QC’s ‘4 pets per house’ ordinance repealed
First, the good news: The controversial animal regulation ordinance limiting the number of cats and dogs Quezon City residents can keep has become null and void following the approval of another one which does not contain the provision.
The bad news, however, is that the “four domesticated animals per household” policy may still be incorporated into the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) for Ordinance No. 2389 should the city veterinarian office push for it.
The ordinance which adopts the Quezon City Veterinary Code was approved by Mayor Herbert Bautista on March 26.
On the other hand, Ordinance No. 2386, which limits to four the number of pets homeowners can keep and requires them to apply for a P500 special permit if they want to care for more, was signed into law on March 13.
Vice Mayor Joy Belmonte, however, said that the more recently approved ordinance supercedes the controversial one since it adopts the city’s veterinary code. She explained that according to Section 68 of the code, “all ordinances, issuances, rules and regulations inconsistent with the provisions of this Code are hereby repealed, amended, rescinded or modified accordingly.”
Earlier, Ordinance No. 2386 was met with criticism online by pet owners and animal advocates after the Inquirer reported that it contained a provision which stated that dogs and cats should be kept to a maximum number of four per household.
Pet owners who wanted to keep more than the allowed number would have to pay P500 for the special permit required of breeders and trainers.
But “the veterinary code supercedes all other measures passed in the past. If it’s not in the code, it’s not deemed implementable,” Belmonte said. “The technicality is that [Ordinance No. 2386] is no longer applicable.”
According to city veterinary services division head Ana Marie Cabel, she suggested restricting the number of pets per household because in 2014, 90 percent of the 13,231 animal bite cases in Quezon City came from pets. “And the more dogs you have in your house, the more [likely] you’ll get bitten,” she said.
Cabel added that in 2014, the city posted the highest number of rabies cases in Metro Manila at 25 cases.
She also explained that they placed the limit at four pets per homeowner based on space requirements set by the Animal Welfare Act.
At the same time, Cabel denied some netizens’ claim that the controversial provision was a “money-making” scheme.
“It’s fine with me if we don’t charge for the [special] permit [required of trainers and breeders.] We just need to issue permits so we can check if the owner is complying with vaccination and space requirements,” she said.
Belmonte, meanwhile, said that the restrictive provision could still be implemented into the IRR for Ordinance No. 2389, which has yet to be drafted. However, she assured animal welfare groups that they would be consulted on the matter during a public hearing.
Sought for comment about this new development, the Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), which earlier said that the controversial ordinance may lead to owners abandoning their pets, was not appeased.
PAWS executive director Anna Cabrera observed that the city government did not seem to have “thought things through” when they approved the previous animal regulation ordinance. “They approved it, then within days, approved an ordinance repealing it? What kind of system is that?” she said.
