138 Id., para. 51 (g). Lourdes E. Osil et al. v Office of the Mayor of the City of Manila et al., Court of Appeals, Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (Apr. 4, 2009) (copy of petition on file with the Center). 140 CEDAW Committee, Inquiry Report, supra note 4, paras. 20, 44. 141 Id., para. 45. 142 Id., para. 44; Shadow Letter, supra note 3, para. 35; CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, LOURDES OSIL V MAYOR OF MANILA: ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION IS A HUMAN RIGHT, 6 (2010). 143 Osil v Manila, RTC, supra note 41, at 8, 13. A judge determined that the case was "a moot point" following the passage of RPRHA and the Imbong v Ochoa case. 144 State party Report, supra note 1, para. 27. 145 MCW, supra note 8, sec. 40. 146 COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, GENDER OMBUD GUIDELINES, 23-32, 93 (2015) (Phil.). 147 IRR, supra note 9, secs. 4.07, 5.26. 148 DOH, IMPLEMENTATION REPORT, supra note 50, at 109. The report provides that, as of Apr. 2015, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) circular addressed to all DILG field units and LGUs emphasizing the need for each LGU to designate a Reproductive Health Officer (RHO) is still awaiting the signature of the DILG Secretary. 149 An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991, Rep. Act No. 7160, sec. 3(j) (1991) (Phil.). 150 CEDAW Committee, Inquiry Report, supra note 4, sec. 24. 151 Id., paras. 51 (g), (h). 152 During an event organized by the Center in June 2015 attended by government representatives, several government officials learned for the first time that Sorsogon City had issued an EO similar to that of the City of Manila. 139 16