PH laws allow wildlife smuggling brains to stay untouched
CURLED CAPTIVES The 10 Philippine pangolins intercepted from three smugglers in Tagaytay City in June are curled up in fishnet bags when they were rescued by authorities. FILE PHOTO
(Last of two parts)
MANILA, Philippines — Months before police officers found a cargo of poached wild animals in two luxury vehicles at a checkpoint in Tandag City, Surigao del Sur province, in 2019, wildlife law enforcers arrested two men in Mati City, Davao Oriental province, also for a similar smuggling activity.
The two illegal traders had in their possession 450 wild animals believed to have originated from Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, like the Tandag shipment, prompting enforcers to believe that both cases were related and involved the same network of traffickers.
The seized animals were valued at P50 million, but the municipal trial court only handed down the minimum fine for possessing critically endangered species: 2 years and a day in jail and P30,000 in fines, on top of a monthlong imprisonment and a P5,000 fine for illegal trade.
Both wildlife law enforcers and conservationists say that the low penalties prescribed in the current wildlife law no longer deter criminals from poaching or illegally trading wildlife in the country.
“There is a disparity, a real gap between the economic incentives that the criminals can get in wildlife trafficking, and the disincentives given by the law,” said lawyer Teodoro Jose Matta, executive director of the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development.
“There’s also a lack of provision in our current laws to penalize accomplices, accessories … Right now, if you are a mastermind, you delegate your activity to local traders and you’re never going to get caught,” he added.
No real jail time
Most of the sentences under the 20-year-old Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act, or Republic Act No. 9147, are below six years imprisonment. First-time convicts often apply for probation to skip jail time and avoid paying the fines under certain terms.
In the Mati case, the two men spent only four days behind bars before posting a P40,000 bail. After their conviction, both sought probation.
According to the Davao Oriental Parole and Probation Office, the men, who are cousins, were “very qualified” for probation, after finding no other criminal charges against them.
The two said they were fishermen from General Santos City, South Cotabato province, who were forced to stay on shore after their boat was damaged. They said they were approached by a certain person to look after the birds—claiming they did not know they were smuggled—in exchange for P250 per day and food.
Their bail was paid for by a relative, said senior probation and parole officer Jonaliza Manguiob, whom they sought for help after they were arrested.
But even when their probation application was granted in September 2020, they have not yet begun their service. They have not shown up at the probation office in General Santos, where their application had been transferred.
Manguiob said the men claimed difficulty in traveling because of their fishing activities. Despite their absence, no warrants have been served against them.
The same story persists in many other cases.
In Tagaytay City, three men who smuggled 10 Philippine pangolins, among the most trafficked mammals globally, were sentenced to merely 3 months imprisonment and a fine of P20,000 each. Only three pangolins were repatriated alive back to Palawan province; seven others had died in the smuggling attempt.
Hopes on revision
The Inquirer learned that only two of them were granted probation, with one confirmed to have ended his term last February. The third convict is on the run with an arrest warrant against him, after he failed to appear at the probation office, according to Eduardo Lamorena Jr., Tagaytay probation and parole chief.
These are the realities that wildlife law enforcers and conservationists hope to overturn in amending the wildlife law.
In the House of Representatives, a substitute bill that consolidated five pending legislation seeking to revamp the law hurdled the committee on appropriations in May, after gaining approval from the committee on natural resources in December last year.
In the Senate, two senators separately filed a bill in March, but these remain pending at the Senate committee on environment, natural resources and climate change.
Under the House substitute bill, the penalties for killing a critically endangered animal could now mean 12 to 20 years in prison, on top of a fine of P200,000 up to P2 million.
Illegal traders could face a minimum imprisonment of four years and cough up P50,000 in fines. Those transporting without proper permits could be sentenced to pay P100,000 and spend time in jail for up to two years.
The revisions also aim to check loopholes in the current law. For instance, each wild animal seized will now constitute a separate and distinct count of an illegal act, so that if 10 specimens of even a near threatened species is involved, the maximum penalty will already be imposed on the offender.
For the first time, wildlife trafficking will now be properly defined as a criminal act committed by a syndicate or with wildlife either bound for import or export from the country.
The proposed amendments aim to strengthen wildlife law enforcement by creating plantilla positions and deputizing wildlife enforcement officers.
“This will deter criminal elements, those involved in trafficking of wildlife,” said lawyer Theresa Tenazas, acting head of the wildlife resources division of the Biodiversity Management Bureau. “The Philippines is no longer a haven for them.”
No more delays
Much remains to be done, however, in ensuring actual prosecution and conviction of wildlife criminals. For one, wildlife law enforcers, especially in the provincial offices of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, should be trained to handle and see wildlife cases through, and not just settle for the minimum punishment, conservationists say.
The government must also exert efforts to wield other legal mechanisms, said lawyer Edward Lorenzo, policy and governance adviser of Conservation International Philippines. Wildlife criminals, especially those using electronic and online means in their transactions and those involved in transboundary trafficking, could be slapped with violations to the cybercrime law and the antimoney laundering law.
“There can be more creative ways of using these other modes to target the upper levels of the syndicates and not just the lower-ranking parts of the network,” Lorenzo said. “They’re more important since they’re the ones providing financing, logistics and connections..”
As wildlife crime persists despite continuous enforcement operations and the coronavirus lockdowns, the harsher penalties could no longer afford more delays.
“The amended law will not end anything, but I believe it can go a long way in helping us minimize our current problems,” said Lorenzo. “What we want is our enforcers to be prepared, so that when the world opens again and the illegal trade comes back, at least they are more ready.” INQ
(This story was produced with the support of Oxpeckers Center for Investigative Environmental Journalism and Internews’ Earth Journalism Network. –Ed.)
