CEDAW/C/SR.37 English Page 2 1'he ffie e~ ing was colled to order at 3. 20 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS AND INFORMA'rION SllliMITTBD BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 18 OF THE OJNVENTION (continued) (CEDAW/C/5/Add.6 and Add.13) Initial report of the Philippines {CBDAW/C/5/Add.6) {continued) 1. Ms. GONZALEZ MARTINEZ said that the Philippines had resolutely participated in activities aimed at achieving equality for women and their incorporation in the development process. The unfortunate observations of the Permanent Representative of the Philippines stood in contrast to those activities, presumably because they had been made in a personal and not an official capacity. 2. Ms. BERNARD associated herself with the views expressed by previous speakers. She believed that Ambassador Moreno Salcedo had spoken in a personal capacity a~ that his words showed how some men in the Philippines thought. 3. Ms. BIRYUKOVA said that many questions had remained unanswered, especially those relating to the different treatment accorded to men and to women, particularly with regard to family law and equal pay for equal work. It was clear that, in the Philippines, the Convention was not being implemented fully. Ambassador Moreno Salcedo could not have been speaking in a personal capacity, because he had appeared before the Corrunittee as the representative of a State. In his statement, he had made it clear that, in practice, a discriminatory situation existed with regard to women. He had said that women did not occupy high-ranking posts, because, if they did, they would lose their femininity. That statement was offensive to women holding high office. It was a question of a lack of respect for the members of the Co!lllnittee and for women in general. After hearing the statement of the representative of the Philippines, one might conclude that many of the provisions of the Convention were not being implemented in practice in that country. 4. Ms. PEYTCHEVA asked whether the Philippines was a party to the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, and, if the answer was in the affirmative, she would like to know exactly what had been the date of ratification. 5. Ms. ILIC said that the statements of Ambassador Moreno Salcedo had plunged the Corranittee into confusion and perplexity, because they contrasted greatly with the efforts of Philippine women to achieve equality. 6. Ms. ESCUDERO ?4>SOJSO said that the report of the Philippines contained reliable information. The technique used for gathering information, which gave an exact idea of what provisions had been adq>ted for the protection of women, was unusual. 7. Ms. EL-FETOUH said that she agreed with the CO!lllnents of previous speakers corx:erning the statement of Ambassador Moreno Salcedo. She found a contradiction between his statement that there were no laws for the protection of women but that that lack was rnade good by custom and the statement of the representative of the I ...