groups and local government units have used this ruling to justify their selective implementation of  the RH Law, which in effect, discriminated against women, especially the poor.    The case of the LGUs of Manila and Sorsogon are examples. In both LGUs, the mayors refused to  support modern forms of family planning and promoted only the “natural” family planning  methods. This stance was institutionalized in local ordinances: the Executive Order 2004-003 in  Manila, which was reaffirmed by the succeeding Manila administration in Executive Order 2007-030;  and Executive Order No. 3 in Sorsogon City enacted in 2015.     While the sale of contraceptives wee not banned in the areas, the free or subsidized distribution of  these was stopped in publicly funded facilities and community-based centers. Furthermore, health  workers were instructed to only provide information on family planning methods endorsed by the  Catholic church; in Sorsogon the CHR also found out that the LGU workers engaged in deliberate  misinformation on possible the side effects of using condoms, contraceptive pills, injections,  intra-uterine devices and the like, that is, circulation of pseudo-scientific and non-conclusive medical  research information aimed to discourage the use of contraceptives.     The 2016 CHR fact-finding mission in Sorsogon also noted that income poor women, who are  supposed to be the target of the LGU welfare services, do not all agree with the “pro-life” RH  policy of their LGU. Instead, many reported that this has added to their burden, as they now have to  go to commercial pharmacies in the city center to purchase contraceptives in pharmacies at a much  higher price. On the part of the health workers, not all of them are fully convinced that they should  only promote natural family planning methods but they comply out of fear of possible sanctions,  including losing their jobs. Others continued to give modern family planning information, and  products (when these are available) to women in secret.     This situation in Manila is similar, as reported by the CEDAW Committee fact-finding team in 2015.  The Committee report also noted that legal challenges has been filed against the city executive order  against contraceptives and modern family planning methods between 2008 to 2012, yet as of the  62 time of their writing, these have been unsuccessful and inconclusive.     In its communication to the Philippine government on its findings, the CEDAW Committee  reiterated its General Recommendation No. 28 (2010) in relation to the State obligations in the  63 context of decentralized and devolved powers. To quote:     The decentralization of power, through devolution and delegation of Government powers in both  unitary and federal States, does not in any way negate or reduce the direct responsibility of the State  party’s national or federal Government to fulfill its obligations to all women within its jurisdiction.  Furthermore, there must be safeguards to ensure that decentralization or devolution does not lead to  discrimination with regard to the enjoyment of rights by women in different regions. Effective  implementation of the Convention requires that a State party be accountable to its citizens and other  members of its community at both the national and international levels. In order for this  62 63 CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1   Ibid  21 RH Situationer: Phlippines (November 2017)