies, and services simply because such stance would take the ire of the CBCP?”

“The pronouncements of the presidentiables show that they are letting the CBCP interfere with affairs of the state in contravention with our constitutional guarantees on separation of church and state and non-establishment of religion. From these pronouncements, it would show that the presidentiables are disregarding the dire maternal health situation in the Philippines where there are 11 women dying every day due to pregnancy and childbirth-related causes, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended and one-third of these unintended pregnancies end in abortion,” Atty. Padilla added.

Atty. Padilla, continued, “In the Philippines, where we have one of the strictest abortion policies in the world and women do not have access to safe and legal abortion, there are about 80,000 women hospitalized every year and about 800 women who die every year due to lack of access to safe and legal abortion. And yet, we have presidentiables who proudly say that they don’t support the RH bill when this is the bill that can reduce the need for abortion.”

“We cannot have a president who is afraid of the CBCP. We need a president who will make a firm stand to pass the RH bill into law. It has been over eight years since the first RH bill has been filed in Congress. The failure to pass the RH bill has been detrimental to the health and lives of Filipinos especially women and children,” Atty. Padilla stressed.

“I sincerely hope that the presidentiables will make a clear stand on not just respecting the rights of individuals and couples to informed choice. They must clearly make a stance that they will earmark funds to provide wide access to modern contraceptives and reproductive health care services. It is very easy for middle class and upper class women to pay for their own contraceptives and other reproductive health care services but this is not the case for poor women in the communities, rural areas, and in the ARMM. For poor women, they are unable to buy contraceptives, they cannot afford to pay for anti-biotics to treat their reproductive tract infection for them to be able to have an IUD inserted, they cannot afford to pay for a P2,500 ligation procedure even when they already have four or more children, they are unable to get pre-natal and post-natal check ups because they have to tend to the needs of their several children at home nor they can pay for a simple PAP smear procedure. We need the necessary budgetary allocation to increase access to reproductive health care information and services,” Atty. Padilla explained.

“Unlike the CBCP whose guidelines for the 2010 elections has the sole criterion of not voting for a candidate who supports the RH bill which seemed to have threatened presidentiables whose survival instincts seemed to have dominated their hierarchy of values, women’s rights and reproductive rights advocates cite realities, actual statistics, medical and scientific findings, and international human rights standards, and we appeal to reason and compassion. This coming election, I urge voters to make a stand and vote for candidates who clearly have a stand to provide wide access to reproductive health information, supplies, and services. Your vote will spell the difference for many women’s lives,” Atty. Padilla concluded.***

Reproductive Rights Advocates Call on Candidates to Uphold Reproductive Rights--Consent to the Visit of CEDAW Experts and UN Special Rapporteurs

2010-03-13T16:42:00.002+08:00

Quezon City, February 18, 2009 – We call on the candidates for the national, congressional, and local elections to uphold reproductive rights and make reproductive health part of their program of action providing the necessary budget for RH information and supplies. We urge the current and the future government officials to consent to the visits of the UN CEDAW experts[1] and the UN Special Rapporteurs[2] on their investigation of reproductive rights violations in the Philippines. We urge the future members of the 15th Congress to the pass the Reproductive Health Care Bill (RH bill) into law immediately.

We urge electorates to vote for candidates who are supporting the passage of the RH bill into Law. It has been over eight years since the first RH bill has been filed in Congress. The failure to pass the RH bill has been detrimental to the health and lives of Filipinos especially women and children.

According to the recently-launched 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey (2008 NDHS 2008), one in three births is either unwanted or mistimed; over half of married women age 15-49 do not want another child; 82 percent of married women want either to space their births or to limit childbearing altogether. The total unmet need[3] for family planning is 22 percent with highest unmet need for women age 15-19, lowest quintile of wealth, rural women and women in ARMM while the contraceptive prevalence rate among currently married women who use modern methods is a mere 34 percent. Twenty-six percent of women age 15-24 have already began child-bearing.

The 2008 NDHS also cites health concerns and fear of side effects as the two foremost reasons why women do not use contraceptives while only three percent do not use contraceptives because of religious belief. Only 44 percent of births occur in health facilities and only 62% of births are assisted by a health professional.[4] The under-five mortality rate for children born less than two years after a previous birth is 54 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared with 25 deaths per 1,000 for children born after an interval of four or more years showing the importance of birth spacing for the health of the children and that of the mother. The infant mortality rate from 2004-2008 is 25 deaths per 1,000 live births and the under-five mortality rate is 34 deaths per 1,000 live births[5] showing the impact of unintended pregnancies and lack of access to reproductive health information and supplies.

Nationwide, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended.[6] Based on the UNFPA State of the World Population Report (SWPR) in 2008, the maternal mortality ratio was 230 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births.[7] This translated to 11 women dying per day while giving birth. Not a single death should happen due to pregnancy and childbirth. These are preventable deaths. Deaths that could have been prevented by proper information and access to services while we have aspiring government officials and current government officials who do not support the passage of the RH bill and even restrict access to modern contraceptives such as in the case of Manila City.

The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has identified in its guidelines for voters that they should not vote for candidates who support the RH bill. The above findings on the negative impact of the non-passage of the RH bill and the restriction of access to modern contraceptives show that the CBCP is not responsive to the needs of the Filipinos—Catholics included. “The CBCP’s stance on the RH bill is detrimental to women’s reproductive rights. CBCP is completely disregarding the needs of Filipinos and this is detrimental to the lives and well-being of Filipinos especially the poor,” said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

“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,” added Benjamin de Leon, President of The Forum for Family Planning and Development.

“As can be seen in the survey, the residents of Manila want the RH 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 funds 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 Benjamin de Leon.

Ramon San Pascual, Executive Director of Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD), 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.”

“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 Ramon San Pascual.

It is the obligation of the Philippine government as cited in the 2006 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) 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 government and aspiring government officials must realize that our very own Constitution states that, ‘Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.’ Government 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 RH bill into law. Government 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. Fundamentalist public officials who restrict access to information and health care services do not deserve any place in governance,” Atty. Padilla added.

* * *

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

[1] 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 Philippine-based Task Force CEDAW Inquiry consists of twenty members: EnGendeRights (co-convenor; see http://www.engenderights.org), WomenLEAD (co-convenor); Alternative Law Groups (ALG); Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP); Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP); Health Action Information Network (HAIN); Health & Development Initiatives Institute, Inc. (HDII); Institute for Social Studies and Action, Philippines (ISSA); Kapisanan ng mga Kamag-anak ng Migranteng Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc (KAKAMMPI); MAKALAYA; Philippine Legislators' Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD); Philippine NGO Council on Population, Health and Welfare, Inc., (PNGOC); Population Services Pilipinas, Inc. (PSPI); Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panlegal/Alternative Legal Assistance Center (SALIGAN-ALAC); Save the Children USA-Philippines Country Office; The Forum for Family Planning and Development, Inc.; Woman Health Philippines; Women’s Crisis Center; Women’s Legal Bureau (WLB); Women’s Media Circle Foundation, Inc.
[2] 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.
[3] Unmet need for family planning is defined as the percentage of currently married women who either do not want any more children or want to wait before having their next birth, but are not using any method of family planning.
[4] UNFPA says that for every 500,000 people there should be at least 4 facilities offering Basic Emergency Obstetric Care (BEmOC) and for every 500,000 people there should be at least 1 facility offering Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric Care (CEmOC) which should be appropriately distributed.
[5] Infant mortality is the probability of dying before the first birthday while under-five mortality is the probability of dying between birth and fifth birthday.
[6] Singh S et al., Unintended Pregnancy and Induced Abortion in the Philippines: Causes and Consequences, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006.
[7] If you compare the Philippine maternal mortality ratio with other countries, you would see the effects of access to reproductive health information and services. The 2008 maternal mortality ratio in other countries are, as follows: 11 in US (with modern method contraceptive prevalence rate of 68%), 7 in Canada, 4 in Spain (with modern method contraceptive prevalence rate of 62%), 3 in Italy, 6 in Japan, 14 in South Korea, 14 in Singapore (with modern method contraceptive prevalence rate of 53%). Across Europe, with the exception of Albania, Romania, and Estonia, the maternal mortality ratio is below 15.

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

2010-01-07T17:52:00.001+08:00

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

2010-01-07T17:49:00.001+08:00

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

2010-01-07T17:41:00.003+08:00

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

2010-01-07T17:39:00.001+08:00

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

2010-01-07T17:34:00.000+08:00

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

2009-08-21T19:43:00.003+08:00

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

2009-08-21T19:23:00.007+08:00

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

2009-08-21T19:17:00.003+08:00

,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

2009-08-21T19:16:00.000+08:00

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

2009-08-21T19:14:00.000+08:00

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

2009-08-21T19:09:00.001+08:00

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

2009-05-22T14:41:00.003+08:00

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

2009-05-22T14:29:00.002+08:00

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

2009-05-22T14:24:00.001+08:00

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

2009-05-22T14:18:00.005+08:00

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

2009-02-24T00:51:00.001+08:00

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

2009-01-26T18:46:00.000+08:00

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

2009-01-26T18:43:00.000+08:00

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

2009-01-26T18:31:00.002+08:00

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

2008-10-07T23:55:00.000+08:00

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?

2008-10-07T23:46:00.000+08:00

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

2008-04-15T02:12:00.000+08:00

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

2008-04-15T02:05:00.001+08:00

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).