18 Definitions and Dimensions of Discrimination CEDAW Committee Inquiry concerning Philippine (Manila EO 003)42 (22 April 2015) the In the second inquiry conducted under Article 8 of the Optional Protocol of the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women found the Philippine government accountable for grave and systematic violations of women’s rights, particularly as relates to their sexual and reproductive health rights. In 1991, the Philippines delegated responsibility for “people’s health and safety” to the local level. In exercise of this power, an executive order 003 (“EO 003”) was issued in Manila, in 2000 which declared that the city would take an “affirmative stand on prolife issues”. In response to a joint submission from NGOs in 2008, the UN Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Committee) conducted an inquiry into alleged human rights violations resulting from the enforcement of EO 003. The Committee found that EO 003, in practice, resulted in a systematic denial of affordable access to modern methods of contraception and related information and services. This, in turn, led to unplanned pregnancies, unsafe abortions, unnecessary and preventable maternal deaths and increased exposure of women to HIV/AIDS. The Committee observed that the lives and health of thousands of women were put at risk and that the impact of the order particularly harmed disadvantaged groups of women, including poor women and adolescent girls, as well as women in abusive relationships. It was noted that impact of EO 003 was compounded by the funding ban on modern contraception in Manila’s executive order 030. The Committee concluded that the Philippine government is accountable for grave and systematic violations of women’s rights under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), especially their rights to health [Art 12] and family planning [Art. 16 (1)(e); Art. 10 (h)]. Although the aforementioned orders were issued by the City of Manila, the Committee 42 CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1, section on the CEDAW Inquiry decision on Manila EO lifted from https://www.escr-net.org/node/365940 emphasized that delegation of power does not in any way negate or reduce the direct responsibility of the State party to fulfil its obligation to ensure the rights of all women in its jurisdiction. The Philippines clearly failed to meet this obligation. The Committee report calls on the Filipino government to respect, protect, and fulfill women’s reproductive rights and address the unmet need for contraception by ensuring universal and affordable access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health services, commodities and related information, including by legalizing access to emergency contraception. The Committee has issued a robust set of recommendations, which includes urging the Philippines to revoke executive orders 003 and 030, decriminalize abortion, and sensitize government representatives towards eliminating ideological barriers that limit women’s rights. RPB vs. PHILIPPINES, 2014 (Gender and disability stereotyping in a rape trial)43 In the case of RPB vs. the Philippines, the CEDAW Committee held that the Philippines, in failing to provide a court interpreter for RBP, a deaf mute survivor of rape, constitutes discrimination. It also added that the Court, in using gender myths and stereotypes in dismissing the case has been remiss in its obligation to address gender stereotypes. The Committee held that Article 2(f) of CEDAW which requires States to banish gender stereotypes must be assessed in the light of the level of gender, age, and disability sensitivity applied in the judicial handling of the case. The Committee in deciding in favour of RPB held that the provision of a sign language interpreter was essential to ensure the RPBs full and equal participation in proceedings and to guarantee her the enjoyment of effective protection against discrimination under articles 2(c ) and (d) of CEDAW. The Committee drew on its General Recommendations No. 18 and 19. General Recommendation 18 states that women with 43 Case Brief sourced from: Navarro-Regino, Jasmine. Gender Approach to Effective Investigation as a Gender Ombud; Communication No. 34/2011, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/57/D/34/2011 (2014) CHR Gender Ombud Guidelines