On Jacky’s kidnapping and ‘tambucho-killing’
Here’s an update on the 10-year-old kidnap-for-ransom case against seven Chinese nationals from which 10 judges inhibited themselves, citing one reason or another, but I think the perceptive reader will have his/her own idea of the real reason. Jacky Lomibao was kidnapped in La Union and P10 million was demanded for her release, which the family paid. She was rescued by a combined police team, the kidnappers captured and the ransom money recovered.
One of her rescuers was then Regional Police Director Arturo Lomibao, who later became chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP). When his wife died, Lomibao courted and married Jacky. They now have a son. (Their story was recounted here in an earlier column along with another long-standing case, this one of double murder and a frustrated homicide case in Cagayan province, that has been pending for 17 years as 17 justices of the Court of Appeals inhibited themselves from the case one after another. An RTC judge convicted the accused, now the mayor of the Cagayan town. Unlike Jacky’s kidnapping case, however, this double-murder case is still pending at the CA.)
The good news today is that the decision on Jacky’s case will finally be promulgated by Judge Antonio Rosales of Branch 52 of the Manila RTC against the seven accused on June 16. When will the CA decision on the 17-year-old double-murder case against Mayor Antiporda be promulgated?
* * *
The other good follow-up news is that the controversial “tambucho-killing” of dogs has been outlawed with finality by the Commission on Animal Welfare (CAW), about which we also wrote in this column earlier. Tambucho-killing is the method of euthanizing dogs by asphyxiating them with the exhaust gases from the tail pipes (the tambucho) of motor vehicles while confined in a closed box. This is a very painful and cruel way of killing dogs. This is not euthanasia but cruelty to animals, according to animal welfare groups.
To refresh your memory, the CAW outlawed tambucho-killing during a meeting on Aug. 24, 2010 but the Animal Welfare Division (AWD) of the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), which acts as the secretariat of the CAW, did not circularize the ban. Instead AWD’s Angel B. Mateo called for another “consultation” last April 2011 to which many of the members of CAW were not invited. The “consultation” was railroaded into another voting for the methods of euthanizing dogs and tambucho-killing was re-inserted on the list. The Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) and other animal welfare groups protested.
Finally, BAI Director Efren Nuestro, Mateo’s boss, showed up at the CAW meeting last May 10 and asked for an explanation. After listening to Mateo’s explanation, Director Nuestro said there shouldn’t have been a re-voting on the tambucho issue last April 2011 because tambucho-killing was already deleted at a CAW meeting last year where there was a quorum and a majority of the CAW members voted for the deletion.
Although Nuestro’s order was to disseminate the order as soon as a majority of CAW members have already signed it, it still took the AWD two weeks to furnish PAWS a copy of the memorandum. Virginia Javier of the Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) even assisted AWD staff members in the delivery of the memo and in getting a majority of the signatures as early as May 18, but Mateo allegedly refused to release as he said he was still waiting for the three absent members “to be informed.”
Exasperated, Anna Cabrera of PAWS whipped out her cellphone during CAW’s May 24th meeting and called Doctors Arwin Serrano and Risoso “to inform them” so that the issue of “informing” can be resolved. After which Cabrera asked if Dr. Karlo Gicana, who was in Japan, can be informed by e-mail. At a time when information can be disseminated through modern technology, it is a wonder why Mateo’s AWD is dilly-dallying on disseminating the resolution outlawing tambucho-gassing. (Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala has signed the memorandum for which we thank the secretary.)
Incidentally, Dr. Ruth Sonaco of the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI), despite having been “informed,” refused to sign the resolution, saying “Baka magalit ang mga vets sa akin pag nag-sign ako diyan (The veterinarians might get angry with me if I sign that).” She did not explain her statement.
Oddly enough, Director Nuestro himself told the CAW members present at the May 10 meeting that, in all his visits to many remote parts of the Philippines, even in far-flung areas, he has not met a city veterinarian who uses the tambucho, so he doesn’t think anyone will really be upset by the move to delete tambucho-killing.
It was unfortunate that Director Nuestro was not present during the May 24 meeting because he would really have been puzzled why his simple instruction to immediately route the revised administrative order with the deleted tambucho provision to Agriculture Secretary Alcala was not followed.
PAWS had to ask why the AO itself deleting tambucho-killing was not routed along with the resolution. Dr. Mateo replied: “The resolution has to be prepared and sent first before the AO can be routed to be signed.” Take note: the resolution states that the deletion of tambucho-killing should have happened shortly after the Aug. 24, 2010 voting.
When will the AO itself be routed? Perhaps after another memo from Dr. Mateo who has clearly mastered the art of making easy things more complicated.
Animal welfare groups said that those who voted for tambucho-killing have been surprised by the angry backlash of public opinion. Animal advocate Ted Teodoro even stated in his blog that the public shouldn’t go to the clinics of veterinarians who voted for tambucho-killing.
