EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
May 31, 2006
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (The Committee)
Re: Supplementary information on The Philippines
Scheduled for review during the CEDAW’s 36th Session
Dear Committee Members:
This letter is intended to supplement the periodic report to be submitted by the Republic
of the Philippines, scheduled to be reviewed by the Committee during its 36th Session.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, EnGendeRights, and Reproductive Rights Resource
Group Philippines (3RG-Phils.), independent non-governmental organizations, hope to
further the work of the Committee by providing independent information concerning the
rights protected in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW).
Reproductive rights are fundamental to women’s health and social equality, and explicit
part of the Committee’s mandate under CEDAW. Specifically, the Convention commits
States parties to: “ensure… access to specific educational information to help to ensure
the health and well-being of families, including information and advice on family
planning.”[Article 10(h)]; “take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination
against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality with
men and women, access to health-care services, including those related to family
planning”1 [Article 12(1)]; “take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination
against women in rural areas in order to assure…access to adequate health-care facilities,
including information, counseling and services in family planning…” [Article 14(2) (b)];
and, to “take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all
matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis
of equality of men and women…[t]he same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the
number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and
means to enable them to exercise these rights” [Article 16]. Furthermore, the
Committee’s General Recommendation 24 (Women and Health) also expands upon the
integral role of reproductive health and rights in ensuring women’s rights.
1
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
In concluding observations issued by the Committee on the Republic of the Philippine’s
combined third and fourth periodic report in 1997, the Committee recommended that
reproductive and sexual health services, including family planning and contraception, be
made available and accessible to all women in all regions.2
Unfortunately, there remains a significant gap between the provisions of the Convention
and the reality of women’s lives in the Philippines. More specifically, with regard to
women’s reproductive rights, a significant number of Filipino women, especially
adolescent girls, continue to experience lack of access to basic reproductive health
services and information and many are compelled to put their heath and lives at risk due
to the country’s prohibition on abortion.
The Republic of the Philippines has fallen short of its duties to ensure women’s rights to
reproductive health care. Currently, there is no specific law protecting Filipino women’s
reproductive rights. Hence, women have no redress under domestic law when their
sexual or reproductive rights are violated. The following facts indicate specific violations
of women’s right to reproductive health care, including family planning.
We wish to bring to the Committee’s attention the following issues of concern, which
directly affect the reproductive health and lives of women in the Philippines:
A.
The Right to Health Care, including Reproductive Health Care and Family
Planning (Articles 12, 14(2)(b) and (c), and 10(h))
In its General Recommendation on Women and Health, the Committee recommends to
states parties to prioritize the prevention of unwanted pregnancy through family planning
and sex education and reduce maternal mortality rates through safe motherhood services and
prenatal assistance.3
1. Lack of Access to Family Planning and Contraceptive Methods
The availability of contraceptives is limited due to the government’s inability to provide
modern contraceptive supplies of reliable quality at low cost, particularly for low-income
women. Seventeen percent of currently married Filipino women of reproductive age, still
have an unmet need for family planning.4 These 2.15 million women want to limit and
space pregnancy but encounter a lot of barriers.5 In 2005, the contraceptive prevalence
2
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
rate was at 49%, however, the proportion of modern method usage was at 33%.6 Poor
women have higher unmet need for family planning and are most unable to access
reproductive health care services.7
Furthermore, there is an official bias against the use of modern contraceptives. For
example, the local government in Manila discourages the use of “artificial” methods of
family planning, such as condoms, pills, intra-uterine devices (IUD), surgical sterilization
and others.8 Women and couples in Manila have been denied information and services on
the full range of contraceptive methods in local public health facilities.9
The government’s discouragement of modern contraceptive methods has had a significant
negative impact on contraceptive usage because the government is the major family
planning service provider in the country.10 In addition, the government is using its funds
to promote so-called “natural family planning methods,” such as the rhythm method.11
This is despite the fact that the rhythm method has proved to be as low as 70% effective
in preventing pregnancy,12 when compared to the pill which is 99% effective and
condoms which are 89% effective.13 Furthermore, the rhythm method requires the
agreement of both the man and the woman.14 Under this approach, many women who
want to practice contraception may be unable to do so because of their male partners’
refusal.15 In 2004, the Department of Health awarded a Php50 million contract with
Couple’s for Christ, a Catholic church-backed group, to promote natural family planning
method. This only shows the extent of the influence of the religious fundamentalists in
influencing reproductive rights programs, policies, and priorities of the government. 16
In addition to discouraging the use of modern contraceptives, the government has also
been known to misinform people about the efficacy of these modern methods. For
example, in March 2003, then Philippine Health Secretary, Manuel Dayrit urged the
Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) to take intra-uterine devices (IUDs) off the drug
registry, contending that IUDs were abortifacients that caused miscarriages.17 There is a
pending petition filed by a Catholic Church- backed group to ban IUDs with the BFAD
and, because of the influence of fundamentalists in government, there is a growing
concern that the BFAD might ban IUDs by erroneously finding that IUDs have
abortifacient effects.18 This directly contradicts the international medical community’s
position that IUDs are one of the most effective and safe methods of contraception.19
Similarly, the President has made inaccurate and misleading statements about the efficacy
of the rhythm method, claiming that it is 99% effective.20
3
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
The government’s policies of limiting access to modern contraceptive methods has led to
increased numbers of unwanted and unplanned births, interfering with the right of parents
to responsibly determine the number and spacing of children. Filipino women on average
have one child more than they want.21 Almost half (45%) of births to Filipino women are
reported to be unplanned.22 Many of these women resort to clandestine abortions in order
to end their pregnancy. Out of every 100 pregnant women, 18 induced abortions.23 This,
in turn, leads to high maternal mortality, with a ratio of 200 deaths per 100,000 live
births24 compared with other countries where maternal mortality ratio is lower, i.e., 17 in
US, 6 in Canada, 4 in Spain, 5 in Italy, and 44 in Thailand.25
It is the duty of the government to provide the full range of affordable and quality
contraceptive methods to the populace regardless of the position of certain religions in
the country.
2. Restriction on Emergency Contraceptive Pills
The BFAD, with the approval of the Department of Health (DOH), has rescinded the
license for the distribution of Postinor, a brand of emergency contraception (EC), on the
misguided grounds that it has abortifacient effects.26 The ruling contradicts the position
of WHO, which has endorsed EC as a proven safe and effective method of modern
contraception.27 Re-listing Postinor in the registry of available drugs would help prevent
unwanted pregnancies, abortions and maternal mortality. Until now, the DOH has not relisted Postinor despite the December 1, 2003 recommendation of five members out of the
seven-member Special Committee created by BFAD that it is not an abortifacient.28
3. Illegal and Unsafe Abortion
The Committee recommended that State parties remove punitive provisions imposed on
women who undergo abortion29 and has praised States parties for amending their
restrictive legislation.30 The Committee has declared the vital link between illegal,
unsafe abortion and high rates of maternal mortality.31 The Committee has declared
restrictive abortion laws as a violation of women’s right to life.32 Predominantly Catholic
countries allow safe and legal abortion, i.e., Spain (abortion is legal under certain
conditions; Belgium, France, and Italy (abortion is permitted upon a woman’s request);
and in Poland (abortion is allowed to protect a woman’s life and physical health and in
4
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
case of rape, incest and fetal impairment).33 The Philippines having ratified CEDAW is
committed to make abortion safe and legal.
The outdated Philippine Revised Penal Code of 1932, based on Spanish colonial law,
criminalizes abortion.34 The Revised Penal Code imposes a prison sentence on any
woman or health professional (doctors, midwives, pharmacists), who participates in
providing abortion services or in dispensing abortive drugs.35 The law criminalizing
abortion does not decrease the number of abortions; it only makes it dangerous for
women who undergo clandestine and unsafe abortion.
The 2000 estimates showed that despite the illegality of abortion, 473,400 Filipino
women induced abortions. 36 About 78,900 women were hospitalized for induced
abortion.37 One study reports that 72.9% of women who undergo unsafe abortion suffer
from immediate complications38 and in 2000, 12% of maternal deaths were due to unsafe
abortions.39 Unsafe abortion and its complications have been the third leading cause of
hospital admissions from 1994-1999.40
There exist discriminatory and punitive attitudes and actions by many health care
providers towards women suffering from complications arising from unsafe abortion.41
These are manifested in refusals by certain hospitals to admit women who are already
profusely bleeding.42 Further health professionals also discriminate through withholding
use of anesthetics during Dilation & Curretage (D&C) procedures, withholding or
delaying proper management of abortion complications, scolding and reprimanding
women and threatening to report them to the authorities, and placing of signs labeling
them as “criminals/murderers” for having resorted to induced abortions.43
The Prevention and Management of Abortion and its Complications (PMAC) policy was
enacted by the DOH on May of 2000.44 It aims to improve the health care services for
the prevention and management of abortion and its complications. The policy, however,
was only implemented in pilot hospitals, hence, there is a need to broaden it to include
more hospitals and strictly enforce policies and guidelines to protect women who induced
abortion from discrimination by health care providers.
4. Adolescents’ Right to Access to Information and Reproductive Services
(Articles 10 (h), Article 16(e))
The Committee’s Recommendation 24 emphasizes special attention to the health needs of
particularly vulnerable groups, including adolescent girls and older women.45 The
Committee has interpreted the anti-discrimination provisions of CEDAW to prohibit age
5
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
discrimination, particularly with respect to access to family planning information and
services.46 The Committee has asked states parties to pay particular attention to the health
education of adolescents, including information on family planning methods. 47
According to the 2002 Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality Study, 31% of young adult
males and 68% of young adult females report having engaged in premarital sex.48
Approximately 70% of young adult males and 68% of young adult females reported not
using any method of protection against pregnancy or STIs the last time they had sex.49
Misconceptions abound with 28% of young adults believe that HIV/AIDS is curable, and
73% think that they are immune to HIV.50 Despite the existence of Adolescent and Youth
Health and Development Program (AYHDP) of DOH, Filipino adolescent youth do not
receive evidence-based information and education on sexuality and reproductive health
and services.51
STI prevalence is quite high among young females and males compared to the general
population, being highest among youth in the 18-24 age group.52 From January 1984 to
October 2005, there were 2,373 HIV ab seropositive cases reported. Majority of the cases
(69%) were in the 20-39 age groups and 63% were males.53 Among registered HIV/AIDs
cases in 2005, 1.5% of those infected were below age 10, 1.9% were aged 10-19, and
30% were aged 20-29. Of those aged 29 and below, 53.9% were female. More young
women ages 19 to 29 are becoming more vulnerable to HIV/AIDs because of the high
probability of getting infected during rough sex and the disempowerment of young
women to negotiate for safe sex.54
Under the 1989 Makati Health Program Guidelines, Makati City provides residents with
a monthly gross income of P8,000 or less free treatment in local public facilities.55
Beneficiaries are issued yellow cards for this purpose. In 2001, Makati City issued a
memorandum stating that “only registered voter[s] and Makati residents can avail [of] the
‘yellow card’ and all teen-age pregnancies are excluded to avail [of] a yellow card since
they are not registered voter[s].”56 The policy’s true intent, however, was revealed when
Mayor Jejomar Binay was quoted in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on July 21, 2001
saying, “The new policy is expected to discourage and help prevent the growing
incidence of teenage pregnancies in the city.”57 This policy clearly discriminates against
the adolescents’ right to access reproductive services.
Adolescents should be able to protect themselves from unwanted/coerced sex, unplanned
pregnancy, early childbearing, unsafe abortion, HIV/AIDs, and sexually transmitted
infections (STIs). This requires full government support in the form of policies, services,
6
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
programs, and activities that are youth-friendly, rights and evidence-based, confidential,
and participatory.
B.
Violence Against Women and Girls
CEDAW contains several provisions requiring state intervention to prevent gender-based
violence. Article 5 requires states to “modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct
of men and women” in order to eliminate practices based on the idea of women’s
inferiority. In addition, violence against women within marriage and the family is
condemned by Article 16(c), which guarantees women and men the same “rights and
responsibilities during marriage.”
The CEDAW Committee, in its General Recommendation 19 on Violence against
Women, recognizes that gender-based violence discriminates against women and thereby
denies women enjoyment of their rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men.58
The Committee further expanded on state responsibility to ensure that violence against
women is removed by calling states parties to take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise.59
Under general international law and specific human rights covenants, States may also be
responsible for private acts if they fail to act with due diligence to prevent violations of
rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence, and for providing compensation. 60
1.
Rape
Incidences of rape remain high with an average of eight women raped every day61 and an
average of nine children raped daily.62 The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (Republic Act 8353)
brought positive changes, such as the reclassification of rape as a crime against persons,
the broadening of the definition of rape to include acts other than penile penetration, and
the recognition of marital rape. The law, however, imposes a lighter penalty for "rape by
sexual assault" committed with the insertion of an object or instrument into the vaginal
orifice, as opposed to rape by penile penetration.63 Implicit in this provision is a
disregard for the traumatic effects of an assault of this nature.64 Another barrier to
prosecution is the Anti-Rape Law’s imposition of the death penalty in certain
circumstances, which has deterred some victims, particularly victims of incest, from
bringing complaints. The enactment of the Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of
1998 (Republic Act 8505) provides support to rape victims through psychological
7
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
counseling, medico-legal examinations, free legal assistance and training programs for
handling rape cases. Its rape shield provision prohibiting admissibility of past sexual
conduct of the rape victim, however, is subject to judicial interpretation that may
undermine its protection since it provides that such evidence is admissible if found
"relevant by the court."65
Despite the enactment of both R.A. 8353 and R.A. 8505, there are numerous complaints
for rape that are dismissed at the preliminary investigation level and in the Regional Trial
Courts.66 Definitive data on the number of dismissals and acquittals among rape
complaints are unavailable from the Department of Justice. Many judges and public
prosecutors still do not understand the realities of rape as gender-based violence, ignoring
the fact that rape is life-threatening.67 Nor do they recognize that the demeanor of rape
victims during investigations while testifying may vary. They also fail to receive reports
of rape with credulity.68 Often they do not take seriously findings of post-traumatic stress
disorder among victims of sexual violence.69 Crucial forensic evidence such as DNA
analysis of the perpetrator’s semen, hair and skin samples are not widely available,70
hematomas on the neck and arms of the victim's body and samples from the crime scene
may be left out in medico-legal examinations. Although the issuance of medico-legal
certificates for child abuse were standardized in 2002,71 this has yet to be practiced
throughout all the medico-legal units in the country for all sexual abuse cases, including
cases involving adult victims. And although the Supreme Court ruled that “the absence
of hymenal lacerations does not disprove sexual abuse,”72 many judges and public
prosecutors may continue to mistake the absence of hymenal lacerations as conclusive
proof that rape did not occur due to adherence to their personal beliefs and lack of
knowledge of this decision.
2.
Forced Prostitution and Trafficking
The estimated figure of women and children in forced prostitution in 2005 was about
800,000.73 The passage of the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003” (Republic Act
9208) is significant in the effort to the fight against trafficking. However, provisions of
the Revised Penal Code continue to focus law enforcement attention on women in
prostitution, rather than on their exploiters. Article 341 on prostitution and Article 202
on vagrancy are still being used to round up and imprison women in prostitution or are
sometimes used to extort money or sexual favors.74
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
8
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
lack of alternative sources of income. These discriminatory criminal provisions should
be repealed.
Detaining women in prostitution is not the answer. Many women are forced into
prostitution because they were rape or incest victims or their families were abusive to
them in the past.75 There should be legal initiatives designed to provide alternatives to
women in prostitution through education, skills training and employment.76
It is significant that the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 accords legal protection
to trafficked persons by recognizing them as victims who should not be penalized for
crimes directly related to the acts of trafficking or in obedience to the order made by the
trafficker.77 Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1516 also recognizes persons in prostitution
as victims, thus, imposing penalties only on the perpetrators while providing services to
victims such as education campaigns against prostitution, crisis intervention service,
education and socio-economic assistance, sustainable livelihood skills training, financial
support for scale businesses and integration and complete after-care programs.78
3. Domestic Violence (Violence against Women and Children)
Violence against Women is prevalent in the Philippines. Three out of five women in the
Philippines are battered.79 The Philippine National Police (PNP) documented a total of
7,204 cases of VAW in 2004, a seven-fold increase from 1,100 cases in 1996.80 The
highest record in the police department was in 2001 at 10,343.81 Cases reported included
physical injuries, wife battering and rape, incestuous and attempted.82
The “Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” or RA 9262 took
effect on March 27, 2004. It defines violence against women and children (VAWC) as
any act or series of acts committed by any person against a women who is his wife or
former wife, or with whom the person has or had a sexual dating relationship, or with
whom he has had a common child.
Although RA9262 is a very potent law, there is still an ongoing disjunct between the law
and how the law is being implemented in barangays, police stations, and courts. Certain
judges are hesitant to issue contempt orders against respondent husbands who clearly
violate the provisions of Protection Orders (POs).83
9
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
C.
Equal Rights Within Marriage (Articles 16 (c ), (d), (f) (g), (h))
Article 16 of the Convention mandates states parties to take all appropriate measures to
eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family
relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the
same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution [16(c)], the same
rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters
relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount
[16(d)], the same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship,
trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in
national legislation; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount [16(f)],
the same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family
name, a profession and an occupation [16(g)], and the same rights for both spouses in
respect of the ownership, acquisition, management, administration, enjoyment and
disposition of property, whether free of charge or for a valuable consideration [16(h)].
In General Recommendation 21 on Equality in Marriage and Family Relations, the
Committee has identified 18 as the appropriate legal age of marriage for both men and
women.84 In General Recommendation 21, the Committee rejects arguments in support
of an earlier age of marriage for girls because of adverse effects on their health.85 In
General Recommendation 19, the Committee defines forced marriage as a form of
violence posing actual threats to women and perpetuating their subordinate roles in
society. 86
The Committee views polygamy as a harmful traditional practice that contravenes a
woman’s right to equality with men, and can have serious emotional and financial
consequences for her and her dependants that ought to be prohibited.87
1.
Discriminatory Family Laws
Marital laws that are biased in favor of the husband violate Article 16 of the Convention.
There is no specific divorce law in the Philippines. Hence, women whose husbands are
abusing them can only obtain a divorce under Article 36 of the Family Code on “nullity
of marriage,” where it must be shown that either or both of the parties are psychologically
incapacitated.88 Although the Supreme Court rules provide that expert opinion need not
be alleged,89 some courts still require evidence of medical or clinical causes of
psychological illness to be proven by experts.90 However, psychologists and psychiatrists
find that it is very difficult to prove psychological illness, and courts have thus denied
petitions to nullify marriages despite evidence of physical, emotional and psychological
10
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
abuses.91 Without specific divorce legislation, Article 36 allows the continuance of
domestic violence and abusive marriages.
The lack of a divorce law makes it hard for women in abusive relationships to leave their
abusive husbands. 92 Because of the high cost of nullifying marriages and the difficulty in
having their marriages nullified, many women cohabit with their current partners without
having their marriage nullified.93 Some women are even dismissed from government
service precisely because of these “immorality issues.”94 Such dismissals for
“immorality’ do not take into consideration the reality where a married woman was
previously in an abusive relationship who may have found comfort in her current loving
relationship.95
Under the Revised Penal Code, a married woman commits “adultery” if she has sexual
intercourse with a man other than her husband.96 There is no corresponding law for
males. A married male, on the other hand, can be convicted of “concubinage” only if his
mistress cohabits with him in the conjugal dwelling or in another dwelling, or if he has
intercourse with a woman other than his wife under “scandalous” circumstances.97 The
criminal provisions on adultery and concubinage should be repealed. In many countries
around the world, the criminal provisions imposed on adultery have already been
repealed.98 The intended purpose of the criminal provision on adultery is protect the
rights of real heirs, however, many adultery cases are filed by estranged husbands who
have long been separated from their wives and who have no intention of reuniting with
their wives nor do they have any intention of supporting the illegitimate child of their
wives. Many adultery cases are filed to harass women and sometime to threaten and
coerce them to transfer contested property in the name of the estranged husband.99
In addition, discriminatory laws penalize widows, divorced women or women whose
marriages have been annulled or dissolved if they get married within 301 days from the
death, divorce or separation of their husbands.100 No such constraints are imposed on the
men.
Furthermore, some of the laws that regulate marriage under the Family Code discriminate
against women. For example, in case of disagreement on the administration or
enjoyment of community property, the husband’s decision prevails.101 Similarly, in case
of disagreement over the exercise of parental authority, the father’s decision will prevail
over the mother’s.102
11
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
Filipino Muslims are governed by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines
(Muslim Code) with regard to personal status, marriage and divorce, paternity and
filiations, parental authority, succession and inheritance, support and maintenance, rights
and obligations as well as property relations between husband and wife.103 Certain
provisions of the Muslim Code discriminate against women, e.g., those pertaining to
polygamy, marriages under the age of 18, arranged marriages, and unequal rights of
women and men in marriage relations and authority over children.104
Under Article 27 of the Muslim Code, polygamy is permitted under certain conditions.105
Marriages under polygamous circumstances are discriminatory and oppressive to women
because these lead to impoverishment and psychological abuse of the women and their
children.
Under Article 16 of the Muslim Code, a Muslim male and female aged 15 can contract
marriage.106 Upon petition of a male guardian, the Shari’a District Court may order the
solemnization of the marriage of a female who, though less than 15 but not below 12
years of age, has attained puberty.107 Child marriage and arranged/forced marriage are
prevalent among ethnic groups in the Southern Philippines who experienced sexual
violence in the context of customary practices and traditions.108
The Muslim Code stipulates equal rights and obligations between the wife and the
husband but the husband is given the authority to fix the residence of the family, to
consent on the exercise of profession or occupation by the wife, in case of disagreement,
and to prevail over the wife’s decision.109
2.
Lesbian Rights
The Committee’s General Recommendation 21 recognizes that “[t]he form and concept
of the family can vary from State to State, and even between regions within a State.” 110
The Committee has also asked that states parties reconceptualize homosexuality as sexual
orientation.111
There is widespread discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders
(LGBTs) in the Philippines, yet no national law explicitly protects homosexuals from
discrimination or promotes their rights. While a Quezon City ordinance prohibits
discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation,112 in Makati City, a
12
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
dress code is imposed on gay men working for the city government.113 In November
2005, a criminal case was filed with the Quezon City Prosecutors’ Office to test the
proper implementation of said ordinance concerning homosexual workplace
discrimination of a gay librarian who was fired by his employer, a Catholic women’s
college, upon learning that he had “married” his gay lover.114 There are many antidiscrimination bills based on sexual orientation pending in the 13th Congress such as
House Bill No.634, Senate Bills No.1641 and 1738, none has yet been passed into law.
Further, there is no legal recognition of marriage or partnership with regard to LGBTs.
It is significant, however, that women victims of abuse in lesbian relationships are
accorded the same protection under the “Anti-Violence against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004” since Sec. 3 includes any person with whom the woman has or had
“a sexual dating relationship.”
The government should take the necessary steps to adopt legislation explicitly prohibiting
discrimination against sexual orientation and to pursue its efforts to counter all forms of
discrimination pertaining to sexual orientation.
We hope that the Committee will consider addressing the following questions to the
Philippine government:
1. What steps is the government pursuing to provide comprehensive reproductive health
services, including family planning services and information, to all women?
2. What measures are being taken to redress discriminatory coverage of health services,
and, in particular, the lack of subsidization for contraceptives, especially for lowincome women?
3. What measures are being taken to make emergency contraception available and to relist Postinor in the registry of drugs?
4. What measures are being taken to abolish criminal abortion laws and legalize
abortion? How has the government addressed complications arising from unsafe
abortion?
5. What measures are being taken in the criminal justice system to ensure the successful
prosecution of rape complaints?
6. What steps is the government taking to enact specific divorce legislation?
13
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
7. What measures are being taken to repeal existing prostitution provisions in criminal
law, prosecute forced prostitution and to provide women in prostitution with
alternatives, including education, skills training and employment?
8. What measures are being taken in the criminal justice system to ensure the successful
prosecution of domestic violence complaints? What measures are being taken to
popularize the new domestic violence law? What measures are being taken to
monitor the issuances of court and barangay protection orders?
9. What steps is the government taking to enact legislation that will not only prohibit
discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals but also
affirmatively promote their rights?
10. What steps is the government taking to enact specific sexual and reproductive rights
legislation?
11. What statistical and factual information is the government of Philippines able to
provide to show effective implementation of current laws and policies?
12. What steps is the government doing to repeal existing criminal and family provisions
that are discriminatory against women?
13. What steps is the government taking to decrease the rate of HIV/AIDs and STIs
amongst vulnerable young people? What programs and interventions are being done
to address the need for comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services,
education and information of adolescents and young people?
There remains a significant gap between the provisions of the CEDAW and the reality of
women’s reproductive health and lives in the Philippines. We appreciate the active
interest that the Committee has taken in the reproductive health and rights of women in
the past, stressing the need for governments to take steps to ensure the realization of these
rights.
We hope that this information is useful during the Committee’s review of the Philippine
government’s compliance with the CEDAW. If you have any questions, or would like
further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
14
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
Very truly yours,
Melissa Upreti
Legal Adviser for Asia
Center for Reproductive Rights
Clara Rita A. Padilla
Executive Director
EnGendeRights, Inc.
Laura Katzive
Deputy Director
International Program
Center for Reproductive Rights
Alexandrina B. Marcelo
Chairperson
Reproductive Rights Resource
Group -Philippines
1
The Committee, General Recommendation 24, Women and Health, para. 31(c ), 20 th session (1999),
available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom24 (Last
visited March 13, 2006).
2
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination against Women: Philippines. 12/08/96. A/52/38/Rev.1,paras.275-305.
(Concluding Observations/Comments), available at
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/a82151e7b0b3b8768025649d002df415?Opendocument#top (Last
visited March 8, 2006).
3
Id.,para.1.
4
National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) 2003 [hereinafter NDHS 2003]. Unmet need is
defined as the percentage of currently married women who do not want any children or want to wait before
having their next birth, but are not using any method of family planning.
5
NDHS 2003.
6
UNFPA, 2005 State of the World Population. The Promises of Equality: Gender Equity, Reproductive
Health, and the Millennium Development Goals. New York, 2005.
7
NDHS 2003.
8
Manila, Declaring Total Commitment and Support to the Responsible Parenthood Movement in the City
of Manila and Enunciating Policy Declaration in Pursuit Thereof, Policy Declaration (February 29, 2000).
9
Clara Rita Padilla, “Local Policies Deny Women’s Rights to Health,” RRights Now! Jul.-Dec. 2001 &
Jan-Jun 2002, 18-19 [hereinafter RRights Now 2001].
10
National Statistics Office, 2001 Family Planning Survey Final Report 30.
11
Rina Jimenez-David, “GMA up close,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 7, 2002, available at
http://www.inq7.net/opi/2002/jul/07/text/opi_rjdavid-1-p.htm. Catholic women around the world –
including more than 60 percent of Catholic women in Trinidad, Tobago, and Botswana, and 28 percent in
the Philippines – have used contraceptive methods, showing that Catholic women exercise freedom of
conscience. See Catholics for Free Choice, Catholic Attitudes on Sexual Behavior and Reproductive
Health: A World View. Washington, DC: Catholics for Free Choice, 2004.
12 International Planned Parenthood, Statement on Periodic Abstinence for Family Planning, available at
http://www.ippf.org/medical/imap/statements/eng/pdf/1995_10c.pdf.
15
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
13
Food and Drug Administration, Birth Control Guide, available at
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/babyguide.pdf.
14
RRights Now 2001, supra note 9, at 18-19.
15
Id.
16
See articles; Blanche Rivera, ”Health dept admits diverting
funds to buy low-cost drugs,” Inq7.net., November 25, 2003. “Why Couples for Christ”,Editorial, Manila
Times, December 11, 2004; available at
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/dec/11/yehey/opinion/20041211opi1.html
17
Center for Reproductive Rights, New Moves to Limit Reproductive Health Care in the Philippines,
Reproductive Freedom News, Vol. XII, Issue 4 (April 2003) available at
http://www.reproductiverights.org/rfn_03_04_1.html.
18
Letter of Petition of Abay Pamilya to Secretary of Department of Health Francisco Duque to cancel the
registration, delist, ban, and prohibit the importation, distribution and sale, prescription, dispensing, and the
use of Intra-uterine Device, filed on October 7, 2005.
19
Reproductive Freedom News, Vol. XII, Issue 4, supra note 17.
20
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, speech during the celebration of National Women’s Day and
Women’s Month, March 8, 2003.
21
See Department of Health, Administrative Order No. 50-A s. 2001, at 3 [hereinafter DOH 2001].
22
National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS), 1998 [hereinafter NDHS 1998].
23
Fatima Juarez, Josefina Cabigon, Susheela Singh and Rubina Hussain, The Incidence of Induced
Abortion in the Philippines: Current Level and Recent Trends, International Family Planning Perspectives,
Volume 31, Number 3, September 2005 [hereinafter Fatima Juarez, et. al. 2005].
24
UNFPA, 2005 State of the World Population, supra note 6.
25
Id.
26
Bureau of Food and Drugs, Bureau Circular No. 18 S. 2001 Delisting of Levonorgestrel 750 mcg
(Postinor) from Bureau of Food and Drugs Registry of Drug Products.
27
See World Health Organization (WHO), Emergency Contraception, A Guide for Service Delivery,
Geneva, WHO/FRH/FPP/98.19 (1998).
28
Special Committee recommendation dated December 1, 2003; In the 63-page recommendation, the four
doctors in the noted that "Postinor is not an abortifacient because medically/scientifically, conception starts
from implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterus of the woman and not from fertilization." The legal
expert, a University of the Philippines Constitutional law professor, noted that the Constitutional provision
reflecting a policy against abortion cited by the DOH as the basis for banning Postinor is not applicable in
the case of the Emergency Contraceptive Pill.
29
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), General Recommendation
No. 24: Women and Health (20th session, 1999), in Compilation of General Comments and General
Recommendations by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, at 245, paragraph 31 (c); see Center for Reproductive
Rights, Bringing Rights To Bear (An Analysis of the Work of UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies on
Reproductive and Sexual Rights), 2003; see CEDAW jurisprudence asking states parties to review
legislation making abortion illegal, e.g., Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ireland,
Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru.
30
See e.g., Belgium.
31
CRR Bringing Rights, 2003, supra note 29; see also CEDAW jurisprudence e.g. Antigua and Barbuda,
Chile, Georgia, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, Lithuania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Paraguay.
32
Id, e.g., Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Paraguay
33
Center for Reproductive Rights, Religious Voices Worldwide Support Choice: Pro-choice Perspectives in
Five World Religions. Briefing paper. September 2005, available at http://www.reproductiverights.org/
16
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
34
The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended, arts. 256-259 [hereinafter The Revised Penal
Code].
35
Id.
36
Fatima Juarez, et. al. 2005, supra note 23.
37
Id; The global statistics show that five hundred eighty five thousand women die annually from
pregnancy-related causes. Eighty thousand of these women die from unsafe abortion. (I.H. Shah et al.,
Unsafe Abortion, Annual Technical Report 1999, WHO). 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. (WHO, Making Pregnancy Safer in South-East Asia, Regional Health Forum, Vol. 6,
No. 1, 2002.).
38
Corazon Raymundo, et. al., Unsafe Abortion in the Philippines: A Threat to Public Health (2001) 87
[herinafter Unsafe Abortion in the Philippines].
39
A. Shire and L. Pesso, Changing Policies and attitudes: post abortion care in the Philippines, Compass,
No.1, pp.1-4.
40
Department of Health, Administrative Order No. 45-B s. 2000.
41
Ermita Declaration, “Respect, Protect, and Fulfill SRHR for All,” adopted during the First National
Consultation Meeting Among Members and Partners of the Reproductive Rights Resource GroupPhilippines, May 27-30,2003, Ermita, Manila.
42
Id.
43
Lina Reyes, “Real-life dramas in uncharitable wards,” Women’s Feature Service, November 22, 2002,
available at http://cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2002_1122_03.htm (Last visited March 14, 2006); Junice
Melgar, Philippines: Barriers Impeding Reproductive Health and Rights, available at
http://www.remedios.com.ph/fhtml/mk1q2005_pbir.htm (Last visited March 14, 2006).
44
Department of Health, Prevention and Management of Abortion and Its Complications (PMAC),
Administrative Order No. 45-B, s2000, May 2, 2000.
45
The Committee , General Recommendation 24: Women and Health (20th sess.,1999), UN doc., para.6,
supra note 29.
46
Id.
47
Id.
48
University of the Philippines Population Institute, Youth and Adolescents Fertility Survey (YAFS), 2002.
See also Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) and Asian- Pacific Resource and Research Center for
Women (ARROW), Women of the World (WOW): Laws and Policies Affecting their Reproductive Lives
(East and Southeast Asia), New York, 2005 [hereinafter as CRR and ARROW, WOW East and Southeast
Asia 2005].
49
Id.
50
Id.
51
See CRR and ARROW, WOW East and Southeast Asia, 2005, supra note 48
52
2002 RTI/STI Prevalence Survey in Selected Sites in the Country.
53
October 2005 Monthly Update, HIV/AIDS Registry, National Epidemiology Center, 2005, available at
http://www.doh.gov.ph/NEC/hiv/oct_2005.pdf (last visited on March 15, 2006).
54
Marites Sison, “Younger Filipino women at risk from HIV/AIDS,” Inter Press Service, 31 May 2002
through CyberDyaryo, Manila, available at http://www.ips.org/index.htm (Last visited March 15, 2006).
55
Makati Health Program Guidelines, Nov. 23, 1989, issued by the Assistant Medical Director of the
Makati Health Program.
56
City of Makati, Office of the Makati Health Program, Policy for Issuance of Yellow Card dated July 23,
2001.
57
RRights Now! 2001.
17
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
58
The Committee, General Recommendation 19, Violence against Women, para.1.,U.N.Doc. No. A/47/38
(1992), available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom19
[hereinafter General Recommendation 19, Violence against Women] (last visited March 13, 2006).
59
Id., at para. 9.
60
Id.
61
National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW), VAW Statistics, Violent Crimes
Against Women and Children, available at http://www.ncrfw.gov.ph/vaw_watch/vaw_stats.htm (last
viewed Oct. 1, 2003).
62
Id.
63
Clara Rita Padilla, Philippine Submission to Equality Now Workshop on Litigating for Sex Equality
(June 9-11, 2001, Nairobi) (unpublished submission on file with the Center for Reproductive Rights)
[hereinafter Litigating for Sex Equality], at 18.
64
Women’s Legal Bureau, Women’s Health and the Law, 69-71.
65
Litigating for Sex Equality, supra note 62, at 18; See Sec. 6, RA 8505.
66
Litigating for Sex Equality, supra note 62, at 19.
67
Id., at 19.
68
See People v. Salarza, Jr., 277 SCRA 578 (Aug. 18, 1997) which held that "…Rape is a charge easy to
make, hard to prove and harder to defend by the party accused, though innocent. Experience has shown
that unfounded charges of rape have frequently been proferred by women actuated by some sinister,
ulterior or undisclosed motive….On more than one occasion it has been pointed out that in crimes against
chastity the testimony of the injured women should not be received with precipitate credulity."
69
Litigating for Sex Equality, supra note 62, at 19.
70
Child Maltreatment Medico-Legal Terminology and Interpretation of Medical Findings: A Consensus of
Medical and Legal Child Abuse Practitioners in the Philippines, Second Edition (2002), The Advisory
Board Foundation, Inc.
71
Id.
72
People v. Llanita, G.R. No. 134101 (September 5, 2001)
73
Alexander Martin Remollino, “Palit-bigas Prostitution,” Bulatlat on Tenaganita Website, October 2005,
available at http://geeklog.tenaganita.net/article.php?story=20051026001552759 (Last visited April 26,
2006).
74
Litigating for Sex Equality, supra note 63, at 20.
75
Clara Rita Padilla, “Rethinking Policies on Women.” Soroptimist Balita, Vol. 2, No.1, September 2005
[hereinafter Rethinking Policies on Women].
76
Id.
77
RA 9208, Section 17.
78
Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1516, S-2005, Section 6.
79
Gina Mission, “The Economic Cost of Violence Against Filipino Women,” CyberDyaryo, 20 May 1999,
available at http://gina.ph/CyberDyaryo/features/cd1999_0520_014.htm (Last visited April 26, 2006).
80
National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW), The State of Filipino Women 20012003, Chapter 3: Upholding Women’s Rights, NCRFW, at 27.
81
Id.
82
Id.
83
Rethinking Policies on Women, supra note 75.
84
The Committee, General Recommendation 21: Equality in Marriage and Family Relations, paragraph 36
on Art. 16 (2) (13th sess., 1994), UN doc., A/47/38 available at
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/7030ccb2de3baae5c12563ee00648f1f?Opendocument (Last
visited April 26, 2006) [hereinafter General Recommendation 21, Equality in Marriage and Family
Relations].
18
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
85
Id.
The Committee, General Recommendation 19; Violence against Women, para.11,U.N.Doc. No. A/47/38
(1992), available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom19
(last visited March 13, 2006); Articles 2 (f), 5 and 10 (c) of General Recommendation 19 states that
“[t]raditional attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate to men or as having stereotyped roles
perpetuate widespread practices involving violence or coercion, such as family violence and abuse, forced
marriage, dowry deaths, acid attacks and female circumcision....”
87 See General Recommendations 21, para.14, supra note 82.
88 Litigating for Sex Equality, supra note 63, at 16.
89 A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages.
90
Litigating for Sex Equality, supra note 63.
91
Id.
92
Rethinking Policies on Women, supra note 75.
93
Id.
94
Id.
95
Id.
96
The Revised Penal Code, Article 333.
97
Id at Art. 334.
98
Agence France-Presse, Sexual violence, abortion in the spotlight on Women's Day, Mar 08, 2006,
available at http://news.inq7.net/world/index.php?index=1&story_id=68774 (Last visited April 26, 2006).
99
There have been cases where Filipino lawyer Atty. Clara Rita A. Padilla has defended married women
against adultery cases that have been filed by the estranged husbands merely to harass or threaten these
women.
100
The Revised Penal Code, Article 351.
101
Executive Order (EO) No. 209 as amended by EO No. 227 The Family Code of the Philippines, Article
96 [hereinafter The Family Code].
102
The Family Code, Art. 211.
103
PD 1083, Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (1977) [hereinafter Muslim Code].
104
Id., Arts.16, paras 1-3; 27, 36 (2), (3); 71; 79.
105
Id., Art. 27. Art. 27 states “not withstanding the rule of Islamic law permitting a Muslim to have more
than one wife but not more than four at a time, no Muslim male can have more than one wife unless he can
deal with them with equal companionship and just treatment as enjoined by Islamic law and only in
exceptional cases.”
106
Id., Art. 16.
107
Id., Art. 16, para. 2.
108
Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML), “Philippines: Moro ethnic women speak out on sexual
violence in customary practices and traditions,” News and Views, February 17, 2005, available at
http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5B157%5D=x-157-119981 (Last visited March 13,
2006).
109
Muslim Code, Arts. 36 (2),(3); 71(1), supra note 103.
110
General Recommendation 21, Equality in Marriage and Family Relations, Comment No. 13 on Art. 16
Various forms of family, supra note 82.
111
Id. See e.g., Kyrgyzstan, 27/01/99, U.N. doc. A/54/38, par. 128.
112
Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1309, S-2003: An Ordinance Prohibiting All Acts of Discrimination
Directed Against Homosexuals in Any Office in Quezon City Whether in the Government or in the Private
Sector, and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof; effective March 26, 2004
86
19
EnGendeRights, Inc.
88-A Calumpit St., Veterans Village,
Quezon City, 1105, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 376-2578,
www.engenderights.org
113
Makati City Memorandum (August 16, 2000) cited in Clara Rita Padilla and Flordeliza C. Vargas,
“Lesbians and Philippine Law,” Women’s Journal on Law & Culture, July-December 2001, Vol. 1, No. 1,
at 61; The policy imposes a dress code for gay men working for the city government “prohibiting wearing
of girl’s attire by gay employees including putting on make-up and lipstick.”
114
Candice Cerezo, “Gay librarian throws the book at Miriam College”, The Manila Times, Saturday,
November 19, 2005, available at
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2005/nov/19/yehey/top_stories/20051119top7.html (Last visited
March 13, 2006).
20