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

By Clara Rita A. Padilla, J.D.

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


Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

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

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

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

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

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

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


Separation of Church and State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Religious Conservatism and the 1987 Philippine Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewing Abortion Laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respecting and Upholding Freedom of Conscience and Religion

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


***

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

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

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

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

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

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


***

Copy furnished through email:

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

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

Philippine Mission, Geneva

Office of the Executive Secretary

Office of the Presidential Management Staff

Presidential Human Rights Committee

Office of the Press Secretary

Philippine Commission on Women

ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights – Philippine Representative

Commission on Human Rights

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

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

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

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

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


***

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

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

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

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

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

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

The international human rights standard is to liberalize abortion laws to make it safe and accessible to women and thereby lessen maternal mortality related to unsafe abortion. The Philippines is duty-bound to fulfill its treaty obligations to uphold the right to equality, equal protection of the law, non-discrimination of women, right to health and life under the ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, and CRC. Recognizing that the criminalization of abortion does not lessen the number of women inducing abortion but only makes it dangerous for women who undergo clandestine and unsafe abortion, in 2006, the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee),[1] urged the Philippine government to “consider reviewing the laws relating to abortion with a view to removing punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion and provide them with access to quality services for the management of complications arising from unsafe abortions and to reduce women’s maternal mortality rates in line with the Committee’s general recommendation 24 on women and health and the Beijing Platform for Action.”[2]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Atty. Padilla added, “Spain has liberalized its laws to allow abortion on broad grounds and yet we are left to contend with our old colonial laws. Other predominantly Catholic countries that allow abortion are Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, and Hungary (whose constitution protects life from conception but permits abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation). Recent abortion liberalizations occurred in Colombia, Mexico City (legalized abortion in the first trimester without restriction in April 2007) and Portugal (allows abortion up to 10 weeks of pregnancy).”

Recognizing that the criminalization of abortion does not lessen the number of women inducing abortion but only makes it dangerous for women who undergo clandestine and unsafe abortion, in 2006, the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) urged the Philippine government to “consider reviewing the laws relating to abortion with a view to removing punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion and provide them with access to quality services for the management of complications arising from unsafe abortions and to reduce women’s maternal mortality rates in line with the Committee’s general recommendation 24 on women and health and the Beijing Platform for Action.”[2]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramon San Pascual, Executive Director of Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD), stressed that, “The impact of the lack of reproductive health information and access to health care services is grave especially to poor women who do not have money to pay for their own contraceptive supplies and for counseling from private doctors.”

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

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

“Our representatives in government and aspiring government officials must realize that our very own Constitution states that, ‘Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.’ Government officials must be reminded that they are mere representatives of the Filipino people and that their obligation is to the Filipino people and not to the Catholic Church and its bishops who are against the passage of the RH bill into law. Government officials must respect plurality in our society. They must uphold access to reproductive health information and health care services and give primary importance to a person’s right to reproductive self-determination. Fundamentalist public officials who restrict access to information and health care services do not deserve any place in governance,” Atty. Padilla added.


* * *

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


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

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

The Philippine-based Task Force CEDAW Inquiry consists of twenty members: EnGendeRights (co-convenor; see http://www.engenderights.org), WomenLEAD (co-convenor); Alternative Law Groups (ALG); Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP); Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP); Health Action Information Network (HAIN); Health & Development Initiatives Institute, Inc. (HDII); Institute for Social Studies and Action, Philippines (ISSA); Kapisanan ng mga Kamag-anak ng Migranteng Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc (KAKAMMPI); MAKALAYA; Philippine Legislators' Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD); Philippine NGO Council on Population, Health and Welfare, Inc., (PNGOC); Population Services Pilipinas, Inc. (PSPI); Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panlegal/Alternative Legal Assistance Center (SALIGAN-ALAC); Save the Children USA-Philippines Country Office; The Forum for Family Planning and Development, Inc.; Woman Health Philippines; Women’s Crisis Center; Women’s Legal Bureau (WLB); Women’s Media Circle Foundation, Inc.
[2] On March 27, 2009, the Philippine-based Task Force CEDAW Inquiry led by EnGendeRights and WomenLead, the Center for Reproductive Rights and International Women’s Rights Action Watch, Asia-Pacific (IWRAW-AP), submitted a request to six United Nations Special Rapporteurs (UNSRs) requesting for an Urgent Appeal to be transmitted to the Philippine government and seeking a fact-finding country visit to investigate reproductive rights violations related to Manila City Executive Order 003 (“EO 003”). The goal in submitting the request was to draw the UNSRs attention to the grave violations perpetrated in Manila City by the Philippine government against women and their families.
The request for an Urgent Appeal was submitted to six UN Special Rapporteurs, namely, health, violence against women, education, human rights defenders, freedom of religion or belief, and the Independent Expert on extreme poverty.
[3] Unmet need for family planning is defined as the percentage of currently married women who either do not want any more children or want to wait before having their next birth, but are not using any method of family planning.
[4] UNFPA says that for every 500,000 people there should be at least 4 facilities offering Basic Emergency Obstetric Care (BEmOC) and for every 500,000 people there should be at least 1 facility offering Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric Care (CEmOC) which should be appropriately distributed.
[5] Infant mortality is the probability of dying before the first birthday while under-five mortality is the probability of dying between birth and fifth birthday.
[6] Singh S et al., Unintended Pregnancy and Induced Abortion in the Philippines: Causes and Consequences, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006.
[7] If you compare the Philippine maternal mortality ratio with other countries, you would see the effects of access to reproductive health information and services. The 2008 maternal mortality ratio in other countries are, as follows: 11 in US (with modern method contraceptive prevalence rate of 68%), 7 in Canada, 4 in Spain (with modern method contraceptive prevalence rate of 62%), 3 in Italy, 6 in Japan, 14 in South Korea, 14 in Singapore (with modern method contraceptive prevalence rate of 53%). Across Europe, with the exception of Albania, Romania, and Estonia, the maternal mortality ratio is below 15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is the Country that Owes Vanessa

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

___________________

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

Women’s NGOs Cries Justice for Rebelyn Pitao

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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