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

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.

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

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

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

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 Padilla said, “Mayor Lim, on the other hand, still has not repealed the EO despite repeated requests for him to do so.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is the Country that Owes Vanessa

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

___________________

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

Women’s NGOs Cries Justice for Rebelyn Pitao

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






* * *

Catholicism and reproductive rights—Clara Rita Padilla

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Freedom of conscience

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

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

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

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

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

Public health crisis

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

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

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

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

Safe and legal abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spain, Colombia, Mexico, Poland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R We Ready for the RH law?

BROWSER

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


1. To prevent maternal deathsrelated to pregnancy and childbirth


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


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


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


3. To prevent unwanted pregnanciesand reduce abortion rates

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

UN Member-States Raise Concerns on the Philippines

by Clara Rita A. Padilla

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Clara Rita A. Padilla

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[6]Id.

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

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

by Clara Rita A. Padilla

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EnGendeRights Calls on Senators to Remove the Penalty Imposed on Women in Prostitution

by Clara Rita A. Padilla, February 20, 2008

“Amidst the pending issuance of the committee report on Substitute Bill No. 2066 on prostitution, we are calling on the members of Senate Committees on Justice and Human Rights and Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws to remove the penalty imposed on women in prostitution and to uphold their rights as protected by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),” says Atty. Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights.

The estimated figure of women and children in forced prostitution in 2005 was about 800,000. The passage of the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003” (Republic Act 9208) is significant in the effort to fight against trafficking. However, provisions of the Revised Penal Code continue to focus law enforcement attention on women in prostitution, rather than on their exploiters. Article 341 on prostitution and Article 202 on vagrancy are still being used to round up and imprison women in prostitution or are sometimes used to extort money or sexual favors.

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.

It is significant that the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 accords 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. Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1516 also recognizes persons in prostitution as victims, thus, imposing penalties only on the perpetrators (pimps, recipient of the sexual act, etc.) while providing services to persons in prostitution such as 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.

Atty. Padilla emphasized, “Detaining women in prostitution is not the answer. Many women are forced into prostitution because they were rape or incest victims or their families were abusive to them in the past. There should be legal initiatives designed to provide alternatives to women in prostitution through education, skills training and employment.”

“Senators should support bills that repeal the vagrancy provisions under Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code such as SB 694 filed by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, SB 1836 filed by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago (SB 1836), and SB 1886 filed by Senator Manuel Villar. These bills intend to put a stop to human rights violations of women in prostitution and homosexuals who are rounded up on the basis of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code,” says Atty. Padilla.

"Senators must emulate the Regional Trial Court decision of Judge Marcelino F. Bautista, Jr. in Civil Case Q96-26153 when 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. X x x [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,'” added Atty. Padilla.

Moreover, the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee), the committee tasked to monitor the implementation of CEDAW, in its August 2006 36th Session Concluding Comments urged the Philippines “to pursue a holistic approach aimed at addressing the root causes of trafficking and improving prevention...[including] measures to improve the economic situation of women and girls and to provide them with educational and economic opportunities, thereby reducing and eliminating their vulnerability to exploitation and traffickers” and the “reintegration of [women in prostitution] into society and provide rehabilitation, social integration and economic empowerment programmes to women and girls who are victims of exploitation and trafficking.” It urged the Philippines to “prosecute and punish traffickers and those who exploit the prostitution of women, and provide protection to victims of trafficking.”

Atty. Padilla said, "Having ratified the Women’s Convention, the Philippines is legally bound to uphold its provisions, to take action at the national level, and to enact and implement laws and policies that comply with international laws and standards. The Concluding Comments of CEDAW should be used to push for reforms in our laws and ensure the actual implementation of these laws whether in the legislative, executive or judicial field."

“It is the duty of the Philippine government to fulfill its obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of women in prostitution,” Atty. Padilla stressed.

Marital Infidelity Does Not Have a Place in Our Penal Laws

By Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director, EnGendeRights
Nov. 18, 2007

If I were a lawyer who is out to enrich myself, I would probably say “go ahead and support the ‘marital infidelity’ bills (HB 999 filed by Representative Emmanual Joel Villanueva and HB 1820 filed by Representatives Liza Maza and Luzviminda Ilagan)”. These bills seek to repeal the adultery and concubinage provisions of the Revised Penal Code and then impose a new crime called “marital infidelity” which equalizes the penalties for marital infidelity.

The reason why lawyers who are out to enrich themselves would do this is because the effect of such a law is indeed the deluge of cases that will be filed by estranged husbands who are out there to perpetually harass their wives who have left them for a more suitable partner. Mind you, it would be the batterer husbands and those who have sought to control their wives who would line up to file these cases and not the ones who respect their wives’ freedoms.

But I am not out to enrich myself as a lawyer. I am a lawyer who has spent thirteen years of my professional career devoting my time and efforts in advocating for women’s rights—for battered women, women who have been raped, women who are seeking protection orders against their abusive husbands and, yes, women who have long been separated from their husbands but are facing “adultery” cases filed by their husbands.

The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) provides for equality and non-discrimination of women. But equality in law does not simply mean equalizing the penalties for certain crimes for both women and men and not especially so 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 on their wives.

In the case of Sheila (not her real name), she was battered by her husband while they were living together. Eventually she left her husband and now she is living with her male partner. Since she left her abusive husband, she has never asked for support for herself and her minor daughter. What does the husband do after six years of separation? He files a case for adultery against her. Now Sheila is tormented—a clear case of abuse under the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act (RA 9262).

In many countries around the world, the criminal provisions imposed on adultery have already been repealed. The intended purpose of the criminal provision on adultery under the Revised Penal Code (circa 1932 and directly translated from the old Spanish Penal Code) is to protect the rights of real heirs. Many adultery cases, however, are filed by estranged husbands who have long been separated from their wives and who have no intention to reunite with their wives nor do they have any intention to support the illegitimate child of their wives.

In the case above, you would see that this case along with many others are not filed to protect the rights of heirs but for other reasons such as continued harassment, abuse, and property issues. There are many others like Sheila who have suffered abuse at the hands of their husbands and, rightly so, have chosen to live another life with their new partners. Should women like Sheila serve prison sentence? Most certainly not, they deserve to live peaceful lives free from abuse, coercion, and discrimination.

Adultery, concubinage, and marital infidelity cases do not have any place in our law. On the contrary, these cases continue to perpetuate abuse in the family and impose torment on the children. The transitory years of the young children’s lives are put to waste since their parents are constantly feuding.

If the husband and wife cannot be together, then they should nullify the marriage. This is also why we are advocating for divorce so as not to subject the grounds to divorce on the differing interpretations of judges, psychiatrists and psychologists.

Marital infidelity cases also infringe upon one’s right to have sexual relations with whom they want to and when they want to. This is the commitment of the Philippines under the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action and the Beijing Platform for Action and the obligation of the Philippines under CEDAW and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

We must repeal our laws on adultery and concubinage and certainly not pass any new law on marital infidelity.

Women’s Rights Delegates Advocate for a Comprehensive Optional Protocol to the ICESCR at the UN meeting in Geneva

Geneva, July 20, 2007—-The members of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific (IWRAW-AP) delegation Brenda Campbell, Clara Rita A. Padilla, and Niti Saxena are presently attending the 4th session of the United Nations Open-ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR or the Covenant) being held in Geneva this July 16-27, 2007.

The delegates from the States, non-governmental organizations, and experts are discussing the provisions of a draft Optional Protocol that provides the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the Committee), tasked to monitor the implementation of the Covenant, to receive and consider communications/individual complaints and to conduct inquiries on alleged violations of state obligations to respect, protect and fulfill economic, social and cultural rights. While most UN Human rights treaties allows for such a complaint mechanism, victims of economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights are still deprived of any remedy at the international level.

Clara Rita Padilla, a feminist lawyer and the Executive Director of EnGendeRights, says, “The much-needed Optional Protocol will strengthen access to justice of women on ESC rights including the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (Art. 12.1, ICESCR), education (Art. 13), work (Art. 6), food and freedom from hunger (Art. 11.1 and 11.2), and housing (Art. 11.1), among others. The proposed mechanism of individual complaints will allow individuals and groups of individuals to file complaints against their states for failure to uphold their rights under the Covenant. The views of the Committee on these complaints would have a significant impact in furthering women’s rights.”

An example of a complaint that can be filed with the Committee is on the right to education of women especially poor, rural, and indigenous women. Statistics show that the higher the educational attainment of women, the less number of children they want. This means less unwanted pregnancies, and lesser women undergoing unsafe, backstreet abortions in the case of the Philippines where abortion is still unsafe and illegal.

Another complaint that can be filed is on women’s right to access emergency contraceptive pills to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Until now, Filipino women including rape victims are unable to access these contraceptive pills due to policies of the Bureau of Food and Drugs Administration and the Department of Health that are contrary to the findings of the World Health Organization and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the policies of over 140 nations worldwide that have endorsed emergency contraceptives as a proven safe and effective method of modern contraception including predominantly Catholic countries such as Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Hungary, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Venezuela.

With proper access to health care information and services including sexuality education for adolescents, maternal mortality ratios can be dramatically brought down as seen in the experiences of other countries where maternal mortality has been brought down to less than ten women dying for every 100,000 live births (i.e., Canada, Italy, Spain, UNFPA State of the World Population Report (SWPR) 2006).

In the Philippines, it is regrettable that the maternal mortality ratio has remained constant for the past three years (200 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births, UNFPA SWPR 2005, 2006, 2007). This shows that the Philippines has failed miserably to comply with its obligation under the Covenant to “undertake steps...to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including the adoption of legislative measures.”

Atty. Padilla says, “It’s just unfortunate that there is no delegate from the Philippine Mission in Geneva who is present here to express their support for an Optional Protocol to the Covenant.” She adds, “We need pressure from NGOs, stakeholders and policy makers back in the Philippines and around the world to support this important process in order to obtain a comprehensive and effective Optional Protocol.”