• • • • • consent and how it deprives sexually active adolescents and those who are at risk of HIV of information and needed services the practice of requiring husbands’ consent for their wives’ availment of RH services, particularly IUD insertion and tubal ligation. While third party consent, including spousal consent is not provided by the RPRH law, the decision in Imbong vs. Ochoa 11 has been interpreted by some service providers as establishing spousal complaint for TBL; the absolute ban on abortion, which has led to unsafe abortions and to stigma in the access and availability of Post Abortion Care (PAC); the absence and unavailability of emergency contraceptives, while not expressly prohibited, the use and access to emergency contraceptives specially among victims of sexual violence is not among the available choices and information provided by government health facilities; the provision in the contracts of nurses in the NDPs of Region X providing dismissal in case of pregnancy, while DOH-X claims that the prohibition exists for the protection of women, this constitutes gender based discrimination prohibited by the MCW; the criminalization of traditional and indigenous home births in many local government ordinances, while DOH claimed that penalization of home births was not adopted as a policy, the proliferation of Maternal, Neonatal, Child Health and Nutrition (MNCHN) ordinances with provisions penalizing home births resulted from LGU interpretation of their issuances. This highlights the lack of reconciliation regarding the implications of the RH Law on traditional RH practices and the need for clarity of issuances to avoid possible misinterpretation at the LGU level. While there is a DOH initiated IP MNCHN in some pilot areas, information and needed services it does not cover other IP areas, making IP women and IP traditional birth attendants in other areas susceptible to penalties in violation of existing ordinances. The decision in Imbong vs. Ochoa 12 and the declaration of the Supreme Court in upholding the rights of ‘consciencious objectors’ and the voiding of penalties for government officers refusing to implement the RPRH law also barred full implementation of RPRH. The ruling has been invoked by Sorsogon City’s Mayor Lee in refusing to implement the law, and it is used by some government health facilities and health service providers in seeking parental consent for minors and in refusing tubal ligation for married women without the consent of their husbands. 11 12 G.R. No. 204819 (April 8, 2014). 18