RPRHA and demonstrate the state party’s continued violation of its obligation to fulfill women’s right to health and other human rights through the allocation of adequate resources.25 Response of state party. The state party, in its reply to the LOIs, indicated that a total of Php 2.275 billion has been allocated to implement the RPRHA and that “[m]ore than 75% (P1.67 B) of allocation will go to procurement of family planning commodities.”26 Huge budget cut for purchase of contraceptive supplies and devices. The state party’s response does not provide a full and accurate description of the budgetary measures adopted for the implementation of the RPRHA. The state party has made two major budget cuts for contraceptive supplies since the Committee’s inquiry in 2012. In 2014, the state party introduced a cut in the amount of over Php 300 million (approximately USD 6 million).27 Then in the 2016 national budget, the state party cut over a billion Philippine pesos (approximately USD 20 million) from the DoH’s budget that was allocated for contraceptive supplies and devices.28 Comparing the 2015 and 2016 budgets for the allocation for family health and responsible parenting, the amount allocated went down from Php 3.274 billion (approximately USD 70 million) in 2015 to Php 2.275 billion in 2016 (approximately USD 48 million).29 While the state party indicated in its reply to the LOIs this same amount for 2016, it failed to reveal that the approved budget was the result of a significant decrease in the proposed budgetary allocation for the implementation of the RPRHA. As raised in our pre-session letter, these budget cuts have had a disproportionate and detrimental impact on poor women who rely on the public health system for contraceptive services—in 2013, it was estimated that over 11 million women of reproductive age were dependent on the state party's provision of free contraceptives, which reflects an increase since 2008.30 In addition to budget cuts, contraceptive access has suffered due to the state party’s inability to manage funds. As admitted by the DoH, it has encountered issues in the utilization of financial resources. It has been “unable to fully utilize its allocated budget for [2015] and was only able to obligate 78% of its budget”31 because “procurement of commodities…was put on hold” by the temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court in June 2015, which is further discussed below. 32 3. Please include information on steps taken to implement the following recommendations: … (ii) amend articles 256 to 259 of the Criminal Code in order to legalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, threat to the life and /or health of the mother, or serious malformation of the foetus…. As discussed in more depth in our pre-session letter, the state party has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world imposing a criminal ban on abortion with no clear exceptions. Notwithstanding the ban, abortion is common and the latest estimates show an increase in its incidence—an estimated 610,000 induced, and potentially unsafe,