An Overview on the Devolution of Cockfighting Regulation in the Philippines

I. As early as 1901, cockfighting was already recognized as an activity that needed to be regulated. Under Section 40 of Act No. 82, the municipal council was empowered to license, tax or close cockpits. II. In the 1930s, the Supreme Court thru Justice Villamor said that granting that the policy of the Government is to do away with gambling little by little, with special reference to cockpits, the Legislature has delegated its power over this matter to the municipal council, conferring upon it ample discretion to legislate upon the same, i.e. to regulate or prohibit cockpits. Such power was referred in the Administrative Code as one of the certain legislative powers of discretionary character. (Sec. 2243. Certain legislative powers of discretionary character: xxx or xxx xxx

(i) to regulate cockpits, cockfighting and the keeping or training of fighting cocks, prohibit either.) Furthermore, in the said case, the Supreme Court said that the municipal council of Dumaguete, Negros Oriental has used its sound discretion in enacting an ordinance for the opening of cockpits within the limits of its jurisdiction. It said that the municipal council is the best judge of such matters and in the exercise of its discretion, it is not subject to the power of the provincial board to revoke its local legislation because the provincial board only has jurisdiction to hold an ordinance invalid when it has been enacted beyond the powers expressly conferred upon the municipal council. In another case (October 21, 1939), the Supreme Court thru Chief Justice Avancea affirmed such power of the municipal council in a case involving the municipality of Tanauan, Leyte. It said that the municipal council is granted by law with the discretion to regulate or prohibit cockpits. Discretionary power is defined as the authority granted by the law to a head of state or government or other high official to act on his own discretion. It is also exercised by administrative and legislative bodies. When discretionary power is alloted or given to an official or body, they are expressly authorized to make a decision on their own and to use their own wisdom and judgment. The related

noun discretion means "choice or option." It is also referred to as a prerogative. The official or body which exercises that power has the right of choice which he may exercise freely according to his judgment. deciding for himself who is best qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications and eligibilities. It is a prerogative of such official or body. III. The power of the municipal council to regulate and license or prohibit or close cockpits was continued to be recognized even after the establishment of the Philippine Republic in 1946. (Sec. 1, Republic Act No. 938 entitled An Act Granting Municipal or City Boards and Councils the Power to Regulate the Establishment, Maintenance and Operation of Certain Places of Amusement Within Their Respective Territorial Jurisdictions, June 20, 1953, and Par. (s), Section 1, Republic Act No. 1515 entitled An Act Providing for a More Autonomous Government for Municipal Districts, Amending for the Purpose Article Six, Chapter Sixty-Four of the Administrative Code, June 16, 1956) IV. On May 17, 1955, Republic Act No. 1224 (An Act Amending Section One of Republic Act Numbered Nine Hundred Thirty-Eight, as Amended) was passed which sought to impose restrictions on the establishment of most places of amusement near public buildings, schools, hospitals and churches. Interestingly, cockpits were exempted from these restrictions. Section 1 of R.A. 1224 states: The municipal or city board or council of each chartered city and the municipal council of each municipality and municipal district shall have the power to regulate or prohibit by ordinance the establishment, maintenance and operation of night clubs, cabarets, dancing schools, pavilions, cockpits, bars, saloons, bowling alleys, billiard pools, and other similar places of amusements within its territorial jurisdiction: Provided, however, That no such places of amusement mentioned herein shall be established, maintained and/or operated within a radius of two hundred lineal meters in the case of night clubs, cabarets, pavilions or other similar places, and fifty lineal meters in the case of dancing schools, bars, saloons, billiard pools, bowling alleys, or other similar places, except cockpits, the distance of which shall be left to the discretion of the municipal or city board or council, from any public building, schools, hospitals and churches: Provided, further, That no municipal or city ordinance fixing distances at which such places of amusement may be established or operated shall apply to those already licensed and operating at the time of the enactment of such municipal or city ordinance, nor will the subsequent opening of any public building or other premises from

which distances shall be measured prejudice any place of amusement already then licensed and operating, but any such place of amusement within fifty lineal meters from any school, hospital or church shall be so constructed that the noise coming therefrom shall not disturb those in the school, hospital or church , and if such noise causes such disturbance then such place of amusement shall not operate during school hours when near a school, or at night when near a hospital, or when there are religious services when near a church: x x x R.A. 1224 effectively amended R.A. 979 (May 21, 1954) which prohibits the establishment of places of amusements including cockpits within a radius of five hundred lineal meters from any public buildings, schools, hospitals and churches. V. In 1961, in a case involving the power of the City Council of Iloilo, under Section 21 of its charter to regulate places of amusement, the Supreme Court thru Justice Concepcion said that R.A. No 938 does not give a blanket authority to permit cockfighting at any time. R.A. No. 938 did not repeal sections 2285 and 2286 of the Administrative Code which imposed restrictions on what days cockfights could be held. In 1963, a bill was filed in Congress (House Bill No. 7504 introduced by Congressman Albano of Isabela) granting municipal councils the power to authorize cockfighting on any day of the week. This bill, however, was not passed. Again, in 1966, the same issue was discussed in a decision penned by Justice Concepcion involving three (3) cases in Caloocan City, Municipality of Paraaque and Pasay City---whether a municipal ordinance may validly authorize licensed cockpits on days other than those mentioned in Sections 2285 and 2286 of the Administrative Code. This decision reiterated its decision in the earlier Quimsing case. In 1967, in the case of People vs Ayoso et al penned by Justice Makalintal, the same finding was obtained, citing the cases of Quimsing, PC Chief vs Sabungan Bagong Silang, Inc., PC Chief vs Judge of CFI Rizal and Peralta vs Bautista. VI. In the 1970s, more restrictions were put in place with the enactment of Presidential Decree No. 449. Aside from the one-cockpit rule (Section 5, par. b), the following restrictions were included: (1) limitation of ownership of cockpits to Filipino citizens (Section 5, par. a); (2) construction and operation of cockpits only in areas as prescribed in the

local zoning law or ordinance (Section 5, par. c); (3) holding of cockfights only on some given days (Sec. 5, par. d and e); (4) requirement of licenses of participating cockfighting officials approved by the city or municipality where such cockfighting is held (section 7) The holding of cockfights was also limited to the following: 1. during Sundays and legal holidays; 2. during local fiestas for not more than three (3) days 3. during provincial, city or municipal, agricultural, commercial or industrial fair, carnival or exposition for a similar period of three (3) days upon resolution of the province, city or municipality where such fair, carnival or exposition is to be held; 4. cockfighting for the entertainment of tourists or for charitable purposes for only one time in a year for a period not exceeding three (3) days. Furthermore, no cockfighting shall be held on December 30 (Rizal Day), June 12 (Philippine Independence Day), November 30 (National Heroes Day), Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Election or Referendum Day and during Registration days for such election or referendum. Under Section 6, the law authorized city and municipal mayors to issue licenses for the operation and maintenance of cockpits subject to the approval of the Chief Constabulary or his authorized representatives. The sole discretion formerly conferred to the local governments was removed since the approval of the Chief of Constabulary was already required. On March 6, 1978, Presidential Decree No. 1310 (entitled Amending Presidential Decree No. 449, otherwise known as the Cockfighting Law of 1974) was issued by President Marcos for the following reasons: 1. Cockfighting has proven to be one of the major tourist attraction in the Philippines; 2. Under existing law, only one cockpit is allowed in each city or municipality; 3. There is a need to amend the law to allow the establishment of additional cockpits to give impetus to our tourism program. The amendment reads: Section 1. Section 5 (b) of Presidential Decree No. 449 is hereby

amended to read as follows: (b) Establishment of Cockpits. One only cockpit shall be allowed in each city or municipality; Provided, however, that in cities and municipalities with a population of more than one hundred thousand, two cockpits may be established, maintained and operated in the Poblacion and one in each city or town district. x x x

It must be also stressed that almost eleven (11) years later, when P.D. 1802 was issued by President Marcos in 1974, it was mentioned in one of PD 1802's Whereas clauses that in keeping with the multifaceted reforms and changes, there was a need to amend Section 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code through the promulgation of P.D. 449. VII. On December 23, 1980, President Marcos issued Executive Order No. 636 creating the Philippine Gamefowl Commission to regulate international cock derbies in the Philippines. It is worthy to note that the agency was created only for such purpose and not for local cockfighting. In the Whereas clauses of the said order, it stated that: (a) The international cockfight derbies primarily with the promulgation and enforcement of rules relative to the holding of international cockfighting derbies in the Philippines. (b) The gamefowl industry which is the main source of materials for cockfighting can be developed to profitable levels; (c) It is necessary that international cockfight derbies be regulated in order to derive from the maximum benefits not only for those who are directly engaged in them but for the country as well. The powers and functions of the Commission are the following: 1. Promulgate and enforce rules and regulations relative to the holding of international cockfight derbies in the Philippines, including the frequency, sites, conduct and operation of the derbies; 2. Issue licenses for the holding of international cockfight derbies; 3. Prescribe policy guidelines for the issuance of permits by the Bureau of Animal Industry for the importation or entry of gamecocks into the country for breeding or competition purposes;

4. Fix and periodically revise whenever necessary, subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance, the rates of license fees and other levies that may be imposed on international cockfight derbies; 5. Perform such other functions as may be authorized by law. VIII. Barely a month later (January 16, 1981), President Marcos issued Presidential Decree 1802. Among the many reasons cited for its issuance, it said that in furtherance of the avowed policies of the government on cockfighting as contained in P.D. 449, there is a need to incorporate relevant details which were not explicitly provided in Executive Order No. 636. Also, aside from stressing the need to amend Sections 2285 and 2286 of the Administrative Code through the promulgation of P.D. 449, an earlier decree, PD 1802 also stated the following needs: 1. the need to consolidate in one agency the authority, functions and responsibilities pertinent to the regulation of the various aspects of cockpit operation, cockfighting and gamefowl breeding as contained in the Revised Penal Code, various ordinances of various local government units and enabling acts and statutes by national agencies; 2. the need of continuous government regulation of cockfighting alongside the national recognition of the entertainment and attraction to tourism aspects of cockfighting; 3. the need to reconcile the interest of Filipino gamefowl breeders and the interest of promoters/operators of international cockfight derbies in view of the continuing development of cockfighting as a Filipino heritage. Together with the functions enumerated in E.O. 636, it included other functions of the Philippine Gamefowl Commission: 1. To promulgate rules and regulations relative to the holding, methods, procedures, operations and conduct of cockfighting in general as well as accreditation of cockpit personnel and association of cockpit owners, operators and lessees to elevate the standards of cockfighting; 2. To establish uniform rules and regulations to govern actual cockfighting enforceable in all cockpits in the Philippines and to provide sanctions for violation thereof; 3. To deputize any government office, entity, agency and public officer in the

implementation of all laws, decrees , letters of instructions, general orders pertinent to cockfighting rules and regulations issued by the Commission; PD 1802 also stated that City and Municipal mayors with the concurrence of their respective Sangguniang Panglungsod or Sangguniang Bayan shall have the authority to license and regulate regular cockfighting, under the supervision of the City Mayor and the Provincial Governor, as the case may be. IX. On the same day (January 16, 1981) that PD 1802 was issued, President Marcos issued Presidential Decree 1802-A (entitled Amending Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1802 Creating the Philippine Gamefowl Commission), which amends Section 4 of PD 1802 which reads: Section 1. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1802 is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 4. City and Municipal Mayors with the concurrence of their respective Sanggunians shall have the authority to license and regulate regular cockfighting pursuant to the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission and subject to its review and supervision. x x x

It removed the power of supervision of the City Mayor and the Provincial Governor over the power of the city and municipal mayors in the licensing and regulation of regular cockfighting. In its stead, it is now the Philippine Gamefowl Commission which has supervision in the exercise of authority of city and municipal mayors relative to cockfighting. X. In Batas Pambansa Blg 337 (Local Government Code which was in force from 1983 to 1991), it is stated that the municipal mayor has the power to grant licenses and permits in accordance with existing laws and municipal ordinances and revoke them for violation of the conditions upon which they have been granted (Section 141, par. 2 (k)) and the Sangguniang Bayan is authorized to regulate cockpits, cockfighting and the keeping or training of gamecocks, subject to existing guidelines promulgated by the Philippine Gamefowl Commission (Sec. 149, par. 1 (00)). In 1986, in a case (Philippine Gamefowl Commission and Hee Acusar vs IAC, Mayor Martinez, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bogo, Cebu) involving a conflict of jurisdiction between the Philippine Gamefowl Commission and the municipal

government of Bogo, Cebu, the Supreme Court speaking thru Justice Isagani Cruz laid the following principles as it upheld the powers of the municipal mayor in the licensing and regulation of cockpits: [It is] the municipal mayor with the authorization of the Sangguniang Bayan that has the primary power to issue licenses for the operation of ordinary cockpits. Even the regulation of cockpits is vested in the municipal officials, subject only to guidelines laid down by the Philippine Gamefowl Commission. Its power (referring to the Philippine Gamefowl Commission) to license is limited only to international derbies. Over the latter kind of cockpits, it has the power not of control but only of review and supervision. We have consistently held that supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that their subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. Supervision is a lesser power than control, which connotes the power of the officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. Review, on the other hand, is a reconsideration or reexamination for purposes of correction. As thus defined, the power of supervision does not allow the supervisor to annul the acts of the subordinate, for that comes under the power of control. What it can do is to see to it that the subordinate performs his duties in accordance with law. The power of review is exercised to determine whether it is necessary to correct the acts of the subordinate. If such correction is necessary, it must be done by the authority exercising control over the subordinate or through the instrumentality of the courts of justice, unless the subordinate motu proprio corrects himself after his error is called to his attention by the official exercising the power of supervision and review over him. At that, even the power of review vested in the Philippine Gamefowl Commission by PD 1802-A may have been modified by the Local Government Code, which became effective on February 14, 1983. Under the Code, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is supposed to examine the ordinances, resolutions and executive orders issued by the municipal government and to annul the same, but only on one ground, to wit, that is beyond the powers of the municipality or ultra vires. Significantly, no similar authority us conferred in such categorical terms on the Philippine Gamefowl Commission regarding the licensing and regulation of cockpits by the municipal government. .......Surely, the Philippine Gamefowl Commission cannot claim to know more than the municipal mayor and the Sangguniang Bayan of Bogo, Cebu, about the issues being disputed by the applicants to the cockpit license. x x x

In the absence of a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion, the choice of the municipal authorities should be respected by the PGC and in any event cannot be replaced by it simply because it believes another person should have been selected. Stated otherwise, the PGC cannot directly exercise the power to license cockpits and in effect usurp the authority directly conferred by law on the municipal authorities. (underscoring supplied) If at all, the power to review includes the power to disapprove; but it does not carry the authority to substitute one's own preferences for that chosen by the subordinate in the exercise of its sound discretion. (underscoring supplied) In the instant case, the PGC did not limit itself to vetoing the choice of Sevilla, assuming he was disqualified, but directly exercised the authority of replacing him with its own choice. Assuming Sevilla was really disqualified, the choice of his replacement still remained with the municipal authorities, subject only to the review of the PGC. In ordering the respondent officials to cancel the mayor's permit in favor of Santiago A. Sevilla and to issue another one in favor of Acusar, the PGC was exercising not the powers of mere supervision and review but the power of control, which had NOT been conferred upon it. (underscoring supplied) XI. The two legal principles enunciated in the 1986 case thru Justice Cruz namely that it is the municipal authorities who are empowered to issue cockpit licenses and that the powers of the Philippine Gamefowl Commission were limited to review and supervision were affirmed in the following cases decided by the Supreme Court: 1. Deang vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (September 24, 1987): Speaking thru Justice Gutierrez, the Court sad that the power given by law to city and municipal mayors in the issuance of licenses to operate is clear. The resolution of the PCG ordering the mayor to issue a permit to operate in favor of the petitioner was, therefore, promulgated without proper authority. 2. Muncipality of Malolos vs. Libangang Malolos, Inc. (April 8, 1988): Speaking thru Justice Melencio-Herrera, the Court said that the PGC cannot substitute its own discretion for the discretion exercised by the municipal authorities in determining the applicant to which a permit or license to operate a cockpit should be issued. Reliance by the Appellate Court and the Solicitor-general on Section 4, P.D. No. 1802-A providing that........is misplaced, review and supervision having their own peculiar meanings and not synonymous with control.....

3. Cootauco vs Court of Appeals (June 18, 1988): Thru Justice Grio-Aquino, the Court reiterated that city and municipal mayors, with the concurrence of their respective Sanggunians, have the authority to license and regulate cockfighting pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Commission and subject to its review and supervision. 4. Adlawan vs IAC (February 9, 1989) Advertence is made to the fact that the Philippine Gamefowl Commission subsequently ordered the cancellation of the registration certificate of petitioner's cockpit, but that in 1986 it granted an interlocutory order to Gallera to operate. We have, however, held that with regard to ordinary local cockpits, and where the holding of international derbies is not involved, it is the mayor who has the primary authority to issue permits, with the authorization of the Sanggunian and on the basis of guidelines issued by said commission. The commission can merely supervise compliance with said guidelines but cannot disapprove a license granted by the mayor and issue an cockpit license to another.... XII. Republic Act No. 7160 (entitled An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991) was signed into law on October 10, 1991. In Article III (The Sangguniang Bayan), Section 447 (a) (3) (v), it is stated: SEC. 447. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. (a) The Sangguniang /Bayan, as the legislative body of the municipality, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the municipality as provided for under Section 22 of this Code and shall: x x x

(3) Subject to the provisions of Book II of this Code, grant franchises, enact ordinances authorizing the issuance of permits or licenses, or enact ordinances levying taxes, fees and charges upon such conditions and for such purposes intended to promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality, and pursuant to this legislative authority shall: x x x

(v) Any law to the contrary notwithstanding, authorize and license the establishment, operation and maintenance of cockpits and regulate cockfighting and commercial breeding

of gamecocks: provided, that existing rights should not be prejudiced. According to no less than Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., the principal author of the 1991 Local Government Code: In connection with the power to grant licenses lodged with it, the Sangguniang Bayan may now regulate not only businesses but also occupations, professions or callings that do not require government examinations within its jurisdiction. It may also authorize and license the establishment, operation and maintenance of cockpits; regulate cockfighting, and the commercial breeding of gamecocks. Existing rights, however, may not be prejudiced. The power to license cockpits and permits for cockfighting has been removed completely from the Gamefowl Commission. Thus, that part of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipality of Malolos v. Libangang Malolos, Inc. et al., which held that ....the regulation of cockpits is vested in the municipal councils guidelines laid down by the Philippine Gamefowl Commission is no longer controlling. Under Section 447 (a)(3)(v), the power of the Sanggunian concerned is no longer subject to the supervision of the Gamefowl Commission. XIII. In the case Leonardo Tan, Robert Uy and Lamberto Te vs. Socorro Perea (February 18, 2005), the Supreme Court thru Justice Tinga settled the following questions: 1. Was Section 5, par (b) of the Cockfighting Law repealed with the enactment of the 1991 Local Government Code? No. Section 534 (f) of the Local Government Code declares that all general and special laws or decrees inconsistent with the Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly, but such clause is not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the acts that are intended to be repealed. It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that implied repeals are disfavored and will not be so declared unless the intent of the legislators is manifest. As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and with knowledge of all existing ones on the subject, it is logical to conclude that in passing a statute, it is not intended to interfere with or abrogate a former law relating to the same subject matter, unless the repugnancy between the two is not only irreconcilable but also clear and convincing as a result of the language used, or unless the latter Act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier. 2. Is the one-cockpit-per-municipality rule under the Cockfighting Law clearly and convincingly irreconcilable with Section 447 (a)(3)(v) of the

Local Government Code? No. While the Sanggunian retains the power to authorize and license the establishment, operation and maintenance of cockpits, its discretion is limited in that it cannot authorize more than one cockpit per city or municipality, unless such cities or municipalities have a population of over one hundred thousand, in which case two cockpits mat be established. XIV. Involvement of the Games and Amusements Board in Cockfighting activities The functions previously exercised by the defunct Gamefowl Commission (PGC) was devolved to local government units pursuant to Republic Act No. 7160, also known as the Local Government Code of 1991. However, pursuant to Section 3.3 (f) of Executive Order No. 149 dated December 28, 1993 (entitled Streamlining of the Office of the President), issued by President Ramos, the defunct Philippine Gamefowl Commission was transferred to the Games and Amusement Board for administrative supervision. The functions, together with the personnel, funds, records, equipments, facilities and other properties of the PGC, that were retained by GAB during the transfer are the supervision and regulation of international cockfight derbies and the issuance of permits to hold international derbies and issuances of licenses of cockfighting personnel in such derbies.