Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against

Women (CEDAW)
 R.A. 9710 (Magna Carta of Women)
 Salient provisions

o Women’s rights are human rights - “All rights in the Constitution and those
rights recognized under international instruments duly signed and ratified by the
Philippines, in consonance with Philippine law, shall be rights of women under
this Act to be enjoyed without discrimination.” (Section 8)
o Equal employment opportunities
- “Within the next (5) years, there shall be an incremental increase in the
recruitment and training of women in the police force, forensics and medico-legal,
legal services, and social work services availed of by women who are victims of
gender-related offenses until fifty percent (50%) of the personnel thereof shall be
women.” (Section 9A)
- “Within the next five (5) years, the number of women in third (3rd) level
positions in government shall be incrementally increased to achieve a fifty-fifty
(50-50) gender balance.” (Section 10A)
o “All local government units shall establish a Violence Against Women’s Desk in
every barangay to ensure that violence against women cases are fully addressed in
a gender-responsive manner.” (Section 9C)
o Women in the military
- “The State shall pursue appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination of
women in the military, police, and other similar services, including revising or
abolishing practices that restrict women from availing of both combat and
noncombat training that are open to men, or from taking on functions other than
administrative tasks, such as engaging in combat, security-related, or field
operations. Women in the military shall be accorded the same promotional
privileges and opportunities as men, including pay increases, additional
remunerations, and benefits and awards based on their competency and quality of
performance…
o Further, women in the military, police and other similar services shall be entitled
to leave benefits such as maternity leave, as provided for by existing laws.”
(Section 15)
o Special leave privileges - “A woman employee having rendered continuous
aggregate employment service of at least six (6) months for the last twelve (12)
months shall be entitled to a special leave benefit of two (2) months with full pay
based on her gross monthly compensation following surgery caused by
gynecological disorders.” (Section 18)
o Gender and development (GAD) budget - “The cost of implementing GAD
programs shall be the agency’s or the local government unit’s GAD budget which
 shall be at least five percent (5%) of the agency’s or the local government unit’s
total budget appropriations.” (Section 36A)

 R.A. No.10354 (Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of

2012)

 Salient provisions

WALA PA

Karen Tayag Vertido v. Philippines

Communication No. 18/2008, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/46/D/18/2008 (22 September

2010)

 Views of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

under article 7, paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (forty-sixth session)

 Views under article 7, paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol

- The author of the communication, dated November 29, 2007, is Karen Tayag, a
Filipino national who claims to be a victim of discrimination against women
within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention in relation to general
recommendation No. 19 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
against Women. She also claims that her rights under articles 2(c), (d), (f) and 5(a)
of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women have been violated by the State party.

 Facts as presented by the author

-In 1996, Karen Tayag Vertido worked as Executive Director of the Davao City Chamber
of Commerce and Industry in the Philippines.  She filed a complaint against the then
President of the Chamber, Jose B. Custodio, accusing him of raping her.  She alleged that
the accused offered her a lift home following a business meeting one evening and that,
instead, raped her in a nearby hotel. 
-In April 2005, after the case had languished in the trial court for eight years, Judge
Virginia Hofileña-Europa acquitted the accused of raping Ms Vertido, citing insufficient
evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence
charged.   

-Her Honour based her decision to acquit on a number of ‘guiding principles’ from other
rape cases and her unfavourable assessment of the Ms Vertido’s testimony based, among
other things, on her failure to take advantage of perceived opportunities to escape from
the accused.

-Ms. Vertido subsequently submitted a communication to the Committee on the

Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee).  

-She alleged that the acquittal of Mr. Custodio breached the right to non-discrimination,
the right to an effective remedy, and the freedom from wrongful gender stereotyping, in
violation of articles 2(c), 2(d), 2(f) and 5(a) of the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). 

-In her communication, Ms. Vertido claimed that the trial judge’s decision had no basis in
law or fact, but ‘was grounded in gender-based myths and misconceptions about rape and
rape victims … without which the accused would have been convicted.’ 

The following are the myths and stereotypes that she presented:

1. The first myth and stereotype is that a rape victim must try to escape ate every
opportunity.
2. To be raped by means of intimidation, the victim must be timid or easily cowed is
the second myth and stereotype challenged by the author.
3. A third myth and stereotype challenged by the author is that to conclude that a
rape occurred by means of threat, there must be clear evidence of a direct threat.
4. The fact that the accused and the victim are “more than nodding acquaintances”
makes the sex consensual constitutes a fourth myth and stereotype.
5. A fifth myth and stereotype identified by the author is that when a rape victim
reacts to the assault by resisting the attack and also by cowering in submission
because of fear, is problematic.
6. The rape victim could not have resisted the sexual attack if the accused was able to
proceed to ejaculation is a sixth myth and stereotype.
7. The Court relied on a seventh myth and stereotype, according to which it is
unbelievable that a man in his sixties would be capable of rape.

-She further claimed that ‘a decision grounded in gender-based myths and

misconceptions or one rendered in bad faith can hardly be considered as one rendered by
a fair, impartial and competent tribunal,’ and that the Philippines had ‘failed in its
obligation to ensure that women are protected against discrimination by public
authorities, including the judiciary.’

The Philippines’ observations on admissibility

The Philippines contested the admissibility of the communication on the basis that
Ms. Vertido had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by article 4(1) of
the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (Optional Protocol).  It claimed that Ms. Vertido had
failed to avail herself of the special remedy of certiorari. 

Ms Vertido’s comments on the Philippines’ observations

Ms. Vertido countered that she was not required to exhaust the remedy of
certiorari, as it could only be sought by the ‘People of the Philippines,’ represented by the
Office of the Solicitor General.  In addition, she submitted that, even if the remedy were
available to her, it would have been ineffective in redressing her particular complaint of
discrimination. 

CEDAW Committee’s admissibility decision

The CEDAW Committee declared the communication admissible, dismissing the
suggestion made by the Philippines that Ms. Vertido was required by article 4(1) of the
Optional Protocol to exhaust the remedy of certiorari.           

Views
The CEDAW Committee concluded that, in failing to end discriminatory gender
stereotyping in the legal process, the Philippines had violated articles (2)(c) and 2(f) of
CEDAW, and article 5(a) read in conjunction with article 1 and General
Recommendation No. 19 (violence against women).  The Committee declined to consider
whether or not article 2(d) had been violated, finding that it was less relevant to the case
than the other articles alleged to have been violated. 

Committee member Ms. Yoko Hayashi issued a separate, concurring opinion.

Right to an effective remedy (art. 2(c))

The CEDAW Committee affirmed that implicit in CEDAW and, in particular

article 2(c), is the right to an effective remedy.  It explained that ‘for a remedy to be
effective, adjudication of a case involving rape and sexual offenses claims should be dealt
with in a fair, impartial, timely and expeditious manner.’ 

The Committee determined that the Philippines had failed to comply with its
obligation to ensure Ms. Vertido’s right to an effective remedy.  It noted that her case had
languished in the trial court for approximately eight years before a decision was made to
acquit the accused and that, consequently, it could not be said that Ms. Vertido’s
allegation of rape had been dealt with in ‘a fair, impartial, timely and expeditious
manner.’     

Freedom from Wrongful Gender Stereotyping (arts. 2(f) and 5(a))

In finding violations of articles 2(f) and 5(a), the Committee affirmed that
CEDAW requires States Parties to ‘take appropriate measures to modify or abolish not
only existing laws and regulations, but also customs and practices that constitute
discrimination against women’.  It also stressed that stereotyping affects women’s right to
a fair and just trial and that the judiciary must take caution not to create inflexible
standards of what women or girls should be or have done when confronted with a
situation of rape based merely on preconceived notions of what defines a rape victim.

The majority determined that the trial judge had expected a certain stereotypical
behavior from the author and formed a negative view of her creditability because she had
not behaved accordingly.  It went on to say that the trial judge’s decision contained
‘several references to stereotypes about male and female sexuality being more supportive
for the credibility of the alleged perpetrator than for the creditability of the victim’.

Recommendations

Having found violations of articles (2)(c), 2(f) and 5(a) of CEDAW, the CEDAW
Committee called on the Philippines to provide appropriate compensation to Ms.
Vertido.  It also made a number of general recommendations aimed at redressing the
systemic nature of many of the violations.  These included taking effective steps to
ensure that decisions in sexual assault cases are impartial and fair and not affected by
prejudices or stereotypes.