1.

Discuss the following principles of CEDAW:

(a) State Obligation
(b) Non-Discrimination
(c) Substantive Equality

(a) State parties to the CEDAW are bound by the obligations set forth in the Convention. Their
governments must follow the provisions of the Convention to ensure equality between women
and men.

Every 4 years, state parties have the obligation to report to the CEDAW Committee on the status
of their fulfillment of obligations of CEDAW and what advances they have made to promote
gender equality. The state parties can also enforce temporary special measures. Temporary
special measures constitute a variety of measures a government can take to advance the rights of
women and give them the same power and opportunities as men. For example, governments can
provide financial assistance to women working at home and hire more women in government
offices.

State parties also are required to observe due diligence in advancing women’s rights and are
responsible for discrimination against women whether it is in the public or private sphere.

(b) State parties to CEDAW must ensure that discrimination against women in all forms must be
eliminated. This means not only direct discrimination must be eliminated, but also indirect
discrimination. Indirect discrimination occurs when laws and policies are gender neutral on its
face but are discriminatory against women in practice. State parties must work to achieve both de
jure and de facto gender equality. It is not enough that laws and policies do not discriminate
against women expressly; state parties must observe and check whether discrimination against
women still exists despite these measures. Women have historically been discriminated against
in society and that is the obstacle women still face even though there are laws in place that seem
to be gender neutral. Remnants of women oppression still remain in society that are not obvious
to the eye, so governments must be keen on advancing equality between men and women by
always considering the actual position and status of women.

(c) Recognizes differences but affirms equality; corrects environment for women; laws must
include gender perspective; evens playing field; equality of opportunity and results

The principle of substantive equality calls for recognizing that while men and women do have
differences, they are still equal. Since we live in a society that has long been dominated by the
patriarchy, women are still being discriminated and oppressed, even if the world has accepted, in
theory, that women and men are equal. States must promote substantive equality between men
and women. This means that in making laws and policies, gender must be taken into
consideration. State parties must also ensure that environments cater to women’s needs, since
women and men do have differences that should not be ignored. The same opportunities must be
provided for women as for men, but it does not stop there. Equality of results must always be
sought.
2. Case digest the case of Karen Vertido v. Philippines

Facts: In 1996, Karen Tayag Vertido was Executive Director of the Davao City Chamber of
Commerce and Industry. 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, Trial Court Judge Virginia Hofileña-Europa acquitted the accused for insufficient
evidence. The Honorable Judge based her decision to acquit on a number of guiding principles
from jurisprudence on rape and Vertido’s failure to take advantage of perceived opportunities to
escape from the accused.

Vertido subsequently submitted a communication to the Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee). She alleged that the acquittal 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).

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

Ruling: 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.

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
Vertido’s right to an effective remedy. It noted that her case had languished in the trial court for
eight years 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.’

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 court judge had expected a certain stereotypical behavior
from Vertido and formed a negative view of her creditability because she had not behaved
accordingly.

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 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.