UPR Sexual Rights Database

National Report:
Para 54) In 2016, 99.2 per cent of Peruvians had a national identity card, a figure that represented a considerable improvement on the 97.3 per cent in 2012. Although the increase has been sustained in all areas of the country, the figure in rural areas (98.4 per cent) has not yet reached the national average. To close this gap and provide documentation services free of charge to the country’s most remote settlements, especially in the Amazon Basin, a number of mobile service strategies have been pursued in coordination with other sectors. In 2015, furthermore, a strategy for technical assistance with registration was implemented. It is aimed at strengthening 200 civil register offices in native communities and populated places, where a large percentage of birth records was found to contain errors and omissions. Such a situation is detrimental to children. The strategy has been implemented with a focus on indigenous communities and populated places in poverty or extreme poverty.

UN Compilation:
Para 54) Three Committees were concerned that a significant number of indigenous children, women and girls continued to face difficulty in gaining access to the birth register and obtaining identity documents, particularly in the indigenous communities of the Amazonian and Andean regions.

Stakeholder Summary:
Para 57) JS19 ... recognized that the Government had launched a bilingual birth certificate register in some indigenous languages but noted that bilingual identity cards had not yet been introduced.

National Report:
Para 29) The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health (RPRH) Act of 2012 empowers DOH and local government units to ensure that reproductive health becomes universally accessible. To ensure availability of supplies and the training of providers in new contraceptive technologies, DOH has convened the National Implementation Team for the RPRH law.
Para 65) The DOH executed the first “full” implementation of the RPRH Law in 2015 and appropriated PhP 21.74 billion, almost double the budget in the previous year, to support the implementation of various RPRH programs, like the Family Planning Program and the National Safe Motherhood Program.
Para 68) In spite of the two-year temporary restraining order limiting the full implementation of RPRH Law, President Duterte signed EO No. 12 on 9 January 2017 for the purpose of “Attaining and Sustaining Zero Unmet Need for Modern Family Planning Through the Strict Implementation of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act.” The EO provides funds from government sources and encourages support from the private sector.
UN Compilation:
Para 64) Referring to the relevant supported recommendations, UNICEF noted that the Philippines had adopted the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act, which guaranteed universal access to maternal health, family planning and sex education. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women expressed concern that women’s access to sexual and reproductive health services was still severely restricted; that the numbers of early pregnancies, unsafe abortions and HIV infections were increasing, particularly among adolescent girls; and that the revocation of Manila City Executive Orders Nos. 003 and 030 had been implied by the adoption of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act but had not been expressly declared, resulting in confusion among health professionals and a persistent lack of access to services and information about sexual and reproductive health and rights for women and girls in Manila City. The Committee was concerned that Sorsogon City had adopted Executive Order No. 3 in February 2015, which had resulted in the withdrawal of modern contraceptives from city and community health facilities.

Stakeholder Summary:
Para 7) CHRP stated that the law on reproductive health had not being uniformly implemented and expressed alarm at the withdrawal of contraceptives in the City of Sirosogon. Furthermore, there had been challenges in the delivery of reproductive health services due to religious and cultural resistance.

Para 24) JS4 stated that the Reproductive Health Law and its corresponding programmes did not cater for the reproductive health needs of lesbian, transgender and intersex persons, who experienced discrimination due to the non-recognition of same-sex partnerships.

Para 93) AI referred to relevant supported recommendations, and stated that the Philippines had taken positive steps, including adopting the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act, the Domestic Workers Act and the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act. However, the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act had suffered from inconsistent implementation across the country, and there was no mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Act

Para 94) AI stated that repealing the provisions of the the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act which the Supreme Court had ruled to be unconstitutional, would be inconsistent with the international obligations of the Philippines, including Article 12 of CEDAW and Article 12 of ICESCR. JS20 stated that the Act required the consent of male spouses in order for women to access reproductive health procedures and prohibited minors from availing of modern methods of family planning without parental consent, both of which defeated the purpose of addressing teenage pregnancy and empowering women to uphold their sexual and reproductive health rights.

Para 96) JS7 stated that despite legislative guarantees of contraceptive information and services, there were two executive orders in Manila which banned modern contraceptives in all public health care facilities.