in violation of its obligations under article 5 in relation to articles 12 and 16, which require the state to eliminate gender stereotypes that impede equality in health care settings and in marriage and family relations, stating that the implementation of EOs 003 and 030 “incorporated and conveyed stereotyped images of women’s primary role as child bearers and child rearers.”64 The Committee noted that these stereotypes “contributed to the belief that it was acceptable to deny women access to modern methods of contraception.”65 Obligation to provide effective legal remedies for violations of women’s right to access sexual and reproductive health services (articles 2[c] and 12). Taking into account the state’s undue delay in the resolution of a petition first filed by Manila residents in 2008 seeking revocation of EO 003 [see box on the Osil case.], the Committee found that the Philippine government failed to comply with its obligation under article 2(c) to ensure effective judicial action and protection.66 Recalling CEDAW General Recommendation 28 in addition to CEDAW article 2(c), the Committee concluded that the Philippine state failed to create a system guaranteeing effective judicial remedies and protection in cases of human rights violations experienced by women in Manila as a result of the implementation of E0 003.67 Obligation to secure women’s right to make informed decisions on the number and spacing of their children (article 16[1][e]). The Committee found the Philippine government in violation of its obligation under article 16(1)(e) because of its failure to provide information, services, and the necessary means for women to exercise their autonomy and make informed decisions on the number and spacing of their children.71 Women’s right to decide freely and responsibly on matters affecting their bodies was rendered futile by the local government’s exclusive support for natural family planning and its denial of access to information on modern contraceptive methods.72 I learned about the EO in 2000 when I went to the health center to get pills. The doctor said, “Bawal na ang contraceptives kasi prolife na si mayor. Kasi pinapatay [ng family planning] ang bata.” [Contraceptives are banned because the mayor is now pro-life. It (family planning) kills the baby.] —Tina, 36 years old, mother of eight Osil v. Office of the Mayor of the City of Manila In January 2008, a petition was filed before the Court of Appeals to obtain redress for violations of reproductive rights committed under EO 003, with an application for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the occurrence of new violations. The petition was filed by 20 male and female poor residents of Manila who had been denied access to the full range of contraceptive services and information, particularly modern methods of contraception such as condoms, pills, and intrauterine devices. Because the petitioners relied on public health services, the lack of access to contraceptive services and information resulted in harm to their lives and health and exacerbated their economic hardship. The lead petitioner in the case, Lourdes Osil, had given birth to two children prior to the adoption of EO 003; after EO 003 went into effect, denying her contraceptive information and services, she ultimately had five more unplanned pregnancies.68 The subsequent strain on her family, as with many families throughout the city, was immense, leading her and her husband to file this case.69 However, their efforts to effectively exercise the right to access available legal remedies have been undermined and unduly delayed. The Court of Appeals, instead of acting within the 24-hour period prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, acted on the petition only after three months. In May 2008, the case was dismissed on procedural grounds without a hearing. A motion for reconsideration was denied in August 2008. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed their case in October 2008 on the grounds that one of the petitioners had failed to sign the petition. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case regarding the 19 petitioners who had signed the petition. A motion for reconsideration The Committee also found that the Philippines’ violations of women’s rights protected under CEDAW were grave and systematic. The Committee highlighted the gravity of the violations by pointing out that the inadequate access to modern methods of contraception, as a result of EOs 003 and 030, was experienced by thousands of women of childbearing age and contributed to higher rates of unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions, increased maternal mortality and morbidity, and greater exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.73 The Committee also found that the severe consequences of the EOs not only affected women’s health and lives but also hampered their personal development and economic security, contributed to female poverty, and affected the exercise of other rights set forth under CEDAW, such as those related to education and employment.74 In finding that the violations were systematic, the Committee observed the “presence of a significant and persistent pattern of acts which do not result from a random occurrence.”75 The Committee found that the state party condoned, for more than 12 years, the discriminatory policies in Manila under two different mayors.76 The Committee stated that EO 003 deliberately seeks to deprioritize women’s well-being and that its continued implementation has “resulted in the health system’s incapacity to deliver sexual and reproductive health services other than ‘natural family planning’ and caused women to continuously face significant barriers to accessing affordable sexual and reproductive health services, commodities and information.”77 was denied in December 2008. In April 2009, the case was refiled before the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC). In 2010, the Philippine Commission on Human Rights issued a statement urging the Manila City government to revoke EO 003 and apologize for the harm caused under the order, and called on the RTC to consider the government’s human rights obligations under CEDAW in deciding the Osil case.70 A motion to dismiss filed by the City of Manila before the RTC was denied only after almost three years from the petition’s date of filing. A second motion to dismiss was granted in October 2014—twenty months after its filing in the RTC. The court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it had become moot and academic because of the passage of the national reproductive health law. The delays experienced in Osil led the CEDAW Committee to conclude that the Philippine government failed and is unwilling to provide effective judicial protection and effective judicial remedies for human rights violations in Manila. 8 CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY FOR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN IN THE PHILIPPINES 9