more than doubling in the period 2002 to 2013.29 In particular, the number of adolescents who have begun childbearing in the National Capital Region, where the City of Manila is located, has also increased from 18% in 2008 to 24% in 2013.30 As pointed out by the Committee, the worst affected section of the population is women of limited or no financial means who are being driven further into poverty as a result of being deprived of the opportunity to control the number and spacing of children.31 Prior to the inquiry, the Committee had expressed concern about women’s restricted access to contraceptive information and services. In its 2006 Concluding Comments, the Committee called on the state party “[to make] a comprehensive range of contraceptives more widely available and without any restriction and by increasing knowledge and awareness about family planning.”32 The Committee urged the state party to “give priority attention to the situation of adolescents and [to] provide sex education, targeted at girls and boys, with special attention to the prevention of early pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.” 33 a. Local laws and policies effectively banning modern contraceptives As noted in the introduction, the Committee has found that local laws such as EO 003 and EO 030 in the City of Manila effectively created a “ban on modern methods of contraception in all public health facilities run by the Manila local government” 34 amounting to “grave and systematic” violations of the Convention.35 The Committee called on the state party to ensure that EO 003 and EO 030 are “officially revoked” 36 and to “address the unmet need for contraception, especially in the City of Manila.” 37 As the Committee has pointed out, decentralization should not be permitted to allow violations of women’s rights 38 and has recommended that effective oversight mechanisms be established to ensure the accountability of local government units (LGUs).39 Since the Committee's inquiry, the City of Manila, and the state party more generally, have not addressed these clear violations. 40 The legal status of EO 003 and EO 030 has not been clarified and the Philippine courts have refused to revoke the orders thus undermining the Committee's recommendations. In 2014, after significant delays and procedural irregularities, the Regional Trial Court of Manila dismissed Osil v Office of the Mayor of the City of Manila (Osil case), a lawsuit brought by residents of Manila seeking to overturn EO 00341 (please see p. 8 for more information on this case in the context of lack of access to judicial remedies). The state party's continued lack of oversight of LGUs is especially problematic because, as indicated in the state party report,42 at least 30 LGUs in the Philippines have already adopted reproductive health measures, some of which are also restrictive of and incompatible with women's reproductive rights. Most notably, since the inquiry visit and despite the protections of the RPRHA, Sorsogon City enacted an executive order declaring the city as pro-life43 and similar to the EOs in Manila, this measure has resulted in a de facto ban of modern methods of contraception in all public health centers. 44 Indeed, there is still no publicly available information on the creation of a monitoring system by the state party to ensure that local laws and policies do not violate national laws and international human rights standards. b. Actions undermining the guarantees in the MCW and RPRHA The Committee’s Inquiry Report notes the government’s “serious lapse” in implementation of the legal framework for reproductive health established by the MCW,45 and calls on the state party to “fully enforce the MCW and its Implementing Rules and Regulations,”46 to “ensure immediate implementation of the [RPRHA]”47 and to complete, without delay, the review of the remaining discriminatory laws in the field of reproductive health.48 3