ii. Effects of failure to implement the RPRHA The delays in determining the legality of the RPRHA have had a number of follow-on effects. By way of example, the members of the National Implementation Team (the body tasked with managing the implementation of RPRHA) were only appointed following an order issued in January 2015 by the DOH—9 months after the Court’s decision in Imbong v Ochoa and more than 2 years from the enactment of the RPRHA.63 While the National Implementation Team has already submitted its 2015 annual consolidated report to the Congressional Oversight Committee, 64 there is no publicly available information on any steps taken by the latter to monitor and ensure the implementation of the law.65 Further, the DOH has publicly acknowledged that the suspension imposed by the Court also restricted access to financing for the implementation of the RPRHA.66 Recent budget cuts for contraceptives by the Senate have also undermined the implementation of the RPRHA.67 For 2016, it is unclear whether adequate financial resources for the full implementation of the RPRHA will be allocated in the Php128.4 billion (approximately USD2.6 billion) proposed budget of the DOH.68 c. Delisting of emergency contraception The Committee has long stressed that emergency contraception (EC) should be provided by states parties as part of the full range of contraceptives available to women69 as referenced under Article 12.70 In the Inquiry Report, the Committee noted the “prohibition of emergency contraception”71 which came into effect when Postinor, an internationally recognized EC, was delisted by the FDA from the Philippine registry of drugs in 2001.72 The Committee has urged the Philippines to reintroduce EC,73 stressing that the Philippines needs to address the “unmet need for contraception”, including EC,74 and that EC needs to be reintroduced in order to “prevent early and unplanned pregnancies and in cases of sexual violence.”75 Data available after the inquiry visit shows that over 10,000 women aged 15-49 have ever experienced sexual violence76 with a higher incidence among women who have 5 or more children compared to women with fewer children, or no children.77 The Committee also recommended that the state party “raise awareness about the benefits” of EC78 and has found that failure to provide information about modern contraceptives and their use also “violates article 10 (h) of the Convention, which requires states parties to provide access to health-related education, including information and advice on family planning.”79 The latest state party statistics indicate that only 15% of currently married women have heard of the existence of EC.80 Despite the Committee’s recommendations in its Inquiry Report81 to relist Postinor, the FDA has not taken any step to relist the drug. In 2012, the RPRHA was enacted which expressly prohibits national hospitals from purchasing or acquiring EC.82 Since the publication of the inquiry findings, the state has not taken any steps to amend this ban and relist Postinor or any other EC method. d. Lack of access to comprehensive sex education In its Inquiry Report, the Committee called on the state party to ensure “the availability, accessibility and affordability of reproductive health services”, 83 including access to education, 84 and to strengthen existing mechanisms to ensure implementation of national policies.85 As noted by the Committee, the state party has been unable to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1)(e) to provide access to information and Article 5 to eliminate gender stereotypes86 and has recommended that the action be taken to integrate age-appropriate sex 5