Philippines

C
Philippines
Recognising animal protection

Recognising animal protection

This theme examines recognition of animal sentience and the importance of animal protection as a societal value within the country, including government support for the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, prohibition of cruelty and protection for different categories of animals.

B

Formal recognition of animal sentience

There is legislation

Although it does not specifically refer to animal sentience, Republic Act 8485 (the Animal Welfare Act of 1998) does recognise sentience as it refers to both physical and psychological well-being of animals, to freedom from fear and distress, and to allowing animals to express normal behaviour (section 1, added by amending Act 10631 in October 2013).

Animals are defined in the Act as all terrestrial, aquatic and marine animals (section 6). Wild animals are therefore included in the general provisions of the Act and the recognition of sentience in section 1. This is supported by the provisions of section 7 which state that the destruction of the habitat of wild animals is a form of cruelty to animals.

The law relating to the conservation of wild animals, Act 9147 of 2001 (the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act), does not recognise animal sentience.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

Animal welfare is recognised as an individual issue by the Animal Welfare Act of 1998, which also recognises the far reaching impacts of animal welfare by providing that the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry may call upon any government agency for assistance in supervising and regulating specified animal use facilities (section 3). Section 5 of the Act establishes the Committee on Animal Welfare (within the Department of Agriculture) that is given the responsibility of providing standards and guidelines to complement the legislation.

The government is encouraged to incorporate a formal recognition of sentience into legislation, with appropriate legal protection based on that recognition. It is noted that, although the stated purpose of the Act is to protect and promote the welfare of all terrestrial, aquatic and marine animals in the Philippines, this is intended to be achieved by regulating facilities using animals as objects of trade or household pets. This emphasis on regulating facilities which use animals in this way may suggest that there is no perceived need to regulate the welfare aspects of human interaction with wild animals other than for trade purposes (for example, in hunting).

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

Cultural traditions and societal practices in the Philippines that demonstrate a lack of regard for animal sentience, such as cockfighting and the presence of marine mammals in captive conditions, present barriers to improving animal welfare and demonstrate a general lack of recognition of animal sentience by society. Ritual sacrifice of animals is permitted under the Animal Welfare Act 1998, although it is positive that the government has made welfare-related rules to regulate such activities (Administrative Order 25 of 2007). In the case of cockfighting, although arguably prohibited by the Animal Welfare Act, this is legitimised by legislation regulating the industry from a gaming perspective (Cockfighting Law of 1974, Presidential Decree 449).

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There are enforcement mechanisms of imprisonment and/or fines related to the protection arising out of the recognition of sentience in the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 (section 9).

D

Support for the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare

The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and the Department of Interior and Local Government have all given individual statements of in principle support for the UDAW (25 March 2008).

Note: The Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare is a proposed formal international acknowledgment of a set of principles giving animal welfare due recognition among governments and the international community. An expression of support for the UDAW demonstrates a government’s commitment to working with the international community to improve animal welfare.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

In pledging in principle support for the UDAW, it can be hoped that this will encourage the three relevant government departments to recognise animal welfare as an individual issue. This support for the UDAW may provide a platform to assist with considering animal welfare issues where relevant in other work streams and policies for which they are responsible.

However, without full recognition from central government, this departmental support is at present not fully effective to make animal welfare a mainstream concern in the Philippines. The government is encouraged to give full in principle support for the UDAW.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

Three government departments have given individual statements of in principle support for the UDAW, which suggests that it may be possible to achieve full government support. However the government advises that it considers there are barriers in this area, such as social, economic and cultural differences between societies.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There are no enforcement mechanisms relevant to this indicator.

B

Laws against causing animal suffering

There is legislation

Section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to torture any animal, or to neglect to provide adequate care, sustenance or shelter, or maltreat any animal or to subject any dog or horse to fights, to kill or cause or procure to be tortured or deprived of adequate care, sustenance or shelter, or maltreat or use an animal in research or experiments not expressly authorised by the Committee on Animal Welfare. This covers all terrestrial, aquatic and marine animals (section 1).

Section 2 of the Act requires that certificates of registration are obtained by anyone involved with the use of animals in scenarios including pet shops, stockyards, zoos and slaughterhouses, and such certificates will only be issued upon proof, and on condition, that the facilities will not be used for, nor will they cause, pain and suffering to the animals. Section 7 of the Act prohibits abandoning an animal, with higher penalties if the animal is left in circumstances likely to cause unnecessary suffering.

Section 8 of the Act provides that it shall be the duty of every person to protect the natural habitat of wildlife, adding that destruction of natural habitat is considered as a form of cruelty to animals.

Section 27 of Act 9147 of 2001, the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act, prohibits inflicting injury which cripples and/or impairs the reproductive systems of wild animals (27(b)) or otherwise maltreating or inflicting injuries to wild animals (27(h)).

Relevant secondary legislation includes Administrative Order 13 of 2010, which provides detailed rules on acceptable euthanasia procedures for different animals and situations.

As at the date of publication of this report, the government is developing an Administrative Order making detailed rules to implement and explain the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1998, including giving examples of conduct prohibited by the cruelty prohibition under section 6 of the Act.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The Animal Welfare Act of 1998 sets a foundation for protecting animal welfare and the issues associated with the suffering of animals in the Philippines. The Act also provides a structural framework for addressing animal welfare issues by facilitating the opportunity to involve “any government agency for assistance”, recognising the potentially far-reaching nature of animal welfare issues. The Committee on Animal Welfare also promotes animal welfare because it has responsibility for the development of guidelines and procedures under section 5 of the Act. The Committee on Animal Welfare encompasses a range of stakeholders including animal protection organisations. However, the Act does not expressly prohibit some cruel activities, for example, cockfighting.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There are no structural barriers to improving animal welfare and prohibiting cruelty to animals under the Animal Welfare Act of 1998. However there are serious barriers associated with some cultural and societal practices in the Philippines. There is significant animal suffering involved in cockfighting and keeping marine mammals in captive conditions. The cultural acceptance of these practices acts as a significant barrier to improving animal welfare in the Philippines. In the case of cockfighting, although arguably prohibited by the general provisions of section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act 1998, this is legitimised by legislation regulating the industry from a gaming perspective (Cockfighting Law of 1974, Presidential Decree 449). Although it is positive that the government has made welfare-related rules to regulate such activities (Administrative Order 25 of 2007), the practice of ritual sacrifice of animals also presents an obstacle.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 makes provision for imprisonment (of between six months and three years) and/or monetary fines for violation of provisions of the Act.

Certificates for animal holding facilities can be revoked or cancelled for failure to comply with the condition that the facilities will not be used for, nor will they cause, pain or suffering to animals (section 2).

The legislation establishes that the Committee on Animal Welfare should produce guidance on enforcement.

C

Protecting animals used in farming

There is legislation

The general anti-cruelty and duty of care provisions in section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 apply to this category of animals.

Section 2 of the Act requires that certificates of registration are obtained by anyone involved with specified uses of animals (including in stockyards and slaughterhouses), and such certificates will only be issued upon proof, and on condition, that the facilities will not be used for, nor will they cause, pain and suffering to the animals.

Sections 3 and 4 cover issues related to the transportation of animals. Section 3 makes it the responsibility of the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry to supervise transport in order to “provide maximum comfort while in transit and minimize, if not totally eradicate, incidence of sickness and death and prevent any cruelty from being inflicted upon the animals”. Additionally, section 4 makes it the duty of any transport owner or operator to provide adequate, clean and sanitary facilities for safe transport, together with sufficient food and water for animals in transit for more than 12 hours or whenever necessary. The transport of animals by a public utility is not allowed without a written permit from the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry. Public utility is not defined in the Act; the government advises that this refers to any vehicle that can transport livestock, and that livestock handlers’ licences are also required for transport.

Section 6 addresses issues related to the killing and slaughter of animals. This is required to be done through humane procedures at all times, where “humane procedures” means the use of the most scientific methods available as may be determined and approved by the Committee on Animal Welfare. In relation to animals farmed for food, this is done in some detail under Administrative Order 18 of 2008. Section 7.3 of the Order requires that all animals are stunned before slaughter, but provides an option for formal exemption from this following application to the National Meat Inspection Service (section 7.3.2).

The October 2013 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 include an explanation of animal welfare as pertaining to the physical and psychological well-being of animals, and including the avoidance of abuse, maltreatment, cruelty and exploitation by humans by maintaining appropriate standards and the assurance of freedom from fear, distress, harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain, and allowing animals to express normal behaviour (section 1). Although this wording is positive and is in line with good international principles on animal welfare, it is not currently reflected in the substantive provisions of the Act, although there is some more detail in secondary legislation.

Represented on the Committee on Animal Welfare are the Department of Agriculture and the National Meat Inspection Commission as well as animal protection organisations. The Committee is responsible for the development of guidelines and standards and these are published as Administrative Orders on the website of the Bureau of Animal Industry. The Administrative Orders are made under the Animal Welfare Act 1998 and contain detailed welfare-related provisions including references to the principles of the Five Freedoms. For example, Administrative Order 12 of 2002 sets minimum standards for the welfare of chickens, prohibiting a number of practices including “wilfully or wantonly causing unreasonable or unnecessary pain, suffering or distress to the chicken”. Administrative Order 41 of 2000 makes similar provisions in relation to pigs. Administrative Order 8 of 1999 provides some more detailed rules on the registration of facilities including hog farms, poultry farms, slaughterhouses, stock farms and stockyards, although it only applies to farms where the temperature cannot be controlled within set limits (so would not apply to indoor temperature-controlled housing). Such establishments are required to be managed by qualified staff, who are able to undertake behavioural observation to ensure that no pain or suffering is experienced by the animals (section 3.2.3). Administrative Order 9 of 2006 sets requirements for transport by land, including space allowances for different species, and Administrative Order 2 of 2002 sets requirements for transport by sea.

In addition to Administrative Order 18 of 2008 on slaughter, there are rules relating specifically to poultry slaughter under Administrative Order 7 of 2001.

At present the legislation does not expressly prohibit the use of extreme confinement systems such as barren battery cages and dry sow stalls.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The legislative provisions relating to farm animals are positive, and secondary legislation provides a good level of detail in many areas. There have been some positive developments in relation the inclusion of reference to the principles of the Five Freedoms in the explanatory section of the Act (section 1) and in subsidiary Administrative Orders. The government advises that it conducts training and information seminars in this area. The government is encouraged to continue with this work.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The Committee on Animal Welfare formed under the Act is based in the Department of Agriculture and provides a strong platform for improving farm animal welfare in the country. However, there are challenges in improving animal welfare in a country where farming methods range from backyard farming to large commercial operations and where social and cultural attitudes to animals may inhibit efforts. Infrastructure in the country also presents some challenges to improving animal welfare, for example, with respect to transport.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 makes provision for imprisonment (of between six months and three years) and/or monetary fines for violation of any provisions of the Act.

Certificates for specified animal use facilities can be revoked or cancelled for failure to comply with the condition that the facilities will not be used for, nor will they cause, pain or suffering to animals (section 2). Relevant Administrative Orders repeat the penalties set out in the Act or provide for enforcement to take place in accordance with the Act.

D

Protecting animals in captivity

There is legislation with partial application

The general anti-cruelty and duty of care provisions in section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 apply to this category of animals.

It is noted that the October 2013 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 include an explanation of animal welfare as pertaining to the physical and psychological well-being of animals, and including the avoidance of abuse, maltreatment, cruelty and exploitation by humans by maintaining appropriate standards and the assurance of freedom from fear, distress, harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain, and allowing animals to express normal behaviour (section 1). Although this wording is positive and is in line with good international principles on animal welfare, it is not currently reflected in the substantive provisions of the Act, although there is some more detail in secondary legislation.

Section 2 of the Act requires that certificates of registration are obtained by anyone involved with specified uses of animals (including in zoos), and such certificates will only be issued upon proof, and on condition, that the facilities will not be used for, nor will they cause, pain and suffering to the animals. Administrative Order 8 of 1999 sets out detailed rules for registration of facilities holding animals of specified categories and species. Crocodile farms and monkey farms are included in the provisions of this Order. The Order requires that farms where the temperature cannot be controlled within set limits (that is, not indoor temperature-controlled housing) and zoos must be managed by qualified staff who are able to undertake behavioural observation to ensure that no pain or suffering is experienced by the animals (section 3.2.3 and 3.2.5). Zoos must be designed with environmental enrichment facilities to minimise the risks of development of neurotic behaviour in the animals (section 3.2.5.3).

Section 17 of the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act of 2001 (Act 9147) permits commercial breeding of wildlife under permit. Permits are issued for three to five years (section 20). Section 26 provides that no person or entity is allowed to possess threatened or exotic (non-native) wild animals unless they can prove financial and technical capability and facility to maintain those animals.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

Animals in captivity, their owners and their related facilities are covered by the basic provisions of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998. Other governmental departments and stakeholders are brought into animal welfare as an issue through the Committee on Animal Welfare, the group responsible for writing and maintaining the guidelines and standards for animal welfare in the country.

However, although facilities are required to be registered and the government makes animal welfare assessments as part of registration requirements (the government advises that a positive example of a facility which has been granted an Animal Welfare Certificate of Registration is Birds International Inc., which has been approved for import into the European Union), it is noted that the environment provided in some zoos in the Philippines has attracted some concern[1] and there have been recommendations for standards to be improved.[2]

The government is encouraged to build on the recognition of the principles of the Five Freedoms that appears in the recent revision to the Animal Welfare Act of 1998, and on the current regulations which make some provision for environmental enrichment, to develop more detailed regulations that provide for captive animals to be able to express normal behaviour and to provide for their psychological as well as physical well-being.

 

[1] http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/03/17/09/no-more-animals-...

[2] http://vetdergi.kafkas.edu.tr/extdocs/2011_3/499-501.pdf

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There are barriers to improving captive animal welfare in the country; the Bureau of Animal Industry permits entertainment shows to take place involving the use of wild animals and issues permits for the keeping of dolphins in captivity. The cultural acceptance of the use of captive wild animals in this way presents a barrier to improvement. Financial resources of zoos may also present barriers to improving animal welfare.

However, the recent recognition in section 1 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998, that animals need to be able to express normal behaviour and to have their psychological as well as physical needs met, as well as the existing regulations on registration of zoos, may provide a route by which improvements can be made in this area.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 makes provision for imprisonment (of between six months and three years) and/or monetary fines for violation of any provisions of the Act.

Certificates for animal use facilities can be revoked or cancelled for failure to comply with the condition that the facilities will not be used for, nor will they cause, pain or suffering to animals (section 2). Administrative Order 8 of 1999 on registration of facilities reiterates that certificates can be revoked for failure to comply, and also provides for imprisonment and/or fines (sections 5 and 7).

B

Protecting companion animals

There is legislation

The general anti-cruelty and duty of care provisions in section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 apply to this category of animals. 

Section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 permits the killing of animals for the purpose of animal population control. Although the Act provides that humane procedures must be used, this facilitates the possibility of the authorities using culling as a means of stray dog and cat population management rather than sustainable, higher welfare practices such as Trap-Neuter-Release and Spay/Neuter.

Section 2 of the Act requires that certificates of registration are obtained by anyone involved with specified uses of animals (including in pet shops, kennels and veterinary clinics), and such certificates will only be issued upon proof, and on condition, that the facilities will not be used for, nor will they cause, pain and suffering to the animals.

Secondary legislation, in the form of Administrative Orders, makes more detailed provisions relating to aspects of companion animal welfare, with specific references to the principles of the Five Freedoms.

Administrative Order 8 of 1999 provides more detailed rules on the registration of facilities including animal control facilities (such as pounds, shelters and quarantine centres), aviaries, catteries, kennels and pet shops. Aviaries are required to be managed by qualified staff who are able to undertake behavioural observation to ensure that no pain or suffering is experienced by the animals (section 3.2.3). This does not apply to animal control centres, catteries, kennels and pet shops. In addition to general requirements about allowing sufficient space (section 3.1.9), the only specific requirement for catteries, kennels and pet shops is that handouts on the care of the animals must accompany every sale (section 3.2.1.1). It is noted that the descriptions of catteries and kennels envisage the possibility of cats and dogs being kept tethered by chains, which has the potential for poor welfare (section 1.4 and 1.9).

There are also regulations on dog shows (Administrative Order 32 of 2000), rules on the operation of dog kennels including space requirements (Administrative Order 14 of 2004), and regulations on pet shops (Administrative Order 21 of 2003). Transporting and trading in cats and dogs is regulated by Administrative Order 10 of 2005.

Section 5 of the Anti-Rabies Act of 2007 (Republic Act 9482) requires dog owners to vaccinate and register their dogs and to provide proper grooming, adequate food and clean shelter. Local governments have enacted Ordinances relating to stray animals and rabies control (for example, Ordinance 5 of 2001 of the City of General Santos, Ordinance 9852 of 2005 of Cagayan de Oro, and Municipal Ordinance 5 of 2007 of Cabatuan).

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

Animal welfare is acknowledged as an independent issue; the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 was enacted to deal specifically with animal welfare. Other governmental departments and stakeholders are brought into animal welfare as an issue through the Committee on Animal Welfare, the group responsible for writing and maintaining the guidelines and standards for animal welfare in the country. There are active animal protection organisations working to address animal welfare issues concerning companion animals and these are represented on the Committee on Animal Welfare.

Recognising that despite the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act 1998 there were still reports of cruelty to animals, particularly dogs, in 2005 the government issued a circular requiring local government Chief Executives to appoint veterinarian officers, enact local ordinances to protect and promote animal welfare, conduct information drives about animal welfare and the health hazards of eating dog and cat meat, and enforce legislation relating to illegal trade in animals. Section 6 of the Anti-Rabies Act of 2007 requires local government units to take action including prohibiting the sale of dogs for meat, prohibiting the use of electrocution for euthanasia, and requiring pet shops to post information regarding rabies and responsible pet ownership.

However, existing legislation, including secondary regulations on the subject, is not sufficiently detailed and welfare-focused to make the welfare of this category of animals a mainstream concern of society.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There are significant issues related to companion animal welfare in the Philippines that represent barriers to progress in improving animal welfare in the country. There is a long history of stray animal issues in the Philippines and there are challenges regarding prioritisation of a sustainable, welfare focussed approach to management of stray dog and cat populations across the islands.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 makes provision for imprisonment (of between six months and three years) and/or monetary fines for violation of any provisions of the Act.

Certificates for animal use facilities can be revoked or cancelled for failure to comply with the condition that the facilities will not be used for, nor will they cause, pain or suffering to animals (section 2). Administrative Order 8 of 1999 on registration of facilities reiterates that certificates can be revoked for failure to comply, and also provides for imprisonment and/or fines (sections 5 and 7).

C

Protecting animals used for draught and recreation

There is legislation with partial application

The general anti-cruelty and duty of care provisions in section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 apply to this category of animals.

It is noted that the October 2013 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 include an explanation of animal welfare as pertaining to the physical and psychological well-being of animals, and including the avoidance of abuse, maltreatment, cruelty and exploitation by humans by maintaining appropriate standards and the assurance of freedom from fear, distress, harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain, and allowing animals to express normal behaviour (section 1). Although this wording is positive and is in line with good international principles on animal welfare, it is not currently reflected in the substantive provisions of the Act, although there is some more detail in secondary legislation.

Section 2 of the Act requires that certificates of registration are obtained by anyone involved with specified uses of animals (including in corrals, stud farms and zoos), and such certificates will only be issued upon proof, and on condition, that the facilities will not be used for, nor will they cause, pain and suffering to the animals.

There is subsidiary legislation in the form of Administrative Orders, which provide more detailed rules in this area.

Administrative Order 8 of 1999 makes rules on the registration of facilities including circuses, carnival animal shows, racetracks and equestrian establishments. In relation to circuses and carnival animal shows, section 3.2.4.1 provides that animals “should be tamed and/or behaviourally modified or trained to perform certain behaviours on cue or command”, without causing injury or suffering to the animals. Display areas are required to be provided with access for the animal to retreat away from public view (section 3.2.4.6). It is noted that, unlike other categories of facilities regulated by this Order, these establishments are not required to be managed by qualified staff with behavioural observation to ensure that no pain or suffering is experienced by the animals.

Administrative Order 15 of 2001 governs the welfare of horses in establishments including riding schools and polo clubs, incorporating the principles of the Five Freedoms.

Rodeos are regulated under Administrative Order 6 of 2013. This states that animals’ welfare needs should be met, and requires that Animal Welfare Marshalls attend and that registration certificates are obtained for rodeos, but it permits practices such as the use of flank straps and bull riding.

As at the date of publication of this report, the government is developing an Administrative Order regulating the humane use of animals in the media and entertainment, including requiring the presence of Animal Welfare Officers. The government is also developing an Administrative Order which will make rules to implement and explain the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1998, including expressly prohibiting animal fighting except where authorised or regulated by law.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

Animal welfare is acknowledged as an independent issue; the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 was enacted to deal specifically with animal welfare. Other governmental departments and stakeholders are brought into animal welfare as an issue through the Committee on Animal Welfare, the group responsible for writing and maintaining the guidelines and standards for animal welfare in the country.

The government is encouraged to build on the recognition of the principles of the Five Freedoms that appears in the recent revision to the Animal Welfare Act of 1998, to develop regulation that provides for animals used for recreational purposes to be able to express normal behaviour and to provide for their psychological as well as physical well-being.

Although arguably prohibited by the Animal Welfare Act, cockfighting is legitimised by legislation regulating the industry from a gaming perspective (Cockfighting Law of 1974, Presidential Decree 449).

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The Animal Welfare Act of 1998 opens up the availability of every government department to provide any “available” funds in their assistance, which should assist with the provision of resources to improve the welfare of animals used for draught and recreational purposes in the Philippines. There are, however, cultural issues related to the recognition of the importance of good welfare of these animals that represent barriers to improvement of animal welfare in the country. The legitimisation of cockfighting also represents a structural barrier to improvement.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 makes provision for imprisonment (of between six months and three years) and/or monetary fines for violation of any provisions of the Act.

Certificates for animal use facilities can be revoked or cancelled for failure to comply with the condition that the facilities will not be used for, nor will they cause, pain or suffering to animals (section 2). Administrative Order 8 of 1999 on registration of facilities reiterates that certificates can be revoked for failure to comply, and also provides for imprisonment and/or fines (sections 5 and 7). Breach of the requirements of other relevant Administrative Orders is also punishable in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act 1998, as specified in each Order.

B

Protecting animals used in scientific research

There is legislation

Section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 prohibits the maltreatment or use of animals in research or experiments that are not expressly authorised by the Committee on Animal Welfare.  Section 6 also provides that when an animal is killed after it has been used in authorised research or experiments, this must be done by humane procedure (defined as the most scientific methods available as determined by the Committee, and detailed by Administrative Order 13 of 2008).

Administrative Order 8 of 1999 makes rules on the registration of facilities including laboratory animal facilities, although it only applies to such facilities where the temperature cannot be controlled within set limits (therefore it appears that this does not cover temperature-controlled indoor facilities). There are basic provisions on housing such as space, shelter and ventilation (section 3.1.9).

Administrative Order 40 of 1999 makes rules and regulations on the conduct of scientific procedures using animals, which apply to all vertebrates (section 2.1) and includes the use of animals for teaching purposes (section 2.2). Institutions are required to be registered with authorisation that must be renewed every two years (section 5). The Administrative Order itself makes detailed rules on killing methods that can be used for different species. In terms of regulating the detail of how experiments are carried out, institutions are required to have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee to evaluate and monitor scientific procedures using animals, and Annex A sets out the duties of the Committees. These include that the Committee will make their reviews of proposals being guided by the principles of the Three Rs and other pertinent guiding principles (Annex A section 2.2). Different levels of review and approval are required for different levels of severity of testing (Annex A section 5).   

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

Animals used in scientific research are covered by and specifically referred to in the Animal Welfare Act of 1998. Additionally other governmental departments and stakeholders are brought into animal welfare as an issue through the Committee on Animal Welfare, which is responsible for writing and maintaining the guidelines and standards for animal welfare in the country and for authorising scientific research on animals under section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998.

The Annex to Administrative Order 40 of 1999 sets detailed requirements for the operation of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees in the approval of scientific procedures using animals, and recognises the principles of the Three Rs.

In February 2014 the Department of Agriculture held a seminar on animal welfare and the use of animals in research and scientific procedures. It is positive that the government is encouraging collaboration and seeking improvement in this regard, although it is noted that the seminar involved the use of animals for demonstration purposes.[1]

 

[1] http://www.bai.da.gov.ph/index.php/news-events/294-bai-awd-conducts-semi...

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The Animal Welfare Act of 1998 opens up the availability of every government department to provide any “available” funds in their assistance, which should assist with the provision of resources to improve the welfare of animals used in scientific research.  However, resource issues may provide a barrier to progress.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 makes provision for imprisonment (of between six months and three years) and/or monetary fines for violation of any provisions of the Act.

Administrative Order 8 of 1999 on registration of facilities states that certificates can be revoked for failure to comply, and also provides for imprisonment and/or fines (sections 5 and 7). Administrative Order 40 of 1999 provides for administrative sanctions (section 7).

B

Protecting the welfare of wild animals

There is legislation

Section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 prohibits the torture, neglect or maltreatment of any animals and prohibits the killing of any animals other than a specified list of animals, which includes deer and crocodiles. The Act covers all terrestrial, aquatic and marine animals.

Section 7 of the Act provides that it shall be the duty of every person to protect the natural habitat of wildlife, and that the destruction of wild habitat is a form of cruelty to animals.

The Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act of 2001 (Act 9147) makes provisions to protect endangered species of wild animals and regulate the collection and trade of wildlife.

Section 6 of the Act permits the collection of non-threatened species of wild animals upon authorisation, and only when there will be no detrimental effects to populations and habitats. Permits are issued for periods of one to three years (section 20).

It is prohibited to inflict injury which cripples and/or impairs the reproductive systems of wild animals (section 27(b)), or otherwise to maltreat or inflict injuries to wild animals (section 27(h)).

It is also prohibited to kill wild animals, with limited exceptions including when it is done as part of the religious rituals of established tribal groups or indigenous cultural communities (section 27(a)).

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

It is positive that wild animals are included in the remit of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998.

Although the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act is primarily concerned with conservation of endangered species of wildlife and of their habitats, it does provide some further protection for wild animals from maltreatment and the infliction of injury, and prohibits hunting with limited exceptions for traditional religious practices. However the Act permits the commercial breeding of wild animals and the collection of non-threatened wild animals from their wild state, which can have significant welfare implications. It is not known whether permits for such activity include welfare-related requirements.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The existing legislation provides some good foundations for the protection of the welfare of wild animals. However there are social and cultural aspects in the country that currently provide barriers to improving welfare in the country. The law permits wild animals to be collected from their wild habitats under licence.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 makes provision for imprisonment (of between six months and three years) and/or monetary fines for violation of any provisions of the Act.

Breach of the prohibition on inflicting crippling injury under section 27(b) of the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act is punishable with imprisonment of between one month and six years and/or fines, depending on the conservation status of the animal (section 28). Breach of the prohibition on inflicting other injury or maltreatment under section 27(h) of that Act is punishable with imprisonment of between five days and one year and/or fines, depending on the conservation status of the animal (section 28).

Breach of the prohibition on killing wild animals under section 27(a) of the Act is punishable with imprisonment of between six months and twelve years and/or fines, depending on the conservation status of the animal (section 28).

Governance structures and systems

Governance structures and systems

This theme examines government commitment to improving animal protection. This includes whether there is allocation of responsibility, accountability and resources within government.

B

Government accountability for animal welfare

There is legislation

The Animal Welfare Act of 1998 assigns responsibilities to government bodies. The Director of the Bureau for Animal Industry is identified as the representative responsible for authorisation, regulation and supervision of animal protection issues related to facilities and transport in sections 2 and 3. Section 3 also allows the Director to call upon “any government agency for assistance consistent with its powers, duties, and responsibilities for the purpose of ensuring the effective and efficient implementation of this Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder”. Other government departments are required to assist when called upon; “It shall be the duty of the government agency to assist said Director when called upon for assistance using any available fund in its budget for the purpose”.

Section 5 establishes the Committee on Animal Welfare and sets out the foundations of its responsibilities. The Committee is “attached to the Department of Agriculture” and is responsible for implementing the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 through issuing “the necessary rules and regulations”, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. The Committee is also responsible for giving approval to scientific experiments using animals (section 6).

Implementation of the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act is the responsibility of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (in relation to terrestrial animals) and the Department of Agriculture (in relation to aquatic animals) (section 4), including issuing permits under that Act for the breeding and collection of wild animals.

The Ministry of Agriculture has established an Animal Welfare Division within the Bureau of Animal Industry, responsible for implementing and enforcing animal welfare legislation including inspection of relevant facilities.[1]

 

[1] http://www.bai.da.gov.ph/index.php/animal-welfare

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The departments and representatives identified in the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 and in the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act assist with the consideration of animal welfare issues at high government level in the Philippines. Both the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Animal Industry have a wide reaching influence through the farming industry and food business in the country. The Animal Welfare Act identifies animal welfare as an individual issue, furthermore it is recognised that its impact is broad and the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry is able to call on any governmental department for assistance in the regulation and supervision of facilities covered by that Act.

The Committee on Animal Welfare is set out as being responsible for the guidelines and standards ensuring the implementation of the Act in the Philippines. These are produced as Administrative Orders and are publicly available on the website of the Bureau of Animal Industry.

The government also provides information on animal welfare regulations and initiatives on the Bureau of Animal Industry website;[1] for example, in February 2014 the Department of Agriculture held a seminar on animal welfare and the use of animals in research and scientific procedures.

It is positive to note that, as at the date of publication of this report, the government advises that it is developing a National Animal Welfare Strategic Plan. The government is encouraged to include within this plan details of responsibilities and duties of relevant government bodies.

 

[1] http://www.bai.da.gov.ph/index.php/animal-welfare

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The government has put into place structures and legislation to make animal welfare a mainstream concern in the country. However, there are barriers in the form of socio-cultural attitudes to several categories of animals; for example, the use of animals in entertainment including cockfighting.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

The responsibilities of the relevant government departments are set out in primary legislation, including the requirement for other government departments to “assist said Director when called upon for assistance using any available fund in its budget for the purpose”.

The Committee on Animal Welfare is also given timescales to meet its requirements and responsibilities under the Act; the Committee is required to meet quarterly and to review all guideline and standard outputs every three years or as necessary, and the government reports that meetings generally take place more regularly than required by the Act.   

Animal welfare standards

Animal welfare standards

This theme examines whether the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)’s animal welfare standards have been incorporated into law or policy, the extent of engagement with the OIE on animal welfare issues, and whether the government publishes reports on progress in improving animal welfare.

C

Engagement with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)

There is policy

There is a healthy working relationship between the Philippine government and the OIE. In November 2013 the 28th Conference of the OIE Regional Commission for Asia, the Far East and Oceania was held in Cebu in the Philippines. The Philippines also received the OIE’s ‘Improved Animal Welfare Programme’ during May of 2013, relating to the humane handling of cattle and pigs.[1] This programme takes a ‘train the trainers’ approach to the welfare of animals during transport and slaughter, which is a major component of the OIE’s animal welfare standards. 

The OIE has worked with the Philippine government in recent years on disease control and on rabies vaccination in stray dog populations. Disease control in animal populations is also a major focus of the OIE’s animal welfare standards. This level of co-operation on key issues demonstrates a productive relationship and implementation of policy in the Philippines.

 

[1] http://www.oie.int/for-the-media/press-releases/detail/article/improved-...

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

By working together with the OIE on various key issues relating to animal health and welfare, animal welfare is recognised as an independent issue and its recognition as a mainstream concern for society in the Philippines is being progressed. Through incorporating the OIE’s principles and standards in areas such as agriculture and health, animal welfare should be introduced into other governmental strategies and further help to improve animal welfare in the country. 

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There is no evidence of barriers to improving animal welfare through working together with the OIE in the Philippines. The level of engagement to date demonstrates a government desire for improvement.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There are no enforcement mechanisms relevant to this indicator.

C

OIE animal welfare standards

There is legislation with partial application

Legislation generally touches on the issues covered in the OIE’s animal welfare standards and guiding principles, although without sufficient detail in many areas to reach the level of the OIE’s standards. Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 addresses the transport of animals declaring “It shall be the duty of any owner or operator of any land, air or water public utility transporting pets, wildlife, and all other animals to provide in all cases adequate, clean and sanitary facilities for the safe conveyance and delivery thereof to their consignee at the place of consignment”. Responsibility for the supervision of this is given to the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry in section 3. Slaughter is another key focus for the OIE’s animal welfare standards and is covered in Section 6 of the Act. It is stated that the killing of animals “shall be done through humane procedure at all times” where “humane procedures shall mean the use of the most scientific methods available as may be determined and approved by the Committee”. Section 6 also addresses the use of animals in research, which is addressed in greater detail in Administrative Order 40 of 1999. There is some attempt to deal with humane stray dog population control under the Anti-Rabies Act of 2007, and also at a local level.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The Animal Welfare Act of 1998 does not specifically reference the OIE’s standards, however it shows some progress in promoting the themes in the OIE’s guiding principles and animal welfare standards. The OIE’s ‘Improved Animal Welfare Programme’ is a good example of a programme which covers aspects of transport and slaughter practices integral to the OIE’s animal welfare standards. The final phase of the ‘Improved Animal Welfare Programme’ in the Philippines was completed in May 2013.[1] The government is encouraged to build on this experience through the creation of more detailed legal protection for animals.

 

[1] http://www.oie.int/for-the-media/press-releases/detail/article/improved-...

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There is some evidence of any barriers to improving animal welfare related to the OIE’s guiding principles and animal welfare standards in the Philippines, for example, because of the ongoing issues regarding management of stray cat and dog populations. However, given the level of engagement with the OIE and the extent of consultation which the government undertakes in reviewing legislation in this area, it is anticipated that some improvement should be possible.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

In relation to those of the OIE’s guiding principles and standards which are covered by the content of current legislation, there are enforcement mechanisms of imprisonment, fines and revocation of licences.

C

Reporting on progress

There is legislation with partial application

Section 3 of the Act creating the Bureau of Animal Industry (Republic Act 3639) requires that the Bureau shall investigate, study and report upon specified issues relating to animals in the Philippines. This includes reporting on the condition of domestic animals in the Philippines, their improved reproduction and care (3(1)), and promoting the development of the livestock industry including by the collection and compilation of statistics on domestic animals (3(3)(d)) and by the dissemination of useful information on essential matters regarding domestic animals through the publication and distribution of bulletins, circulars, and other printed matter (3(3)(e)).

Although animal welfare is not specifically referred to in the Bureau of Animal Industry Act, the Bureau demonstrates a policy of reporting on its work related to animal welfare, regularly posting news stories and updates, including highlights reports (most recently from 2010 and 2012), on its website.[1] Under the Animal Welfare Act of 1998, the Committee on Animal Welfare is responsible for reviewing the rules and regulations necessary to implement the Act every 3 years from its implementation or whenever deemed necessary. The Committee is required to meet quarterly or as often as the need arises, and the government advises that generally meetings take place more regularly than required by the Act. Regulations are made as Administrative Orders and published on the website of the Bureau of Animal Industry. However the Act itself does not contain specific provisions requiring reporting to take place.

 

[1] http://www.bai.da.gov.ph/index.php/animal-welfare/56-highlights-and-accomplishments-2012; http://www.bai.da.gov.ph/index.php/news/events-and-updates/169-bai-and-partners-celebrated-animal-welfare-week

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The Bureau of Animal Industry has mainstream responsibilities in the agricultural and research industries. Therefore reporting through its website on animal welfare progress promotes animal welfare as a concern relevant to wider sectors. The government advises that the Bureau conducts mid and end year reviews to measure progress.

The Committee on Animal Welfare is also made responsible in the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 for producing the guidelines and standards necessary for the implementation of the act in the Philippines. However this does not specifically reference targets and public reporting.

It is positive to note that, as at the date of publication of this report, the government advises that it is developing a National Animal Welfare Strategic Plan. The government is encouraged to include within this plan requirements for long term reporting, to be made publicly available, against targets and goals for improving animal welfare.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There is no evidence of significant human or financial resource barriers to reporting and monitoring progress on animal welfare in the Philippines, and the existence of some reporting supports this view.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

The duties of the Bureau of Animal Industry to compile statistics and disseminate information are mandated by legislation, although it is not specified that these must include animal welfare issues.

Providing humane education

Providing humane education

This theme examines whether issues of animal care and protection are included in the national education system at primary and secondary level, and comments on whether animal welfare issues such as humane handling form part of veterinary medicine education.

D

Education on animal care and protection

There is legislation with partial application

Section 6(A)(7), 6(B)(4) and 6(C)(4) of the Anti-Rabies Act of 2007 (Republic Act 9482) require the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and the Department of Education to coordinate on education about rabies prevention and control and responsible pet ownership. This should also provide scope for education on welfare issues related to companion animals. The Department of Education is specifically required to integrate proper information and education on responsible pet ownership in the relevant subjects at elementary and high school levels (section 6(C)(4)).

However at school level there is no publicly available evidence that the Philippine government has implemented policy or legislation to include mandatory content on humane education, animal care and protection in the national school curriculum.

In 2005 a steering committee was formed to review the Philippine national veterinary curriculum. It was recommended that more animal welfare content should be incorporated into existing modules on husbandry and breeding. This recommendation became a policy in 2007 (Commission on Higher Education Memorandum Order 15 from 2007) and animal welfare is now an elective available to study for all veterinary students.

Section 3 of the Act creating the Bureau of Animal Industry (Republic Act 3639) requires that the Bureau shall investigate, study and report upon specified issues relating to animals in the Philippines. This includes promoting the development of the livestock industry including by the collection and compilation of statistics on domestic animals (3(3)(d)) and by the dissemination of useful information on essential matters regarding domestic animals through the publication and distribution of bulletins, circulars, and other printed matter (3(3)(e)). Although animal welfare is not specifically mentioned here, this provides scope for work in this area, and the Bureau carries out training and information initiatives on animal welfare.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

At school level there is no legal or clear policy provision for mandatory humane education, beyond the requirement in the Anti-Rabies Act of 2007 for education on responsible pet ownership (section 6(C)(4)).

The Commission on Higher Education Memorandum Order 15 from 2007 identifies animal welfare as an individual issue for veterinarians both in a study and professional capacity. Animal welfare is recognised as a valid profession and career path for veterinary students and included as an elective module available to study for all veterinary students. As a standalone module available, students are given the opportunity to focus on standards and guidelines on animal welfare in a veterinary capacity. However, as the module is only an elective and not core to the qualification, not all students will study animal welfare, though some changes are taking place in this area.  Changes are taking place in this area as increasingly more veterinary schools are making animal welfare compulsory and the Commission for Higher Education is reviewing the national school curriculum again. The government advises that animal welfare is incorporated into some school level subjects such as science, and the website of the Animal Welfare Division within the Bureau of Animal Industry states that the Division conducts information and education communication campaigns.[1]

 

[1] http://www.bai.da.gov.ph/index.php/animal-welfare/56-highlights-and-acco...

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

Animal welfare was introduced into Philippines veterinary education policy in 2007 and made a standalone module for study in the Philippine veterinary curriculum. However, at present this is an elective module and not compulsory, although it is noted that many universities have chosen to make it a compulsory element of their courses.

At school level, the government advises that animal welfare is incorporated into some subjects such as science.

Efforts made in this area suggest that improvement should be possible. However it is noted that the curriculum for school grades 7 to 9 includes optional courses on animal production, but the scope of these courses does not currently include animal welfare considerations and at grade 9 level the course includes the students carrying out de-beaking of poultry, disbudding kids and lambs, and dehorning and castrating small ruminants.[1]

 

[1] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8xBbYUc2V91dnVMTjNpRmFneGZqZGppazVfbjJu...

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There are no enforcement mechanisms relevant to this indicator. 

Promoting communication and awareness

Promoting communication and awareness

This theme examines whether there is government consultation and engagement with relevant stakeholders on animal protection issues, such as the development of new legislation and policy and the licensing of scientific research using animals.

A

Consultation with stakeholders

There is legislation

Section 5 of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 establishes the Committee on Animal Welfare, “attached to the Department of Agriculture which shall, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, issue the necessary rules and regulations for the strict implementation of the provisions of this Act”. The Committee is also responsible for approving scientific experiments on animals. Included in the composition of the Committee are a variety of stakeholders including other governmental departments, agricultural industry groups, veterinary associations and local animal welfare NGOs. The legislation should help to ensure not only that the government works with relevant stakeholders, but also that they are included in the implementation process. 

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The Animal Welfare Act of 1998 forms a Committee specifically focussed on animal welfare as an individual issue. Included in the Committee are a wide variety of stakeholders with interests in varying economic, social and developmental issues. With a responsibility for the correct implementation of the Act in the country, the legislation potentially introduces animal welfare into a number of other strategic priorities for the government. These stakeholders are included within the group responsible for producing guidelines and standards on animal welfare in the Philippines. The government reports that additional NGO representatives are also welcomed to Committee meetings on a regular basis.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The Committee on Animal Welfare is attached to the Department of Agriculture and answerable to the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry, who is responsible for the supervision of animal holding facilities covered by the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 and its implementation through governmental departments. There are not considered to be any barriers to the government working with others to improve animal welfare, particularly given evidence of existing collaboration and partnerships.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

The requirement to involve relevant stakeholders in the Committee on Animal Welfare is set out in legislation (the Animal Welfare Act of 1998). The Act also sets out the expected timelines for the Committee on Animal Welfare to meet and review associated guidelines produced in line with the Act. The Committee is to meet “on a quarterly basis or as often as the need arises” (and the government advises that meetings take place more regularly than required by the Act) and guidelines “shall be reviewed by the Committee every three (3) years from its implementation or whenever necessary”.

Countries Selected
Select up to four countries and then select 'Compare' to start contrasting animal welfare standards

Household consumption, accounting for 70% of GDP, and public and private investment are the main drivers of the economy. BMI forecast real GDP in 2014 to be 6.3. Although a the powerful typhoon, Haiyan, made landfall in November 2013 and caused widespread devastation, it is expected that this will have a very limited effect on growth due to the affected region being mainly agricultural. The EIU states that the main challenge facing the Philippines currently is the “need to improve the public finances while boosting spending in crucial areas of the economy, such as infrastructure, education and healthcare”. In the long term, the EIU forecasts real GDP will average out at 6% for the period 2012-2020.

 

Date of information: 11/02/2014
Population 
96,706,764 (2012)
GDP 
$250,182,008,487 (2012)
GDP (PPP) 
$4,413 (2012)
Education expenditure (% of GDP) 
2.7 (2009)