Response of the state party. In its reply to the LOIs, the state party pointed out the steps taken by the DoH to improve women’s access to contraceptives and post-abortion care which include: (1) allocation of Php 596 million (USD 12.8 million) for family planning commodities; (2) drafting of “guidelines for benefit packages and reimbursements for the use of various family planning methods”; (3) “[conduct of] capacity building activities for health workers”; and (4) creation of a “[technical working group] to review the draft enhanced Prevention and Management of Abortion Complications (PMAC) Guidelines.”45 Judicial orders preventing access to the full range of contraceptive information and services. While the MCW and RPRHA guarantees women’s right to reproductive health services including universal access to the full range of contraceptives, 46 the implementation of these laws has been delayed by several judicial orders. As raised in our pre-session letter, the Supreme Court’s decision in Imbong v. Ochoa declared unconstitutional several key provisions of the RPRHA protecting adolescent girls’ access to contraception such that all minors, including those who have already experienced pregnancy, must secure parental consent to access modern contraceptives and a married individual must secure spousal consent to undergo ligation or vasectomy.47 Further, the Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order (TRO) issued in June 2015 remains in effect which prohibits the DoH from “procuring, selling, distributing, dispensing or administering, advertising and promoting the hormonal contraceptives ‘Implanon’ and ‘Implanon NXT’”48 and the Philippine Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from “granting any and all pending applications for registration and/or recertification for reproductive products and supplies, including contraceptive drugs and devices”.49 Since the pre-session, the TRO remains in effect despite the comment filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of the DoH praying for it to be lifted.50 As noted earlier, this TRO has contributed to the under-utilization of the 2015 budget for contraceptive services. In January 2016, the state party through the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) issued a circular introducing a benefit package paid at Php 3,000 (approximately USD 65) per case of subdermal contraceptive implant use inclusive of consultation and counseling, professional fee, and use of facility, medicine and supplies and follow-up services.51 The circular covers only subdermal contraceptive implants that are included in the Philippine National Formulary (PNF).52 As a result of the 2015 TRO, this means that the drug “etonorgestrel” is the only available subdermal implant. 53 Further, the availability of the package is limited to private hospitals, ambulatory surgical clinics and birthing homes.54 Failure to restore access to emergency contraceptives. As discussed in more depth in our pre-session letter, there is a high incidence of sexual violence within the state party and access to emergency contraceptives (EC) is essential to prevent unintended pregnancies particularly in cases of sexual violence. Postinor, an internationally recognized EC, was delisted by the FDA from the Philippine registry of drugs in 2001.55 Notwithstanding the Committee’s recommendations to restore access to EC based on the