Continued implementation of a similar executive order effectively banning modern methods of contraception. The state party’s report and its replies to the LOIs failed to raise and discuss Sorsogon City’s EO 3, 13 which effectively banned modern contraceptives in all local health care facilities. EO 3 which declared Sorsogon City as “pro-life”, was introduced by its mayor in February 2015, despite being in direct contravention of the RPRHA and the Magna Carta of Women (MCW) which guarantee women’s right to the full range of contraceptive information and services. 14 The continuous implementation of Sorsogon City’s EO 3 enjoined the local city health office to return modern contraceptive supplies distributed by the DoH.15 Further, even nurses under the DoH’s Nurse Deployment Project16 who are trained to provide family planning services are not allowed to provide modern contraceptives inside local health facilities located in Sorsogon City.17 Efforts by the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW),18 CHR,19 and DoH20 to call the attention of the local government of Sorsogon to restore access to modern contraceptives have so far been ineffective. As of late May 2016, a complaint lodged against the mayor of Sorsogon City by civil society groups before the CHR was still pending resolution. Despite the reproductive rights violations resulting from the implementation of EO 3, Sorsogon City’s EO was described by the head of the regional office of the DILG, as “simply a positive avowal on how the state values dignity of every human person and how it respect human rights. . . .[and] a mere reaffirmation of the…pertinent provisions of the Philippine Constitution on the protection of life of both the mother and her unborn from conception and nothing in the said declaration seems to be violative of any law.”21 As such, the DILG held Sorsogon City’s EO to be lawful and not inconsistent with any laws and policies. Absence of monitoring mechanism. In December 2015, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) issued a memorandum imposing an annual reporting requirement from LGUs to the DILG of local accomplishments in the implementation of the RPRHA.22 The memorandum also provided that, “all local government units (LGUs) may enact enabling ordinances, issuances, and policies to support and institutionalize the implementation of the [RPRHA] … [which] should be expedient and not contrary to the principles and provisions of the [RPRHA]. . . .”23 While the DILG reminded LGUs to ensure consistency of local ordinances with the RPRHA, it remains unclear how the state party, particularly the DILG, will ensure that local laws and policies inconsistent with the RPRHA such as Manila City's and Sorsogon City’s EOs are not enacted and if so, immediately revoked. This scenario is particularly problematic since, as noted above, the DILG did not find any violation resulting from the issuance of Sorsogon City’s EO. 2. Please indicate the budget allocated to women’s health and measures taken to ensure access to health services for all women The Committee, as a result of the inquiry, recommended that the state party ensure “adequate provision in national and local government budgets for a sufficient supply of such contraceptive methods in all public health facilities.”24 As noted in our pre-session submission, budget cuts since 2012 have severely undermined the implementation of the