a. Abuse and discrimination against women seeking post-abortion care Despite recommendations in the Inquiry Report, the Philippines has continuously failed to ensure that women experiencing abortion-related complications are not reported to the law enforcement authorities, threatened with arrest, subjected to physical or verbal abuse, discrimination, and delays in access to or denial of care. Testimonies gathered since the inquiry visit show that when post-abortion care treatment is sought, instead of receiving dignified humane care, women continue to suffer punishment by neglect, 125 by delay in receiving treatment,126 or by denial of treatment entirely.127 b. Lack of access to misoprostol (Cytotec) Misoprostol, known in the Philippines more popularly as “Cytotec,” has been classified as an essential medicine by the World Health Organisation for the prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage, management of incomplete abortion and miscarriage, induction of labor, and medical abortion.128 However, contrary to the Committee’s recommendations and because of strong opposition to the drug’s use as an abortifacient, misoprostol has remained an unregistered product for over a decade in the country. 129 The FDA 130 through a circular released in 2002, 131 advised that the manufacture, importation, sale or distribution of misoprostol is a violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.132 Since the inquiry visit, the state party has not taken any step to withdraw the circular and reintroduce misoprostol. While the RPRHA allow lifesaving drugs such as oxytocin, magnesium sulphate, antenatal steroids and antibiotics to prevent and manage pregnancyrelated complications,133 misoprostol remains unavailable. IV. Access to Justice (Arts. 2(c), 12) Following its inquiry visit, the Committee found that the state party failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 2(c) and 12 of the Convention to provide effective legal remedies for violations of women’s right to access sexual and reproductive health services,134 in particular, due to the state party’s undue delay in the resolution of the Osil case.135 The Inquiry Report recommended that the state “ensure that the courts adjudicate on cases involving women’s sexual and reproductive health rights without undue delay; and remove the barriers that women are facing in accessing justice.”136 The Committee also urged the state party to ensure effective reporting procedures and complaints mechanisms are available for women to complain about abuse and discrimination without fear of retaliation in the context of post-abortion care.137 In addition, the Committee recommended broadening the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to receive and investigate complaints on violations of reproductive rights and to ensure women’s access to effective legal remedies.138 a. Dismissal of Osil case Legal cases before the Philippine courts on reproductive rights have been subject to significant delays and procedural irregularities. By way of example, in the Osil case (discussed further on p. 3), residents of Manila launched a lawsuit against the Office of the Mayor of Manila in January 2008, claiming that EO 003 violated their reproductive rights and seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality and its revocation. 139 The Inquiry Report concluded that “the judicial process has been unduly delayed, thereby undermining the effectiveness of available remedies,”140 demonstrating that the state party had “failed to put in place a system to ensure effective judicial protection and to provide effective judicial remedies for human rights violations.” 141 Since the inquiry visit, after a substantial delay of more than 6 years and a number of procedural irregularities 142 , the action was dismissed in October 2014. 143 The 8