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.”

Women’s Rights NGO calls on Candidates to Uphold Reproductive Rights

By Clara Rita A. Padilla, April 30, 2007

“Congressional and local electoral candidates when elected into government posts must uphold women’s rights as protected by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Women’s Convention),” says Atty. Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights. She adds, “They must take their stand to protect women’s access to the full range of contraceptive methods including emergency contraception, access to safe and legal abortion, sexuality education for adolescents, skills and education for women in prostitution, legalization of divorce, repeal of discriminatory Muslim Code provisions and lesbian rights.”

These concerns except for lesbian rights were included in the United Nations Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Concluding Comments during its 36th Session in August 2006. CEDAW monitors the implementation of the Women’s Convention by the Philippine government.

“When elected into office they must provide access to the full range of contraceptive methods in an effort to prevent unintended pregnancy, abortion and maternal mortality and morbidity. They must take a stand in opposing bills restricting access to medically safe methods of contraception such as emergency contraceptive pills, Depo Provera, and IUDs,” Atty. Padilla added.

“Congressional representatives should file bills that uphold women’s rights including bills on Reproductive Health Care, Anti-Discrimination against Sexual Orientation; repeal of the penalty imposed on women who induce abortion and those assisting them as means to decrease maternal mortality and morbidity related to complications from unsafe abortion; improvement of the implementation of the Policy on Prevention and Management of Abortion Complications; implementation of sexuality education in schools for adolescents; and legalization of divorce,” says Atty. Padilla.

In the House of Representatives, staunch supporters of reproductive health and rights in the past were Nereus Acosta (whose sister Malou Acosta is now running), Benjamin Agarao, Jr., Mayong Aguja (Akbayan), Darlene Antonino-Custodio, Agapito Aquino, Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel (Akbayan), Liza Largoza-Maza (Gabriela Women’s Party), Renato Magtubo (Partido ng Manggagawa), Satur Ocampo (Bayan Muna), Gilbert Remulla, Loretta Ann Rosales (Akbayan), Rolex T. Suplico, Lorenzo R. Tañada III, and Ronaldo B. Zamora.

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

“We cannot have government officials who use their religious beliefs in governance. Clearly, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has wielded her influence in the Department of Health and the Population Commission in vigorously campaigning for the so-called “natural family planning” (NFP) method as a means of courting the religious right,” said Atty. Padilla.

Atty. Padilla cautioned against several local officials who used their administrative powers to completely prohibit the delivery of modern methods of contraceptives and to promote natural family planning. She says, “In recent years, policies banning all “artificial” birth control methods, including condoms, pills, intra-uterine devices and sterilization, were introduced in Laguna, Manila City, and Puerto Princesa in 1995, 2000 and 2001 respectively. The policies introduced in Laguna and Puerto Princesa have since been overturned by subsequent local administrations, but the Manila City Policy still prevails.”

In Makati, pregnant adolescents are denied access to free medical services through an erroneous assumption of Mayor Jejomar Binay that such policy will “discourage the incidence of teenage pregnancies.” Atty. Padilla says, “This policy clearly discriminates against adolescents’ right to access reproductive services and unnecessarily puts them at risk.”

“Another glaring example is the continued conduct of congressional hearings in the 13th Congress on bills filed by blatantly religious party-list groups such as Buhay party-list that aim to prohibit safe and effective methods of contraception including IUDS and emergency contraceptive pills and even increase the penalty for women who induce abortion all stemming from their religious beliefs,” Atty. Padilla continued.

Atty. Padilla says, “We also have the problem of continued arrests by police of abortion service providers and sellers of the medical abortion pill Cytotec. Television crews, who do not understand the issues of women relating to abortion and who are mainly concerned with raising their viewership for purposes of sensationalism, instigated these arrests.”

“Such religious stances have no place in governance. These stances disregard women's realities where half of all pregnancies of Filipino women are unintended and about 200 Filipino women die from maternal-related causes out of every 100,000 live births,” says Atty. Padilla citing the UNFPA 2006 State of the World Population report. Nine in 10 women who induce abortion are married or in a consensual union, more than half have at least 3 children, roughly two-thirds are poor and nearly 90% are Catholic; about 800 women die every year (or two women die every day) due to complications resulting from unsafe abortion; approximately 473,000 women had abortions and an estimated 79,000 women were hospitalized for complications due to unsafe abortion in 2000 (Singh S et al., Unintended Pregnancy and Induced Abortion in the Philippines: Causes and Consequences, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006, at 4). Such stances endanger women's lives and health violating women's basic right to life and health.

The constitutional provision protecting the life of woman and the unborn from conception allows access to information and services to contraception and even abortion. Chile and Peru have the same constitutional protection of the life of the woman and the unborn from conception and they allow access to emergency contraceptive pills. In Argentina and Belgium, emergency contraceptive pills are available without prescription. Spain, upon whose old Penal Code the Philippine Revised Penal Code penalty imposed on the woman who induced abortion was adopted, allows abortion on grounds of rape and fetal impairment leaving the Philippines to contend with its colonial laws. Belgium, France and Italy allow abortion on demand. Colombia allows abortion on grounds of danger to life and health, rape and fetal malformation incompatible with life outside the uterus. Last April 24, Mexico City legalized abortion in the first trimester without restriction.

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 ignorance of medicine, science and law and clinging to our colonial past.

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.

It is the obligation of the Philippine government as cited in the recent 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.”

CEDAW urged the Philippines “to consider the problem of unsafe abortion as a matter of high priority. The Committee recommends that the State party 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.”

“Elected officials 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 themselves,” said Atty. Padilla.

“Elected officials must respect plurality in our society. They should allow access to 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.

EnGendeRights Calls on Candidates to Uphold LGBT Rights

By Clara Rita A. Padilla, April 28, 2007

“Congressional and local electoral candidates when elected into government posts must uphold lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights as protected by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Women’s Convention) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),” says Atty. Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights. She adds, “They must take their stand to uphold LGBT rights.”

“When elected, they should file bills and ordinances that uphold LGBT rights including bills/ordinances on Anti-Discrimination against Sexual Orientation; repeal of the vagrancy provisions under Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code, Reproductive Health Care, implementation of sexuality education in schools for adolescents,” says Atty. Padilla.

“Legislators should support bills repealing the vagrancy provisions of the Revised Penal Code such as House Bill 4804 and House Bill 4436 filed by Liza Largoza-Maza of Gabriela Women’s Party and Joel Virador of Bayan Muna, respectively, in the 13th Congress. 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,” continued Atty. Padilla.

Atty. Padilla says, “Government officials should emulate the example of Quezon City legislators in terms of its passage of an ordinance protecting the rights of homosexuals against discrimination in the workplace (Quezon City, Ordinance No. SP-1309, S-2003).”

Legislators should author bills protecting LGBTs against discrimination such as House Bill 634 on Anti-Discrimination against Sexual Orientation filed by Loretta Ann Rosales of Akbayan in the 13th Congress. Staunch supporters of this bill in Congress were Nereus Acosta (whose sister Malou Acosta is now running), Henedina Abad, Mayong Aguja (Akbayan), Justin Marc Chipeco, Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel (Akbayan), Liza Largoza-Maza (Gabriela Women’s Party), Renato Magtubo (Partido ng Manggagawa), Satur Ocampo (Bayan Muna), Lorenzo R. Tañada III, and Joel Virador (Bayan Muna).

Danton Remoto, a gay rights activist running for a congressional post for the 3rd district of Quezon City, when elected into position will strongly advocate for LGBT rights.

Atty. Padilla cautions against party list organizations such as ABA-AKO that have in their line-up a so-called “pro-life” nominee and a platform that campaigns for the “traditional natural Filipino family.” She adds, “This platform discriminates against the rights of LGBT families and even fosters hatred against LGBTs instead of upholding their rights.” Atty. Padilla said, “We cannot have public officials who obstinately preach intolerance without realizing that they are breeding hatred, discrimination and violence against LGBTs who are entitled to equal treatment under the Philippine Constitution.”

In the case of Gualberto vs. Gualberto, G.R. No. 154994, the Philippine Supreme Court recognized that lesbian mothers have a right to custody of their children and their being lesbians do not make them unfit mothers as contemplated under Article 213 of the Family Code. The Supreme Court held that, “sexual preference x x x does not prove parental neglect or incompetence.”

Public officials must heed the international trend toward recognizing the rights of LGBTs. Recognition of same-sex marriage and unions is recognized in Canada, Netherlands, United Kingdom and even in predominantly Catholic countries such as Belgium and Spain.

The ICCPR protects LGBTs against discrimination. In the 2003 Concluding Observations on the Philippines, the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the United Nations Committee tasked to monitor the implementation of the ICCPR, urged the Philippine government to "take the necessary steps to adopt legislation explicitly prohibiting discrimination" and "to pursue its efforts to counter all forms of discrimination" pertaining to sexual orientation. The Committee further urged the Philippines to "strengthen human rights education to forestall manifestations of intolerance and discrimination."

Contrary to the disinformation of fundamentalist groups that "homosexuality is an abnormality," the HRC recognized, in its 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.

In CEDAW’s General Recommendation 21, it recognized that “[t]he form and concept of the family can vary from State to State, and even between regions within a State.” CEDAW has also asked states parties to reconceptualize lesbianism as a sexual orientation and to abolish penalties for its practice.

A clear expression of the affirmation of the rights to sexual orientation 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. 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.”

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

CEDAW Concluding Comments Urges the Philippines to fulfill its Obligations under the Women’s Convention

By Clara Rita A. Padilla, March 29, 2007

The August 25, 2006 United Nations Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Concluding Comments on its review of the Philippine government’s report during its 36th Session urged the Philippines to fulfill its obligations under the Women’s Convention.

CEDAW is the committee tasked to monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Women’s Convention). The Concluding Comments contains CEDAW’s observations and recommendations on the de facto and de jure equality of women in the Philippines and the obligation of the Philippines under the Women’s Convention to eliminate discrimination against women.

“CEDAW raised its concern about the ‘Convention [having] been in force in the State party for 25 years’ and ‘the lack of progress in undertaking and completing necessary revisions of discriminatory provisions in national legislation and in enacting a comprehensive legal framework pertaining to gender equality,’” says Atty. Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights. Atty. Padilla submitted their collaborative Shadow Report to CEDAW and presented at the CEDAW-NGO dialogue at the UN. EnGendeRights drafted their collaborative Shadow Report together with the Center for Reproductive Rights, Reproductive Rights Resource Group-Philippines (3RG-Phils), and Health Development Initiatives Institute.

“The Committee expressed its concern about ‘the inadequate recognition and protection of the reproductive health and rights of women in the Philippines. The Committee is concerned about the high maternal mortality rates particularly the number of deaths resulting from induced abortions, high fertility rates, inadequate family planning services, the low rates of contraceptive use and difficulties in obtaining contraceptives. It is also concerned about the lack of sex education, especially in rural areas. It is concerned at the high rate of teenage pregnancies, which present a significant obstacle to girls’ educational opportunities and economic empowerment,’” Atty. Padilla added.

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

“The Committee urged the Philippines ‘to consider the problem of unsafe abortion as a matter of high priority. The Committee recommends that the State party 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,’” says Atty. Padilla.

CEDAW requests “the wide dissemination in the Philippines of the present concluding comments in order to make the people, including government officials, politicians, parliamentarians and women’s and human rights organizations, aware of the steps that have been taken to ensure de jure and de facto equality of women, as well as the further steps that are required in that regard.”

For a copy of the Concluding Comments, please click on the following link: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw36/cc/Philippines_25augrev.pdf

CEDAW Issues its Concluding Comments and Urges the Philippines to Fulfill its Obligations Under the Women's Convention

(press release by Clara Rita A. Padilla, J.D.)

August 25, 2006, United Nations, New York -- The United Nations Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) issued its Advance Unedited Concluding Comments on its recently-concluded review of the Philippine government’s report held during its 36th Session from August 7-25.

CEDAW is the committee tasked to monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Women’s Convention), The Concluding Comments contains CEDAW’s observations and recommendations on the de facto and de jure equality of women in the Philippines and the obligation of the Philippines under the Women’s Convention to eliminate discrimination against women.

“CEDAW issued a very holistic and reality-based Concluding Comments that urges the Philippine government and the Filipino populace to face the hard realities that Filipino women experience in our country and to act on them accordingly,” says Atty. Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights. Atty. Padilla submitted their collaborative Shadow Report to CEDAW, presented at the CEDAW-NGO dialogue at the UN and actively lobbied with the CEDAW experts. EnGendeRights drafted their collaborative Shadow Report together with the Center for Reproductive Rights, Reproductive Rights Resource Group-Philippines (3RG-Phils), and Health Development Initiatives Institute.

CEDAW raised its concern about the “x x Convention [having] been in force in the State party for 25 years” and “the lack of progress in undertaking and completing necessary revisions of discriminatory provisions in national legislation and in enacting a comprehensive legal framework pertaining to gender equality.”

The Committee raised its concerns about the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 provision extinguishing the criminal action upon subsequent forgiveness by the wife. In relation to trafficking of women and girls, CEDAW urged the Philippines “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.”

“I’m particularly very excited about the recommendations the Committee raised on health especially because the Committee recommended for the Philippines as a State Party to ‘consider reviewing the laws relating to abortion with a view to removing punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion and provide them with access to quality services for the management of complications arising from unsafe abortions and to reduce women’s maternal mortality rates in line with the Committee’s general recommendation 24 on women and health and the Beijing Platform for Action,’” says Atty. Padilla.

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

CEDAW expressed “its concern about the lack of a law on divorce, making it impossible for women to obtain legal divorce” and urged the Philippines “to introduce and support vigorously legislation which permits divorce, allows women to remarry after divorce, and grants women and men the same rights to administer property during marriage and equal rights to property on divorce.”

CEDAW requests “the wide dissemination in the Philippines of the present concluding comments in order to make the people, including government officials, politicians, parliamentarians and women’s and human rights organizations, aware of the steps that have been taken to ensure de jure and de facto equality of women, as well as the further steps that are required in that regard.”

Reflecting on all their efforts in drafting their Shadow Report and lobbying with the CEDAW experts and the CEDAW’s Concluding Comments, Atty. Padilla said, “It’s like arguing in court and winning the case. Although I would have wanted for them to also issue their recommendations on the right to sexual orientation, I’m quite pleased with the Committee’s Concluding Comments.”

“A lot of our hard work paid off. We gave the CEDAW experts all kinds of materials from the Shadow Report, highlights/talking points, oral presentation, to our recommendations and even slips of paper with our comments. It’s just a question of the people in government recognizing their full obligation to eliminate discrimination against women in laws and policies and the implementation of these laws and policies. It’s time to spread the word,” Atty. Padilla continued.

The travel grant of EnGendeRights and 3RG-Phils to present their collaborative Shadow Report at CEDAW’s session in New York was through the assistance of Canada Fund, Cordaid, and Global Fund for Women and the upcoming CEDAW Post-Session to be conducted by EnGendeRights to popularize the Concluding Comments is through the assistance of Canada Fund.

For a copy of the Concluding Comments, please click on the following link:
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw36/cc/Philippines_25augrev.pdf


Additional Information:

Paragraph 27 of the Concluding Comments states:

“The Committee expresses its concern about the inadequate recognition and protection of the reproductive health and rights of women in the Philippines. The Committee is concerned about the high maternal mortality rates particularly the number of deaths resulting from induced abortions, high fertility rates, inadequate family planning services, the low rates of contraceptive use and difficulties in obtaining contraceptives. It is also concerned about the lack of sex education, especially in rural areas. It is concerned at the high rate of teenage pregnancies, which present a significant obstacle to girls’ educational opportunities and economic empowerment.”

Paragraph 28 the Concluding Comments states:

“The Committee urges the State party to take concrete measures to enhance women’s access to health care, in particular to sexual and reproductive health services, in accordance with article 12 of the Convention and the Committee’s general recommendation 24 on women and health. It requests the State party to strengthen measures aimed at the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, including by making a comprehensive range of contraceptives more widely available and affordable and without any restriction and by increasing knowledge and awareness about family planning. The Committee recommends that the State party 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. The Committee urges the State party to consider the problem of unsafe abortion as a matter of high priority. The Committee recommends that the State party 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.”

Paragraph 30 the Concluding Comments states:

“30. The Committee calls on the State party to pay special attention to the needs of rural women, indigenous women and Muslim women living in the autonomous region of Muslim Mindanao, ensuring that they have access to health care, social security, education, clean water and sanitation services, fertile land, income -generation opportunities and participation in decision - making pr ocesses. The Committee recommends that the State party ensures women’s access to justice through the provision of legal aid and takes steps to prosecute perpetrators of violence against them. It also encourages the State party to provide increased educational opportunities to Muslim girls to discourage early marriages. X x x”

* * *

Repeal penalty on abortion

(published letter to the editor, The Manila Times, November 14, 2005)

IN 2000 estimates showed that despite the illegality of abortion, 473,400 Filipino women induced abortions (Alan Guttmacher Institute and the University of the Philippines Population Institute, 2005). Out of every 100 pregnant women, 18 induced abortions. And because of
the illegality, about 78,900 women were hospitalized, and many others died from complications from clandestine and unsafe abortion. This has led to high maternal mortality, with a ratio of 200 deaths per 100,000 live births (UNFPA, 2005 State of the World Population).

Recognizing that criminalizing abortion does not lessen the number of abortion but makes it dangerous for women, the Cairo and Beijing conferences urged countries to review penalties against women who undergo abortions, and the United Nations Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women recommended that state parties remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion.

The United Nations Committees monitoring the implementation of treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights have all linked high rates of maternal mortality with illegal and unsafe abortion. The same committees have recommended state parties to review their legislation criminalizing abortion.

Having ratified the abovementioned treaties, the Philippines is obligated to repeal the Revised Penal Code provision imposing penalties on women inducing abortion and those assisting them. Predominantly Catholic countries such as Spain, Italy and Belgium make safe and legal abortion available for their women. Indeed, our laws should be compassionate and responsive to women’s realities.--Clara Rita A. Padilla

Gay rights

(published The Manila Times, December 04, 2005)

THE criminal complaint for violation of Quezon City Ordinance SP-1309, S-2003, prohibiting homosexual workplace discrimination, against Miriam College top officials, gives face to gay discrimination in the workplace in the Philippines in the person of private complainant Marlon T. Lacsamana, former librarian of Miriam College.

Marlon and his boyfriend celebrated a symbolic wedding. Unfortunately, three days his wedding, he received a letter from Miriam College informing him that his contract as a librarian would not be renewed. He faced comments from Miriam College officials such as, "Miriam College is a Catholic school and it could not tolerate gay weddings" and "you’re like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole."

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects homosexuals against discrimination. In the 2003 Concluding Observations on the Philippines, the Human Rights Committee, the United Nations agency tasked to monitor the implementation of the ICCPR, urged the Philippine government to "strengthen human rights education to forestall manifestations of intolerance and discrimination."--Clara Rita A. Padilla

Population: women's rights issue

(published Phil. Daily Inquirer, Aug 11, 2004)

I AM concerned about how House Bill No. 16 has made population its central issue. The bill seeksto provide information and services onreproductive health care to arrest the growthrate of our population, not to allow women toexercise the right to choose whether and when tohave children. Its preferential incentive onscholarships for children of families with twochildren discriminates against poor childrenbelonging to larger families.

The bill mistakenly presumes that all kinds ofabortions are hazardous. Clandestine abortion isunsafe and dangerous, but safe and legal abortionis not. An abortion performed under properconditions is even safer than childbirth.

The bill also makes it a point to maintain theillegality of abortion under the Revised PenalCode. It fails to recognize that the illegalityof abortion does not lessen the incidence ofabortion but only makes it dangerous for women.It also fails to recognize that, having ratifiedthe Convention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination Against Women, the Philippines isbound to remove punitive provisions imposed onwomen who undergo abortion.

Dangerous pronouncements have also been made,such as the statement of Rep. Ace Barbers to denyfree health care services to women who have morethan two children to discourage multiple births.This places poor women's health and lives atrisk. A clear illustration of how widely accessible health care services save lives is thefact that, in the United States, only eight womendie out of every 100,000 live births while, inthe Philippines, 240 women die out of every 100,000 live births.

On the other hand, the Catholic Churchhierarchy's stand against modern contraceptivemethods is not new at all. The Church can say allit wants but the duty of the government is toprovide access to information and services on thefull range of contraceptive methods regardless ofwhat the Catholic Church hierarchy professes.

Catholic women around the world--including morethan 60 percent of Catholic women in Trinidad,Tobago and Botswana, and 28 percent in thePhilippines--have used contraceptive methods,showing that Catholic women exercise freedom ofconscience. What we need is a reproductive healthcare policy that assures access to informationand services for all women regardless of theirreligion and the number of their children.--ClaraRita A. Padilla,

Discrimination against gays

(published Philippine Daily Inquirer, June 1, 2004)

THE STATEMENT of Marissa Laguardia, chairpersonof the Movie and Television Review andClassification Board (MTRCB), censuring thetelevision show "The Buzz" for airing a lesbianwedding, shows how a portion of our Philippinesociety obstinately preaches intolerance withoutrealizing that they are breeding hatred,discrimination and violence against lesbians,gays, bisexuals and transsexuals (LGBTs), all ofwhom are entitled to equal treatment under thePhilippine Constitution. Her statementillustrated how some people refuse to heed theinternational trend toward recognizing the rightsof LGBTs.

The International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights (ICCPR) protects LGBTs againstdiscrimination. In the 2003 ConcludingObservations on the Philippines, the Human RightsCommittee (HRC), the United Nations Committeetasked to monitor the implementation of theICCPR, urged the Philippine government to "takethe necessary steps to adopt legislationexplicitly prohibiting discrimination" and "topursue its efforts to counter all forms ofdiscrimination" pertaining to sexual orientation.The Committee further urged the Philippines to"strengthen human rights education to forestallmanifestations of intolerance anddiscrimination." Contrary to Marissa Laguardia's statement that"homosexuality is an abnormality," the HRCrecognized, in its General Comment 19, that theconcept and structure of family may differ fromstate to state and that the right to marry andfound a family may be based on diversedefinitions of families and relationships.

The Philippine government and its officials havethe duty to fulfill its obligations underinternational laws. Ms Laguardia, as an officialof the MTRCB, is duty bound to protect LGBTsagainst discrimination.--CLARA RITA A. PADILLA

Legalizing Abortion Will Save Filipino Women's Lives

(published in Today, April 28, 2003)
The police recently arrested six "abortionists" in Obando. Police Chief Supt. Eduardo Matillano, director of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG), even said that abortion should be made a heinous crime.

Estimates show that despite the illegality of abortion, 400,000 Filipino women induce abortions annually. About 80,000 women end up hospitalized and many others die due to complications from clandestine and unsafe abortion. Unsafe abortion and its complications have been the number three leading cause of hospital discharge from 1994-99.

Those who impose their morality on women are oblivious to these facts. Women who undergo abortion are faced with unwanted pregnancies. Mainly married women with three or more children are the ones obtaining abortions. Many of these women are unable to practice contraception while others are rape and incest victims.

Prosecution of women who undergo abortion and those who perform abortion is not the answer. Recognizing that the criminalization of abortion does not lessen the number of abortion but makes it dangerous for women, the Cairo and Beijing conferences urged countries to review penalties against women who undergo abortions and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women recommended that state parties remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion.

The Philippines has a commitment to make abortion safe and legal for Filipino women. Where abortion is legal, like in Canada and Turkey, abortion rates did not increase while the Netherlands has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world. Deaths due to abortion fell 85 percent after legalization in the US. Matillano erred in likening a fetus with a child. Such statement is not supported by Philippine law. As a civil servant, he should not use his position to further his religious beliefs and impose his morality.

Increasingly, countries worldwide are permitting abortion on broad grounds including Spain and Italy. Just as Presidential Decree 772 on anti-squatting—seen as an injustice to the urban poor and not a solution to the problem of squatting—was repealed so must the 1932 Revised Penal Code provision penalizing the woman who undergoes abortion and those assisting her be repealed.

Women's realities and abortion

(published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, November 18, 2002)

I have noticed much reluctance and defensiveness in the way abortion rights had been discussed in recent newspaper columns and letters to the editor. Much about reproductive rights is also
misunderstood. Reproductive rights include the woman's right to prevent pregnancy and to terminate her pregnancy. I will not skirt around the issue and say that abortion is indeed a part of it.

In upholding these rights, legislators are counted upon to show impartiality in the face of the massive disinformation campaign launched by Catholic fundamentalists who purposely appeal to morals and religious devotion and allegiance, which the state must be dissociated from. Catholic fundamentalists have turned a blind eye to the realities women face today. Women are dying because they are forced to resort to clandestine, illegal and unsafe abortion to terminate their unwanted pregnancies.

The Philippines is one of a few predominantly Catholic countries where Catholic dogma has prevailed in law. It has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world-even penalizing the woman who undergoes abortion. And it is one of the remaining countries in the world that deny emergency contraception, specifically, levonorgestrel. One glaring example is the outdated Revised Penal Code provision penalizing the woman and the person assisting the woman for undergoing abortion. Another example is the 1987 constitutional provision equally protecting the life of the mother and the life of the unborn. This particular provision was not in the 1935 and the 1973 Philippine Constitutions. It is unfortunate that the religious commissioners during the 1986 Constitutional Commission had used their position to insert this provision in our Constitution-a blatant violation of the principle of separation of church and state. We cannot let fundamentalist Catholics and any other religion to perpetuate the imposition of their morals and religion in our law.

To those who are imposing their fundamentalist morals and religion, I will pose these questions: If you or your daughter were raped, would you or your daughter bear that child even if it was not your or your daughter's choice to get pregnant? If you already have several children and are hard up with money and your husband forces you to have sex, will you bear that child even if it was not your choice to be pregnant?

If we are to engender women's reproductive rights and we are to be compassionate and responsive to women's realities, then women's right to safe and legal abortion as well as right to emergency contraception should be recognized and protected by Philippine law.--Clara Rita A. Padilla

Relisting Postinor

(published letter to the editor Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 23, 2002)

Almost a year has passed since Postinor was delisted from the drug registry by the Bureau of Food and Drugs with the approval of the Department of Health (DOH). This decision, issued last Dec. 7, 2001, arbitrarily stated that "Postinor had abortifacient effects." Even after the hearing on Postinor's re-listing on Oct. 4, 2002 the DOH has not made a definitive ruling to make Postinor available in the Philippine market.

The DOH's delay in making Postinor available denies all women in the Philippines their right to prevent pregnancy. Countless women who have been raped, engaged in unprotected sex, or who have experienced contraceptive failure are unable to prevent pregnancy. This is a blatant human rights violation. The issue that the DOH wanted to resolve during the hearing was the question of "what is the moment before an established pregnancy called." The only issue that should be resolved is whether Postinor is an abortifacient or not. The DOH should not rule on the basis of morals or ideology.

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. Countries worldwide are not only registering EC pills such as Postinor but they are making them available over the counter, i.e, without prescription.

In accordance with good governance and policymaking, the best thing that the DOH can do is to relist Postinor in the registry of available drugs in the Philippines. As a government agency charged with addressing the health concerns of the entire Filipino populace, the DOH should rule on the basis of internationally accepted medical findings and not allegations of fundamentalist Catholic groups which have deliberately engaged in a campaign to mislead the Philippine government and populace. The DOH's delay is forcing desperate women to resort to clandestine illegal and unsafe abortion to terminate their unwanted pregnancies -- pregnancies that could have been avoided with the use of Postinor.--Clara Rita A. Padilla

When Catholic Dogma Breaks Line

(published The Manila Times, September 19, 2002)

It is dangerous when key people in the government are beholden to the Catholic Church and use their positions to turn their personal beliefs into policy. The head of state herself, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), seemingly feels indebted to the Catholic Church after being catapulted to the presidency during the EDSA II revolution.

She has forgotten that many events that preceded the EDSA II revolution were led and carried out by political activists, women’s groups, and the common tao. Perhaps GMA thinks that the celebration of masses at the end of the EDSA II sums up all the efforts of the common tao.

GMA’s sense of indebtedness to the Catholic Church can be seen from her pledge early in her presidency to follow the Catholic teaching on "natural family planning." Soon after, she retracted her statement and said that she would respect the decision of each couple on matters of family planning. But despite her retraction, her administration has been known to publicly support and use government funds for promoting "natural family planning."

The Catholic Church’s influence was also apparent in the decision of the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration, with the approval of the Department of Health secretary under GMA’s administration, to prohibit the use of Postinor, a brand of emergency contraception (EC).

Postinor was previously allowed in the Philippines to be used by rape and incest victims to prevent pregnancy. The prohibition of Postinor was issued by the BFAD on the grounds that it has abortifacient effects, despite the World Health Organization’s endorsement of EC as a proven, safe and effective method of modern contraception.

Similarly, the city mayors of Manila and Puerto Princesa have been known to impose their religious beliefs on their constituents, the former by discouraging access to contraceptive services and information and the latter by banning these services altogether. By denying access to modern contraceptives and forcing women to use the less reliable "natural family planning" method, these policies lead to more unwanted pregnancies, many of which end in abortion.

The separation of church and state is also undermined when our legislators refrain from needed law reform because of their religious views. The Penal Code’s criminalization of abortion is a classic example of the entrenchment of Catholic dogma in our laws. The abortion ban, one of the vestiges of Spanish colonization in the Philippines, was lifted directly from the old Spanish Penal Code. It is ironic that Spain, from which we inherited the Catholic religion and this particular criminal provision, has already made abortion legal under certain conditions. Indeed, staunchly Catholic Italy permits abortion on even broader grounds.

Our parliament fails to recognize that it is putting women’s lives and health at risk. It fails to recognize that abortion is a reality, and that women die and suffer lifelong disabilities from abortion complications because of lack of access to safe and legal abortion services. Claiming to be concerned about heightened promiscuity, our parliament ignores the reality that it is mainly married women with three or more children who are obtaining abortions

When Catholic dogma makes its way into government policies, the very essence of the separation of church and state is eroded. The delineation between Church and state is broken and rights of individuals are infringed. The moralist Catholic view, which is focused on the implications of "conception," ignores a social context in which men think they can have sexual access to women whenever they choose. Rape (including marital rape), incest, and domestic violence remain prevalent, leading to unwanted pregnancies. The truth is that many women who want to practice contraception are unable to because of their male partners’ refusal.

When will government officials face the truth and respect the line between church and state?--Clara Rita A. Padilla