02/12/2025
READ:
Statement from Happy Animals Club
On the evening of Monday, December 1, 2025, the City Government of Davao released a Statement about us. We were shocked to see this statement which contains blatant lies.
Before we even begin, we would like to say it is unfortunate that the City released a statement on Facebook before contacting us. They could have messaged us, called us, emailed us, or come to our shelter. Instead they released a Statement on Facebook. (We took our cause to social media only after being unable to contact them directly. We went to their offices and also sent them a letter which was never answered since July until now.)
OUR CLAIM: The city government offered us a property to quell the outrage about our unjust closure order, then failed to make good on their promise.
THE CITY'S CLAIM: We were invited to participate as advocates during preliminary discussions to provide our input, and the proposed city-owned shelter is not for HAC's exclusive use.
The City Government's Statement is a feeble attempt at gaslighting. We will proceed to tear the City Government's claims to shreds in the paragraphs below. 👇
1. If we are just one of the participants or beneficiaries of the project, how come no other organization has the blueprints? If a city-owned shelter was intended to serve the "broader community," how come no other animal welfare advocacy was aware about the project? There are literally zero posts or mentions of the project by anyone until we revealed it.
2. How come we were the only animal welfare advocacy present at ALL the meetings? No other animal shelter or rescue group was present at any of the meetings we attended. Bantay Hayop Davao, ARRF, Pet Avenue, and DARV were never invited.
3. How come no other participants are mentioned in our conversations with the City Administration's representatives?
4. How come the city never announced their city-owned animal shelter for broad community use? How come it was never in any public documents or posts or releases? Surely if the city were planning an animal shelter for use by the broader community, something animal lovers have been clamoring for for years, they would have publicized it? Why does an animal shelter have to be a top secret project? And why is the city's first revelation about this project in the form of a Statement about HAC?
5. How come the city staff took us on an expedition to see 3 different sites and asked us to pick a lot? If the project is for the broader community, why did we get to choose the lot?
6. Why did the City Administrator ask us to email a list of requirements and facilities for the new project? Why would our own specific needs matter if the project is for the broader community?
7. Why were we the ones asked to provide input even though we were the ones who were shut down? Isn't it odd to ask input for a proposed city-owned community animal shelter from the only organization that had their permit revoked by the government's own Business Bureau just weeks ago, and still has the closure order in place? Isn't it weird to ask input from an NGO that has no permit?
8. How come there was no quote from Atty Layog included in the city's statement? If we were lying about being granted a property for our own exclusive use, surely he would have made a statement refuting our claim, "I never offered HAC an exclusive property" to be included in the statement by the city?
9. There were multiple people present during our meetings with the city. Both we and these witnesses can testify under oath, or in affidavits, that the government promised us an exclusive property with facilities. Will Attorney Layog and his staff be willing to do the same? What about representatives from the various government departments such as CEO, CPaD, CVO, and CHO, who were present at meetings? Will they go on the record and provided signed statements that the proposed shelter was not for exclusive use by HAC?
10. Why was the statement released by the city yesterday unsigned? Why did no-one at the city dare to put their signature under this Statement?
11. Why was the invitation to "participate in discussions" right at the peak of public outrage after our unjust closure order? Is it believable that on October 24, 2025, we met with the City Health Office in their offices about our closure and pending Sanitary Orders, and the very next day we meet with the City Admin as a random participant to provide input for a secret shelter they just happen to be planning?
12. Why would we post on our Facebook on October 25, 2023, at the height of public outrage, and right after our meeting with the City Administrator, that we met with the City Administrator and that "we are working with the City Government for a win-win solution"?
We really hope the media will investigate the veracity if the city's Statement thoroughly. We have documentation which may be viewed by any reputable media organization. We can easily prove the city's Statement is an inept attempt at damage control, at the cost of the city's integrity.
The fact remains that we were unjustly shut down by the city in 2023 pursuant to a complaint by Ronald Mamaril of Mamaril Corporation, a government contractor who is very close with multiple city government departments.
After we were unjustly closed in 2023, we made numerous attempts to reach out to the city via letters, via friends who knew the partner of the mayor, and other ways. But the government never budged so we took our cause to social media. The public outrage was overwhelming. The city's pages were flooded with hate comments. The CHO and CVO had to turn off comments.
The City Administrator then offered us a city-owned property to quell the public anger, and it worked. But they never delivered, and now they released a Statement saying they never offered us anything and we were just there to provide onput. Sorry, but that is just nonsense.
In any case, now that the City Government made it clear they will not help us in any way, we are on our own. We have no choice to raise as much funding as possible from the public so we can evacuate by the deadline. We have 2M already but it's not enough for both land and buildings.
📷Happy Animals Club
