7 accountability of public officials refusing to implement the [RPRHA].”67 During its national inquiry, the PCHR was able to document the harmful impact of EO 3 including the resulting unwanted pregnancies, “outright refusal to implement” the RPRHA, stigmatization of both clients and providers of modern contraceptives, “financial and psychological burden” on marginalized women, and misinformation about modern contraceptives.68 The PCHR recommended that Sorsogon City “recall its [EO 3] in view of its effect of de facto denial of women’s right to access the whole range of reproductive health services and information”69 and for the DoH to file an administrative case against the mayor for her refusal to implement the RPRHA.70 To date, no administrative case has been filed against the mayor of Sorsogon City by the DoH. Further, in its 2017 resolution on a letter-complaint against the Sorsogon City mayor filed by local civil society groups, the PCHR found that the mayor discriminated against women by issuing EO 3 in violation of CEDAW, RPRHA, and other national laws and policies. 71 The PCHR’s resolution has yet to attain finality on the ground that the mayor moved for its reconsideration in June 2018.72 However, given PCHR’s limited authority and the recommendatory nature of its findings, any finding of violation will ultimately neither hold the mayor administratively, civilly, or criminally liable nor ensure full accountability for the grave violations of reproductive rights committed in Sorsogon City. Proposed recommendation: Amend the RPRHA to allow the purchase and acquisition of emergency contraceptives by national hospitals and ensure that dedicated emergency contraceptives are available and accessible in all public and private health facilities to prevent early and unplanned pregnancies particularly for women and girls who are survivors of sexual violence as well as promote and raise awareness about the benefits of emergency contraceptives in such situations, particularly among adolescent girls. The discrimination against vulnerable groups of women is also apparent in the continued lack of access to emergency contraceptives, particularly for survivors of sexual violence. To prevent pregnancies in instances of unprotected sex, the 2014 Family Planning Manual of the DoH recommends the use of the levonorgestrel-only pill and Yuzpe method which consists of higher doses of regular combined oral contraceptive pills containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol.73 Studies found that the levonorgestrel-only pill is more effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and has fewer side effects compared to the Yuzpe method. 74 However, since 2016, the state party has not taken any step to re-list the levonorgestrel-only drug or repeal the provision under the RPRHA, which expressly prohibited national hospitals from purchasing or acquiring emergency contraceptives.75 As a result, women and girls in the Philippines, and particularly survivors of sexual violence, have no option but to use the Yuzpe method to prevent pregnancy.76 Recommendations on contraceptive access received by the state party since 2016. Since the Committee’s review in 2016, the state party has been urged by different bodies to improve access to reproductive health information and services, particularly contraceptives. The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ESCR Committee) has expressed its concern at the “high level of unwanted pregnancies and at the limited access to reproductive health information and services, including contraceptives, particularly among adolescents and women in rural areas, despite the [RPRHA].” 77 It further noted that the limited access to reproductive health information and services have been made worse by judicial orders, local executive orders such as those in Manila City and Sorsogon City, and the lack of access to emergency contraceptives.78 In 2017,