Thursday, December 15, 2011

Philippine Dog Registration and Anti-Rabies Law

I was reading through the Anti-Rabies act of 2007. This is a Philippine Law which summarizes the rules of what rabies is, what designated people's responsibilities are, and what penalties are to be imposed.

Interestingly, here's some important sections I'd like to share.
SEC. 5. Responsibilities of Pet Owners. – All Pet Owners shall be required to:
(a) Have their Dog regularly vaccinated against Rabies and maintain a registration card which shall contain all vaccinations conducted on their Dog, for accurate record purposes.

(b) Submit their Dogs for mandatory registration.

(c) Maintain control over their Dog and not allow it to roam the streets or any Public Place without a leash.

(d) Be a responsible Owner by providing their Dog with proper grooming, adequate food and clean shelter.

(e) Within twenty-four (24) hours, report immediately any Dog biting incident to the Concerned Officials for investigation or for any appropriate action and place such Dog under observation by a government or private veterinarian.

(f) Assist the dog bite victim immediately and shoulder the medical expenses incurred and other incidental expenses relative to the victim’s injuries.
Unfortunately, it doesn't mention how old a pup should be to have him vaccinated. There was a number of penalties involved in not following rules. What I was disappointed with was that they never mentioned about rules regarding dogs who've had their rabies shots biting a someone.
Sec. 11. Penalties. -

(1) Pet Owners who fail or refuse to have their Dog registered and immunized against Rabies shall be punished by a fine of Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00).

(2) Pet Owners who refuse to have their Dog vaccinated against Rabies shall be liable to pay for the vaccination of both the Dog and the individuals Bitten by their Dog.

(3) Pet Owners who refuse to have their Dog put under observation after said Dog has Bitten an individual shall be meted a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).

(4) Pet Owners who refuse to have their Dog put under observation and do not shoulder the medical expenses of the person Bitten by their Dog shall be meted a fine of Twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00).

I understand that the owner is required to pay for the medical expenses of the victim, but does that include vaccination even though the dog has already been observed to not have rabies? It doesn't exactly specify what to do in that kind of scenario. 

The term "medical expenses" and "incidental expenses" weren't included in the glossary of terms, so it can be perceived as either "bitten area's prophylaxis and hospital expenses" alone or "bitten area's prophylaxis, hospital expenses and vaccination".

I'm not a lawyer so I don't have the answers. *sigh*

RA 8485 was Amended last October 2013. To view the changes done on RA 8485 known as the "Animal Welfare Act of 1998. Just click on the link to download the PDF now. 

9 comments:

  1. I dunno, but one does hope that if your dog is on a leash as the law also requires, then there will not be many instances of biting. Of course, we have leash laws here in the US and people don't follow them here. *sigh*

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great questions you pose here - it's important to ensure it's all clear so you stay within the laws - maybe your Vet can assist you in interpreting the law - I'd always be over-cautious.....

    I'm all vaccinated, I think I had my shots before I was six months old....

    Have a fun day,

    Your pal Snoopy :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. In my city your puppy not only must be vaccinated at 4 months for rabies, but it must have a microchip at 4 months as well. I don't think Ive read anything about who is in charge of medical expenses if a dog bites someone. but I would assume you'd have to go to court to get the person to pay if they don't offer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That is confusing
    Dachshund Nola

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Rumpy, Snoopy, Y&R, Nola, thanks for taking the time reading this dilemma. I also make it a point to have my dogs vaccinated.

    The person was bitten inside the house of the owner of the dog and the veterinarian assured her that the dog has had proper anti-rabies vaccination. The vet even advised that they should wait for 14 days.

    After two weeks the dog is still perfectly fine, and there was only a small bruise on the leg of the victim 2 hours after being bitten. However she still wanted to have the anti-rabies vaccination even though it was already proven that the dog didn't have it.

    Is the owner still responsible for the human's anti-rabies shot?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't think the owner should be responsible for the human shot? First of all the dog has been proven to not rabies and second of all how much effectiveness could the shot be if it's already been 2 weeks?

    This reminds me of a local case in my city. There was family I guess visting someone's home. They somehow allowed their small child to go wondering outside alone and this child climbed a neighbors fence two houses down. Well these people had a golden retriever and protected it's home and sadly the dog bit the childs face. The dog only had one vaccination when it should have had 2. Since the bite was on the child's face, and the dog did not have up to date vaccinations, they put the dog to sleep. I'm not sure why this is the method they have to use to see if it has rabies, but the vet said since the bite was so close the brain, they has to put the dog to sleep to test it to see if it had rabies. The dog did not have rabies.

    The owners lost their dog and were fined. I don't know how bad this little girls face is now, but to me the parents should have been fined for not watching their child. To me this is a lose-lose situation. They never did say who pays for the medical bills, but the little girl did trepass into someones home.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Doesn't trespassing count for anything anymore. The kid climbed the fence. It 's not like she just accidentally walked into a lawn. I feel bad hearing this kind of news. Owners and doggies don't have to answer for others' irresponsibility but theirs alone.

    It is unfortunate that the dog had to die just to find that he didn't have rabies after all. It's important for owners to follow the rules, this is why dog owners have to be vigilant or their dogs suffer the consequence.

    I hope that little girl doesn't hate or fear dogs for the rest of her life. Dogs are not innately bad.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Philippine Dog Registration and Anti-Rabies Law as you quoted some sections seems quite logical. I think pet owner should have the responsibilities to have a dog. I had a dog named Turpee when i was a boy. All the children played with Turpee. But when Turpee got old and bit a boy, i found how cruel the laws are. Your city laws are at least good.
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry to hear about Turpee. It hurts when strangers aren't aware of dog signals. I think it's important to also make it a point for dog owners to teach strangers of dog meeting etiquette.

      They're actually okay but a little vague when it comes to expenditure responsibility. Other than that, I'm definitely fine with this bill.

      Delete

Send us a bark!
By the way, I decided to turn on word verification because of the spammy comments we've received. Please bear with us. Thanks.