Hazel Mendoza, JD 2-2

Legal Writing, Dean Rodel Taton

Brutal Slaughter of an Innocent Dog in the Metro Manila Film Festival 2016 Entry
ORO and the Double Standard in the Philippine Animal Welfare Act

Oro which means gold is a movie shown last December in the Philippines which is
inspired by true story about a massacre of 4 small scale miners in Caramoan, Camarines
Sur in the first quarter of 2014. In the middle of the film, there was a dog, who was
bludgeoned to death to be eaten by the natives of the town. Ironically, the supposed to be
a fake scene turned out to be an actual brutal killing of the innocent animal as part of the
movie for the sake of realistic portrayal.

The dog killing has brought different opinions from the public, animal welfare activists
and even film critics. In the Philippines, we give high regards to dogs and seek to defend
them from cruelties.

In 1982, Metro Manila Commission Ordinance was issued by then Vice Governor Ismael
Mathay prohibiting the killing, selling, or offering for sale of any dog for food, the
storing or offering of dog meat for sale within Metro Manila, the transporting of dogs
and/or dog meat to and from metro manila, providing penalties for violation thereof and
for other purposes.1It can be concluded that ever since, we seek for protection of
domesticated animals specifically canines and give it much importance than other species
of animals.

Thereafter, throughout the years, the legislative intended to protect the wider range of
animals, and not just dogs from cruel acts of humans and RA 8485, as enacted in 1998
was amended in 2013 to include more details to be more applicable to the necessities of
the modern time. In RA 10631, it expressly stated the prohibition to torture animals
specifically dogs among others and killing of the same. As quoted in the Animal Welfare
Act:

SEC. 6. It shall be unlawful for any person to torture any animal, to neglect to provide
adequate care, sustenance of shelter, or maltreat any animal or to subject any dog or horse
to dogfights or horsefights, kill or cause or procure to be tortured or deprived of adequate
care, sustenance or shelter, or maltreat or use the same in research or experiments not
expressly authorized by the Committee on Animal Welfare.2

1 Metro Manila Commission Ordinance 82-02

2 Republic Act No. 10631, An Act To Promote Animal Welfare In The Philippines, Otherwise Known As
The Animal Welfare Act Of 1998
Hazel Mendoza, JD 2-2
Legal Writing, Dean Rodel Taton

However, there is a double standard even in the Animal Welfare Act wherein the farm
animals are allowed to be killed and be eaten. The killing of those excluded in the list
provided by the Act below shall be deemed unlawful and will be subject to imprisonment
and other punishment such as fine.

The killing of any animal other than cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, poultry, rabbits, carabaos
and horses is likewise hereby declared unlawful 3

It is a sad reality that while domesticated animals are given with better protection as
against those farm animals which also have feelings of their own. The double standards in
what we called pet versus those animals which are considered as food for our survival are
being treated differently in our society.

Going back to the killing, there are cases which are exception to the exception. Cultural
beliefs and customs of indigenous communities were given importance so the killing of
those animals excluded in the provision aforementioned can still be justified.

1. When it is done as part of the religious rituals of an established religion or sect or a

ritual required by tribal or ethnic custom of indigenous cultural communities; however,
leaders shall keep records in cooperation with the Committee on Animal Welfare;
2. When the pet animal is afflicted with an incurable communicable disease as
determined and certified by a duly licensed veterinarian;
3. When the killing is deemed necessary to put an end to the misery suffered by the
animal as determined and certified by a duly licensed veterinarian;
4. When it is done to prevent an imminent danger to the life or limb of a human being;
5. When done for the purpose of animal population control;
6. When the animal is killed after it has been used in authorized research of
experiments; and
7. Any other ground analogous to the foregoing as determined and certified licensed
veterinarian.4

Dogs can likewise be killed if it is infected with rabies. However, the manner of killing is
prescribed by the statute. Philippines has its own law on prevention of rabies in the
country as provided by Anti-Rabies Act of 2007. If the manner of killing violated the
manner allowed by the law, there will be imposition of penalty to the perpetrators as
provided herein;

Sec. 11. Penalties. -

3 Ibid

4 Ibid
Hazel Mendoza, JD 2-2
Legal Writing, Dean Rodel Taton

xxxxxxx

(7) Any person found guilty of trading Dog for meat shall be fined not less than
Five thousand pesos,(P5,000.00) per Dog and subjected to imprisonment for one to
four years.
(8) Any person found guilty of using electrocution as a method of euthanasia shall be
fined not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) per act and subject to imprisonment
for one to four years.

Meanwhile in the neighboring Asian country such as China, their measures when public
health is at stake justified the killing of dogs in order to stop the spread of rabies virus. As
written in the article of Jeremy Chan, local government killed around 37,000 dogs to fight
the outbreak of rabies, even with strong opposition animal-welfare advocates and thus
highlighting a division in treatment toward animals.5

According to Rosalyn Morrison of Animal Welfare Institute, in another country like

South Korea, dog meat is sold in restaurants all over the country and around 20,000
restaurants including those unregistered offered dog meats as estimated throughout the
years. Their own Animal Protection Act was not properly enforced in penalizing the
violators.6

From the article of Nelly Sindayen of Time Magazine, dog meat is a common delicacy at
occasions like birthdays and fiesta in Pampanga even after the ban of eating and serving
dog meat in restaurants in 1998.7 Also in the article of Sindayen, she mentioned that dogs
prevent the asthma effects and to stimulates libido to some. Dogs are killed by having
them first clubbed unconscious and then have them slaughtered with a knife which is just
so cruel. For belief of medicinal properties, sometimes, blood is this poor animal is being
drained to be drunk. Dog skin are prepared and eaten with vinegar, garlic and ginger as
soak. Since what have been portrayed in ORO is the consumption of dog meat in the
country, it is still widely occurring in some provinces to date. As dogs are relatively
cheaper when bought as compared to whole swine and cattle and can feed many and most
of the time, as combination to alcoholic drinks. But the issue still lies on the cruel manner
of killing the dog incorporated in a film that was watched by millions in the cinema
during December of last year.

5 Chan, Jeremy Dog (2009), Killings in China Spur Outrage The Wall Street Journal Asia

6 Morrison, Rosalyn, ( 2012), Friend or Food? South Korea's Cruel Dog Meat Trade, Animal
Welfare Institute Quarterly Publication, Winter Vol.

7 Nelly Sindayen, (2007), How Much Is that Doggie on the Menu?, Time Magazine
Hazel Mendoza, JD 2-2
Legal Writing, Dean Rodel Taton

REFERENCES

Statutes

Metro Manila Commission Ordinance 82-02,

Republic Act No. 10631, An Act To Promote Animal Welfare In The Philippines,
Otherwise Known As The Animal Welfare Act Of 1998

Articles

Chan, Jeremy Dog (2009), Killings in China Spur Outrage The Wall Street Journal
Asia

Morrison, Rosalyn, ( 2012), Friend or Food? South Korea's Cruel Dog Meat Trade,
Animal Welfare Institute Quarterly Publication, Winter Vol.

Nelly Sindayen, (2007), How Much Is that Doggie on the Menu?, Time Magazine