Tina is among many poor women in Manila who have been deprived of access to affordable family planning services after former Manila mayor Jose “Lito” Atienza issued Executive Order No. 003 in 2000. The issuance reads in part that “the City (Manila) promotes responsible parenthood and upholds natural planning…in promoting the culture of life while discouraging the use of artificial methods of contraception like condoms, pills, intrauterine devices, surgical sterilization, and others.”

          A recently released report, entitled “Imposing Misery,” documents various adverse impacts on Manila’s poor women and their families of the ban on contraception implied in Atienza’s E.O. No. 003. Imposing Misery was a joint project of three cause-oriented group: Likhaan, a women’s health organization; Reprocen, a reproductive rights and health group based at the University of the Philippines; and the International Legal Program in the Philippines of the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights.

          A product of seven years of research work, the fact-finding report says that while E. O. 003 does not explicitly ban the use of contraception, subsequent implementation of the executive order paved the way for a de facto withdrawal of support for artificial contraception supplies and services from the city’s health centers and hospitals. Private clinics and health facilities run by NGOs that previously provided family planning information and services have been shut down. The ensuing unwarranted deprivation of affordable family planning supplies, especially among poor women, has allegedly claimed the lives of some 30 women and children.

Overstepping authority

          According to the report, the controversial E.O. also violates the Philippine government’s obligations under national and international law. It goes against the 1987 Constitution which guarantees the rights to liberty, health, information and education for all citizens as well as the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions. It runs counter to international treaties ratified by the Philippines which impose clear obligations on the government to ensure full access of its citizens to a full range of family planning information and services.

          In addition, the report argues that the local government unit, in this case Atienza’s administration which ended with last May’s election of former senator Alfredo Lim as the new mayor of Manila, overstepped its authority under the Local Government Code of 1991. The transfer of health care and other governance functions from the national government to the local governments presumed that the devolution of powers and resources would “provide for a more responsive and accountable structure of governance.”

          Yet E.O. 003 infringed on people’s basic rights and violated fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution as well as by international agreements which the Philippine government is bound to uphold, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

          How an official executive order inflicted undue misery on disenfranchised poor women must have drawn various sectors and individuals, including students, to a public forum on Manila’s contraception ban at the Manila Pavilion on September 29, 2007. Its implications on the broader issues of public health and human rights were the surprise revelations from a select panel of experts.

Induced abortions

          Former Health Secretary Dr. Alberto G. Romualdez said that by limiting women’s access to affordable and acceptable reproductive health services, E.O. 003 increased the risk of maternal mortality and morbidity and of complications, including death, arising from induced abortions. The relationship between timing and spacing of children and maternal and child health is widely recognized. Early, late or numerous and closely spaced pregnancies contribute significantly to high infant and child mortality and morbidity rates, especially where health care facilities are scarce. E.O 003 effectively deprives poor women of choices in the timing and spacing of their children to seriously threaten their basic right to health.

          Lawyer Dr. Raul C. Pangalangan, former dean of the UP College of Law, argued that specific provisions of the Constitution and the Civil Code of the Philippines can be cited in court for grave abuse of power of a public official who has issued a grossly unjust executive order. He explained that E.O. 003 has actual victims who can seek reparation for damage done. A class suit must also be filed in court to have the executive order repealed to teach a lesson that local executives cannot just sign away oppressive public issuances and expect to get away with it when they revert back to private life.

          Atty. Pangalangan discussed potential hindrances for the case to prosper. No complainant has yet come out claiming to be a victim of E.O. 003. The case may also take several years to try and the poor complainants may not have the financial capacity to sustain themselves through a long trial, which may not return a favorable verdict in the end. At the same time, the offending party will enjoy “the advantage of terrain” to possibly exert some influence on outcome of the class suit.

International court

          There is an international dimension to the case which offers a more viable avenue to pursue the case of E.O. 003. Atty. Aya Fujimura-Fanselow, legal adviser for international litigation and advocacy of the Center for Reproductive Rights, called attention to international human rights instruments that can be used to exact justice and accountability from erring public officials. She stated that the Philippines ratified major international human rights treaties that now form part of the laws of the land. The government must ensure that all levels and branches of government comply with these international treaty obligations.

          Atty. Fujimura-Fanselow explained that the Philippines is a signatory to key treaties that allow individuals to bring their complaints to international litigation. The case against the ill after-effects of E.O. 003 can therefore be brought before United Nations agencies.

          A case brought before the Human Rights Committee or CEDAW Committee could recognize that E.O. 003 grossly violated women’s human rights and just compensation must be provided for their suffering. It could set legal precedent to produce more comprehensive recommendations regarding reproductive and sexual rights in the Philippines and deter both local and national government from issuing policies.

          Atty. Fujimura-Fanselow called E.O. 003 “the most devastating policy” she has seen, “one that has oppressed a broad range of women and their children.” She expressed solidarity with the victims and full understanding of the burden get the fight against official abuse going.

Revoke the ban

          The panel of resource persons suggested that everyone who has heard of or read the stories of misery imposed by E.O. 003 on poor women should do his part in advocating for the repeal of the issuance. This advocacy should then move on to a call for an end to discrimination against women and the poor.

          In an interview, Dr. Junice Lirza Demeterio-Melgar of Likhaan said, “The ban has had a chilling effect on the provision of maternal and child health services by other facilities. While the ban technically applies to city health centers and hospitals, NGOs, private clinics and even pharmacies have been affected by the ban. What is more disturbing is that city health workers and doctors who disagree with the policy have been silenced to go along with it.

          “We hope Imposing Misery can serve as an advocacy tool to encourage the present administration of Mayor Lim to revoke the ban. Women in Manila should be given back right of access to the full range of health and contraceptive services.”