UPR Sexual Rights Database

National Report:
Para 11) As of December 2016, CCT provided 4.39-million eligible poor household beneficiaries with health and education cash grants, conditional to the children’s attendance in school and receipt of regular immunization, the mothers’ availment of health care services, and the beneficiary’s attendance to family development sessions. Under the 2017 budget, CCT beneficiary-families are provided a rice allowance

Para 28) Our government budget supports the Department of Health (DOH) in deploying health professionals to the barrios, expanding the immunization program for children, and strengthening the efforts to lower maternal and infant mortality rates, among others. As of June 2016, the National Health Insurance Program covers 92.62 million principal members and dependents.

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 66) Through RPRH Law, 80% of total live births were covered by DOH facilities. Maternal mortality ratio went down from 221 deaths per 100,000 deliveries in 2011 to 114 per 100,000 deliveries in 2015.

Para 67) In 2016, GPH hit its target of ensuring that 90% of pregnant women were attended to by a skilled health professional. Contraceptive use in the country increased since 2012, with the Contraceptive Prevalence Rate at 33.26% increasing to 46.87% in 2015. Moreover, women’s life expectancy also increased from 72.9 years in 2016 to 74.3 years in 2017.

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 65) There had been hardly any change in the maternal mortality rate over the previous three decades.

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.

Para 130) JS20 stated that indigenous women had been adversely affected by the “No Home Birthing Policy” as they had no access to birthing facilities.

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 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 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.

National Report:
Para 24) The following are relevant laws, aside from the Magna Carta of Women, enacted during the reporting period that significantly bear on women's and children's rights:
-Anti-Pornography Act of 2009;
-Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2010;
-Expanded Breastfeeding Promotion Act;
-Amended Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act;
-Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law;
-Legitimization of Children Born to Underage Parents;
-Anti-Torture Act;
-Requiring the Certification of the Department of Social Welfare and Development to declare a "Child legally available for Adoption".

Stakeholder Summary:
Para 2) CHRP referred to Recommendation 8 on the elimination of gender-based discrimination and stated that the effectiveness of the 2009 Magna Carta of Women in eliminating gender-based discrimination and promoting equality was yet to be seen, particularly as it will not stop discriminatory practices in employment; and the Reproductive Health Bill was yet to be enacted after several years.

Para 3) CHRP referred to Recommendation 1 on inter alia a gender-responsive approach within the judicial system and stated that some judges refrained from applying the Anti- Violence against Women and their Children Act and other legislation including 1997 special law on rape. As pronounced by the Court of Appeals, women needed to satisfy a high threshold to prove rape and the lack of consent; the Magna Carta of Women did not make provision for the prosecution of alleged perpetrators; and rehabilitation and post- conflict care of women and children remained a challenge.