02/06/2025
NO TO THE PROPOSED REVISED ANIMAL
WELFARE ACT!!!!
It is ten steps back rather than a step forward in our fight for granting greater protection to the animals and punishing those guilty of animal cruelty and animal neglect. When you add exclusions and ultra-specific definitions, you give space to animal abusers to bend the law to evade liability.
The principal sponsors of Senate Bill 2975 are Senators RAFFY TULFO, GRACE POE, NANCY BINAY, JOEL VILLANUEVA, CYNTHIA VILLAR, MARK VILLAR, and PIA CAYETANO. Petition your lawmakers that the current draft of the revised Animal Welfare Act is a badly written law that should not be passed. These lawmakers have ignored the recommendations of principal stakeholders like PAWS and PVMA. Are they being lobbied by those whom the original animal welfare act intended to prosecute like commercial dog meat traders and those engaged in bloody sports of animal fighting? I can’t believe an animal welfare advocate is counseling them on this bill that is largely BS for animal welfare.
Help us Kiko Pangilinan Bam Aquino and Senator Risa Hontiveros. This bill as it is currently written should not be passed into law.
ANIMALS DESERVE BETTER. THE PROPOSED REVISED ANIMAL WELFARE BILL WEAKENS, NOT STRENGTHENS, PROTECTIONS FOR ANIMALS.
PAWS expresses serious and urgent concern over Senate Bill 2975, which revises the Animal Welfare Act. Despite being presented as a step forward, the bill in its current form significantly weakens legal protections for animals and undermines many hard-won gains as well as risks rolling back years of progress in animal welfare in the Philippines.
We cannot call this proposed Animal Welfare Act an improvement at its current state, as it is not yet the version of the law that the animals deserve. They deserve stronger, more inclusive protections, and we owe it to them to take the time, care, and courage to get this right.
1. Dangerous Redefinition of “Animals”
The proposed bill redefines “animals” to include only “domesticated vertebrate and invertebrate species under the control of man.” This narrow definition excludes wild animals and domesticated non-mammalian species, stripping them of legal protection. Under this proposed law, acts of cruelty against wildlife (e.g. our dolphins, whalesharks, eagles, and tarsiers), or even pets like birds and reptiles, may no longer be punishable or considered cruelty. This limitation is a significant step backward, especially since the existing Animal Welfare Act already extends protection to all animals, without discrimination. Animal welfare should never depend on whether a species is rare, exotic, common, or domesticated. Humane treatment must be a right for all animals—not a privilege reserved for a select few.
2. Loophole in Dog Meat Prohibition
The proposed bill requalifies the prohibition on the dog meat trade by restricting it to “commercial dog meat trade.” This creates a dangerous loophole that allows individuals to claim that killing dogs for personal consumption is “non-commercial” and thus not prohibited. This weakening of protection is especially detrimental to our beloved Aspins, who already face challenges of neglect and abuse. The law must send a clear and unequivocal message: no form of dog slaughter is acceptable, whether commercial purposes or not. This proposed qualifier opens a very dangerous loophole for animal abusers and puts our Aspins at further risk.
3. Gives Legal Pathway for Animal Fighting
The proposed bill redefines the prohibition on animal fighting by inserting the phrase “not authorized or regulated by law.” This creates the alarming possibility that animal fighting could be made legal or allowed through local ordinances, as long as it is “regulated.” This not only normalizes animal fighting such as horsefighting, but will also make them more difficult to prosecute, as compared to the present Animal Welfare Act.
4. Weaker Penalties for Animal Cruelty
Contrary to expectations, the bill does not actually propose any higher or harsher penalties for animal cruelty. In fact, it sets lower minimum fines and prison terms than those already established in the current law by imposing a catch-all penalty of just P5,000 and one year imprisonment for acts not specified in letters a to d of the section of penalties. When the current law already mandates up to P250,000 and three years, this proposed bill even risks minimizing the gravity of animal cruelty crimes.
5. Removal of Automatic Maximum Penalty for Convicted Public Officers or Employees
Another deeply troubling change is the removal of automatic maximum penalties for public officers and government pound administrators found guilty of cruelty. Under the current law, these individuals are held to the highest standard and must face the harshest penalties if found guilty of animal cruelty, rightfully so as they are those the people have entrusted with protecting animal welfare. The new bill, however, strikes this out and excludes them from automatic maximum penalties while retaining them for foreign nationals and juridical persons. This selective enforcement sends the wrong message and undermines public trust. We cannot be making the law more lax towards those who have the responsibility to protect animals themselves.
6. A De Facto Repeal of the Animal Welfare Act
What is really at stake here? This isn’t just a simple amendment—it’s effectively a total repeal of our existing Animal Welfare Act. If passed as written, all the current rules that protect animals (the IRRs) would be wiped out with no clear plan to replace them.
Worse, the Senate version doesn’t even provide for a new set of rules. This creates a dangerous legal gap that could put hundreds of animal cruelty cases at risk. Offenders may walk free, and past violations could go unpunished, all because of technical loopholes in the law.
This bill could become a get-out-of-jail-free card for those who abuse and harm animals — and would undo years of hard-fought progress in animal protection. We must not allow that to happen.
While we acknowledge the good intentions behind this legislative effort and recognize the lawmakers who have taken the initiative to revise the law, this bill, at its current state, is NOT what the animals need or deserve. Some of these concerns have already been raised before by Senator Risa Hontiveros and other stakeholders, but they were yet to be addressed or revised before the bill passed its third reading in the Senate just today.
We urge Congress to carefully reconsider the effects and implications of the proposed bill and defer the passage of Senate Bill 2975 at its current state. This bill must be revisited, reexamined, and revised through wide consultation with more concerned animal welfare experts, veterinarians, advocacy groups, and the broader public.
We call on lawmakers to enact a law that truly strengthens animal protection, closes legal loopholes, raises penalties for cruelty, holds public servants accountable, and, most importantly, treats ALL animals as deserving of compassion, dignity, and respect.
Let us not move backward in the protection of the voiceless. Let us be their voice.
Let us do better for them and give them the law they actually deserve.
