51 CEDAW Committee, Inquiry Report, supra note 4, para. 19. James M. Imbong and Lovely-Ann C. Imbong v Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 204819 (S.C., Apr. 8, 2014) (Phil.), available at http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_204819_2014.html [hereinafter Imbong v Ochoa]. 53 RPRHA, supra note 8, sec. 3(e). 54 Id., sec. 14. 55 Id., sec. 20. 56 Id., secs. 3(f), 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16. 57 Imbong v Ochoa, supra note 52. See also RPRHA, supra note 8, secs. 7, 17, 23. 58 CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 21: Equality in marriage and family relations (13th Sess., 1994), in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, at 89, para. 22, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (vol. II) (2008) [hereinafter CEDAW Committee, Gen. Recommendation No. 21]. 59 CEDAW Committee, Inquiry Report, supra note 4, para. 51 (l) (The Committee recommended that the State party ensure "[s]tate policies and legislation give priority to the protection of women's … sexual and reproductive health rights, over any religious postulates.") See also CEDAW Committee, Concluding Observations: Dominican Republic, para. 331, U.N. Doc. A/43/38 (1988) (The Committee considered that "an intermingling of the secular and religious spheres" is "a serious impediment to full implementation of the Convention"). 60 CEDAW Committee, Inquiry Report, supra note 4, paras. 52 (b) and (f). See also CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 24: Article 12 of the Convention (Women and Health), (20th Sess., 1999), in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, at 106, para. 11, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (vol. II) (2008) [hereinafter CEDAW Committee, Gen. Recommendation No. 24], ("It is discriminatory for a State party to refuse to legally provide for the performance of certain reproductive health services for women. For instance, if health service providers refuse to perform such services based on conscientious objection, measures should be introduced to ensure that women are referred to alternative health providers.") Also note that such provisions violate the obligations in the guidelines of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and the Philippine Obstetrical and Gynecological Society (POGS) to provide patients with accurate information about their reproductive health and rights and refer them to alternative providers in cases of conscientious objection. See FIGO, Rights-Based Code of Ethics. Professional and Ethical Responsibilities Concerning Sexual and Reproductive Rights, (Oct. 2003), para. A(5), available at http://www.figo.org/sites/default/files/uploads/wg-publications/wsrr/RightsBased_%20Code_of_Ethics_October%202003%20-%20Copy%20-%20Copy.pdf; POGS, Position Statement on the Proposed 2010 Reproductive Health Bills, at 2-3 (Dec. 14, 2010) available at http://www.pogsinc.org/files/pogs-position-statement-rhbill.pdf; POGS, Ethical guidelines in obstetrical and gynecological practice, medical education and research, at 17 (Nov. 2011) (copy on file with the Center). 61 Alliance For The Family Foundation Philippines, Inc. and Atty. Maria Concepcion S. Noche, et al., v Dr. Janette L. Garin, Secretary Designate of the Department of Health, et al., (T.R.O.), G.R. No. 217872, (S.C., June 17, 2015) available at http://alfi.org.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/SC-TRO-RHimplementation1.pdf [hereinafter T.R.O.]. See also Rina Jimenez-David, Continuing challenges to RH Law, INQUIRER.NET, July 3, 2015, http://opinion.inquirer.net/86366/continuing-challenges-to-rh-law; Jee Y. Geronimo, Supreme Court stops distribution, sale of implants, RAPPLER, June 30, 2015, http://www.rappler.com/nation/97983-sc-stopsdistribution-sale-implants. 62 T.R.O., supra note 61. 63 Department of Health, Creation of a National Implementation Team (NIT) and Regional Implementation Teams (RIT) for Republic Act 10354 (Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law of 2012), Administrative Order No. 2015-0002, (Jan. 26, 2015) (Phil.); Department of Health, Designation of the Members of the National Implementation Team (NIT) and for RA 10354 (Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law of 2012) created under Administrative Order No. 2015-0002, Department Personnel Order No. 2015-0200, (Jan. 21, 2015) (Phil.). 64 DOH, IMPLEMENTATION REPORT, supra note 50; RPRHA, supra note 8, sec. 21 (requiring the DOH to submit an annual report before the end of April of each year to the President and Congress). 65 RPRHA, supra note 8, sec. 22 (requiring the Congressional Oversight Committee to monitor and ensure effective implementation of the RPRHA). 66 DOH, IMPLEMENTATION REPORT, supra note 50, at 18. 67 Contraceptive budgets were cut in 2014, see e.g., Charissa Luci, Senate axing of P304-M contraceptives fund worries house chief, MANILA BULLETIN (Dec. 14, 2013), http://www.mb.com.ph/senate-axing-of-p304-mcontraceptives-fund-worries-house-chief/; Bicam OKs P2.264T nat'l budget for 2014, RAPPLER (Dec. 10, 2013), http://www.rappler.com/nation/45632-bicam-oks-p2-264t-national-budget-for-2014. 52 12