dismissal of the case leaves the women of Manila without any redress for their reproductive rights violations and the absence of an express declaration of unconstitutionality of the order caused uncertainty and confusion on its validity among local health care providers and community women who continue to suffer the effects of the ban. b. Absence of a complaints mechanism for reproductive rights violations Since the inquiry visit, there continues to be a lack of effective mechanisms for redress for women who have suffered violations of their reproductive rights. While the MCW strengthened the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW)144 and the MCW provides that the CHR will act as the Gender and Development Ombud with a mandate to monitor compliance with the MCW,145 it remains to be seen as to whether the CHR will implement its own Gender Ombud Guidelines146 in conjunction with its mandate under the Philippine Constitution to issue Advisories on the state party’s compliance with CEDAW and the state party’s action and responses including on the inquiry, and whether the CHR will investigate complaints on reproductive rights violations. Furthermore, while the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the RPRHA provide for the designation of Reproductive Health Officers (RHOs) who can receive complaints in all facilities within the service delivery network,147 it is also uncertain to what extent RHOs have been designated and are functioning in all LGUs to receive complaints on reproductive rights violations.148 c. Absence of monitoring and oversight mechanism During the inquiry, the Committee found that mechanisms, as required under the Local Government Code149 have not been sufficiently established to ensure that “decentralization…to the local level in the health sector does not lead to discrimination with regard to the enjoyment of rights under the Convention….” 150 In its Inquiry Report, the Committee urged the Philippines to reduce the negative impact of decentralization through the establishment of monitoring and oversight mechanisms to ensure LGUs' strict compliance with international standards.151 However since the inquiry visit, as mentioned on page [3], there continues to be the lack of effective monitoring and oversight mechanism, evidenced by the recent executive order in Sorsogon City declaring the city as pro-life, which was not immediately reviewed and revoked for being a discriminatory policy notwithstanding the enactment of RPRHA mandating universal access to the full range of contraceptive information and services.152 V. Suggested Questions for the List of Issues In light of the above, the undersigned organizations respectfully request that the Committee consider addressing the following questions to the state party concerning implementation of the Committee’s past recommendations: 1. What steps has the state party taken to ensure women’s access to the full range of contraceptive information and services, including by ensuring the monitoring, oversight, and repeal of discriminatory local ordinances such as City of Manila EOs 003 and 030 as well as the Sorsogon EO? What steps has the state party taken to lift the Supreme Court’s TRO issued in June 2015 restricting access to certain hormonal contraceptives? 2. What measures has the state party taken to withdraw the FDA circular delisting Postinor and to reintroduce and relist EC in particular to prevent early and unplanned pregnancies and in cases of sexual violence? 3. What efforts has the Philippines taken to implement the Committee’s recommendation to legalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, threats to the life 9