CHAPTER 6 GENDER OMBUD CASES T his chapter features select cases involving various forms of gender-based violence and discrimination filed with the Commission on Human Rights in 2016. a Petition for Certiorari, thereby cutting off further legal intervention on the case. RESOLVED CASES In 2014, a complainant sought the assistance of the Regional Office II due to the refusal of a state university to rehire her as a contractual faculty member in its College of Business Administration because of pregnancy. The Regional Office II, assisted her in drafting a complaint which was filed with the office of the Ombudsman without prejudice to the investigation of the case by the Regional Office. While the investigation of her case was on-going, the case filed by the Office of the Ombudsman was forwarded to the PCW which the latter forwarded to the CHR. By this time, the Regional Office concluded its investigation and found out that the officials of the state university violated the MCW. The invetigation findings was released in 2015 and the complainant was assisted in refiling her case with the Office of the Ombudsman in 2016. CHR X: VIOLATION OF CEDAW, ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW Sometime in 2013 the Regional Office X, provided legal assistance in a discrimination case committed against a minor. The child was forced to wear a curtain by a school principal as punishment for wearing shorts in shool instead of the required skirt uniform for girls. With the assistance of the CHR, a child abuse complaint was filed in court against the principal. In 2016, after almost three years since its filing, the court dismissed the case. The court agreed with the principal that it was too early for the child to engage in such “proclivities”. The CHR Regional Office X aided the complainant in filing a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) but the same was dismissed. Moreover, the copy of the denial of the MR was only received by the CHR and the complainants after the 60-day filing period for CHR II: VIOLATION OF MCW, DISMISSAL DUE TO PREGNANCY The Office of the Ombudsman directed the respondents to comment on the complaint. Most of them denied administrative liability stating that the