accountability function to work effectively, appropriate mechanisms and institutions must be put in    place.     While the CEDAW Committee noted the country has safeguards and oversight mechanisms in place  to protect the welfare of all Filipino women by way laws such as the Local Government Code, the  Magna Carta of Women and the RH Law, what seemed to be lacking is an effective monitoring  64 system to ensure that there are no contradictions between national and local policies and programs.     Unethical Practices of Health Service Providers    The CHR noted some of the unethical practices of health workers with regard RH service delivery:    ● giving of biased or misleading information regarding reproductive health, family planning or  contraceptive use  ● requiring “donations” from women in exchange for family planning supplies which were  supposed to be given for free  ● mistreating women seeking post-abortion care   ● delaying or refusing health services to women for various reasons, including their lack of  records or documentary requirements and limited capacity to pay.     Socio-Cultural Appropriateness of Services Offered     The situated character of health implies that national policies regarding reproductive health and  rights can only provide a guide for the minimum standard for its fulfillment among the diverse  groups in the country. This point, however, gets lost when people on the ground adopt a rigid stance  in implementing the law with little regard to the socio-cultural and economic context of the  population they serve. A case to point is the so-called banning of home-births. While the DOH itself  has said that it had not issued such policy, its instruction for community-based health workers to  strongly encourage mothers to give birth in medical facilities or to be attended to by a professional  65 health worker, was translated as such. The result was further burdening of income-poor mothers,  including the financial costs of professional medical services and the reprimand they receive from  health workers when they are not able to comply with the minimum number of check ups. The  IBON also documented that some municipalities impose fines or additional birth registration fees  66 when they find out that the woman gave birth at home. Similarly, the “poorest of the poor”, who  64 In its assessment, the Philippines as a State party to the UN CEDAW has gravely violated CEDAW Article 12 as read  alone; Article 12 in relation to Article 2(c), (d) and (f), and with Article 5 and Article 10(h); and Article16(1)(e) in view of  the scale, prevalence, nature and impact of the violations found. (CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1)  65 Although there is no DOH policy explicitly banning home births, IBON points out that there is the Administrative  Order 2008-0029 on MNCHN (the formal title of the AO is “Implementing Health Reforms for the Rapid Reduction of  Maternal and Neonatal Mortality”) and its Manual of Operations (published in 2011) that prohibits the practice of  traditional birth attendants (TBAs) assisting childbirths, even if these TBA were trained by the government. The  continued enforcement of this AO is de facto the “no home birthing” policy. Retrieved from  http://ibon.org/2016/03/no-home-birthing-policy-burden-to-filipino-mothers/​)  66 There are municipalities which impose fines for its violations such as Juban in Sorsogon (PhP 3,000 on second  offense), Batad in Iloilo (PhP 500), and Bulalacao (2,500) and Bongabong (PhP 1,500) in Oriental Mindoro (IBON 2016;  see also the CHR report on its National Inquiry on Reproductive Health (2016) ).   22 RH Situationer: Phlippines (November 2017)