15 36 Id. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, PHILIPPINES STATISTICS AUTHORITY, NATIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC AND HEALTH SURVEY 2013, 72 (2013), available at https://bit.ly/2sTEZMF [hereinafter NDHS 2013]. 38 GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, PHILIPPINES STATISTICS AUTHORITY, NATIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC AND HEALTH SURVEY 2017, 15 (2017), available at https://bit.ly/2jhzVfR. 39 NDHS 2013, supra note 37 at 84. 40 NDHS 2017, supra note 38 at 20. 41 Id., at 19-20; see also NDHS 2013, supra note 37 at 72 (The 2013 NDHS showed that the total unmet need for family planning among currently married women aged 15-19 is 28.7% highest among all age groups (14/7% to 22.2%)). 42 NDHS 2017, supra note 38 at 20. 43 NDHS 2013, supra note 37 at 78. 44 NDHS 2017, supra note 38 at 18. 45 Republic of the Philippines, Department of Health, Meeting Minutes: National Implementation Team for the RPRH Law, 12 (2018), available at https://bit.ly/2t0qpSU. 46 NDHS 2013, supra note 37 at 53. 47 NDHS 2017, supra note 38 at 14. 48 See e.g. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 28: Equality of Rights between Men and Women (Art. 3) (68th Sess., 2000), at 168, para. 20, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.5 (2001); Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 22: The right sexual and reproductive health (Art. 12), paras. 43-44, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/22 (Vol. I) (2016) (The Committee has stated “[d]ecisions to have children or not…must not…be limited by spouse, parent, partner or Government.”); Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 20: on the implementation of the rights of the child during adolescence, paras. 39 & 59, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/20 (2016); Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 21: Equality in marriage and family relations (13th Sess., 1994), at 89, para. 22, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (vol. II) (2008); CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 24: Article 12 of the Convention (women and health), (20th Sess., 1999), para. 14, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. II) (2008). 49 Imbong v. Ochoa, supra note 26; See also RPRHA, supra note 10 at secs. 7, 17 (The Court only recognized two exceptions when parental consent will not be required (1) access to information (2) in emergency cases). 50 Imbong v. Ochoa, supra note 26. 51 Imbong v. Ochoa, supra note 26; See also RPRHA, supra note 10 at secs. 23; RH-IRR, secs. 16.01, 23 52 Imbong v. Ochoa, supra note 26. 53 LET OUR VOICES BE HEARD, supra note 11 at 23 & 30. 54 Id., at 11. 55 CEDAW, Concluding Observations: Hungary, paras. 30-31, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/HUN/CO/7-8 (2013). 56 CEDAW, Summary of the Inquiry, supra note 3 at para. 52. 57 Imbong v. Ochoa, supra note 26. See also RPRHA, supra note 10 at sec. 5. 58 Id. 59 Admin. Order No. 0027: Guidelines on the Registration and Mapping of Conscientious Objectors and Exempt Health Facilities Pursuant to the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act (June 2015), available at https://bit.ly/2HJ4cxY [hereinafter Admin. Order No. 0027]. 60 LET OUR VOICES BE HEARD, supra note 11 at 29. 61 Imbong v. Ochoa, supra note 26. 62 Id. 63 Admin. Order No. 0027, supra note 59. The Order defined “emergency” as a condition or state of a patient wherein based on the objective findings of a prudent medical officer on duty for the day there is immediate danger and where delay in initial support and treatment may cause loss of life or cause permanent disability to the patient. “Serious case” is defined under the same Order as a condition of a patient characterized by gravity or danger wherein based on the objective findings of a prudent medical officer on duty for the day when left unattended to, may cause loss of life or cause permanent disability to the patient. 64 Id. 65 Imbong v. Ochoa, supra note 26 (Penalties however remain for public officials who “prohibits or restricts the delivery of legal and medicallysafe reproductive health care services, including family planning; or forces, coerces or induces any person to use such services; or refuses to allocate, approve or release any budget for reproductive health care services”). See also RPRHA, supra note 10 at sec. 23. 66 Executive Order No. 3: An Executive Order declaring Sorsogon city as a pro-life city (February 2015) available at https://bit.ly/2t4Krf7. 67 LET OUR VOICES BE HEARD, supra note 11 at 29. 68 Id., at 9. 69 Id., at 32. 70 Id., at 29-30. 71 Philippine Commission on Human Rights Resolution, In the matter of the issuance of mayor Sally Lee of Executive Order No. 003, declaring Sorsogon City a “pro-life city”, the alleged effects thereof, and the violation of women’s rights to reproductive health, Case No. 2015-0411 available at https://bit.ly/2tV4v47. 72 Motion for Reconsideration (June 2018), In the matter of the issuance of mayor Sally Lee of Executive Order No. 003, declaring Sorsogon City a “pro-life city”, the alleged effects thereof, and the violation of women’s rights to reproductive health, Case No. 2015-0411. 73 Republic of the Philippines, Department of Health, The Philippine Clinical Standards Manual on Family Planning 2014 Edition, 232 (2014), available at https://bit.ly/2LHBZdp. 74 SM Lee, et al., Levonorgestrel versus the "Yuzpe" regimen. New choices in emergency contraception, 45 CANADIAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN 629-631 (1999) (Levonorgestrel prevented 85% of expected pregnancies while the Yuzpe method prevented only 57%); Farajkhoda T., et al., Assessment of two emergency contraceptive regimens in Iran: levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe. 12 NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE 4, 450-52 (2009) (The levonorgestrel regimen was found superior to Yuzpe because it is more effective [respectively 100% vs 91%, p=0.026] and has fewer side effects). 37