OVERVIEW OF GENDER RIGHTS IN 2016 unequal power relations between men and women tracing the history of VAW as historically sanctioned in many societies; (b) women are the usual and most likely victims of violence; and (c) the existence of gender bias and prejudice in society. Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that the enactment of R.A. 9262 aims to address the discrimination brought about by biases and prejudices against women and that, as emphasized by the CEDAW Committee, addressing or correcting discrimination through specific measures focused on women does not discriminate against men. The Supreme Court, in upholding the law’s constitutionality, reiterated Justice Puno’s observation that “…the history of the women’s movement against domestic violence shows that one of its most difficult struggles was the fight against the violence of law itself. If we keep that in mind, law will not again be a hindrance to the struggle of women for equality but will be its fulfillment.” In Anonymous Complainant vs. Ma. Victoria P. Radam (19 December 2007)13 the Supreme Court decided in favour of a woman who got pregnant out of wedlock and was accused of immorality. The Supreme Court distinguished public and secular morality from religious morality, and ruled that the woman’s pregnancy out of wedlock does not constitute immorality. It further stated that “…for a particular conduct to constitute disgraceful and immoral behavior under civil service laws, it must be regulated on account of the concerns of public and secular morality,” and that “…it cannot be judged based on personal bias, specifically those colored by particular mores.”14 This ruling was been reiterated in the case Leus vs. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove and/or Sr. Edna Quiambao, OSB (28 January 2015), 15 wherein the Supreme Court stated that “viewed against the prevailing norms of conduct, her conduct cannot be considered as disgraceful or immoral; such conduct is not denounced by public and secular A.M. No. P-07-2333, December 19, 2007 (formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2510-P) Citing Estrada v. Escritor 15 28 January 2015 16 Ibid. 13 14 7 morality. It may be an unusual arrangement, but it certainly is not disgraceful or immoral within the contemplation of the law.”16 Yet despite of these victories, in addition to the national policies and legal mechansms in place, the Commission continues to receive cases of discrimination against women similar to the above. There were cases of female students or teachers dismissed because of out-of-wedlock pregnancies. One case was initially refused by the Office of the Ombudsman which and referred the employee to the PCW. The PCW then referred the case to the CHR. With the Commission’s assistance, the case was brought back to the Office of the Ombudsman, as the concerend respondents were employees of public institutions. Barangay compliance to the provisions of R.A. 9262 and adherence to its standards are also areas of concern. The CHR’s random monitoring of barangay Violence Against Women (VAW) desks revealed the lack of facilities and personnel training. There are continuing challenges to the delivery of gender sesitive and responsive services at the community level. There are also reports of Punong Barangays refusing to issue Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs), or insisting on reconciliation and mediatiation as modes of dispute resolution in domestic violence which are not allowed under the law. The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (R.A. 10354, or the RPRH Law) is another law that continues to meet challenges both in and out of the courtroom. Its constitutionality was questioned soon after it was enacted in 2012. In 2014, eight (8) of the law’s key provisions were scrapped. The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Imbong vs. Ochoa for the RPRH were as follows: (a) strengthened