ESPRESSO MORNINGS
By Joe Zaldarriaga
When technicalities threaten years of animal welfare service.
He was the architect behind Meralco’s most celebrated milestones in the field of communications— steering the company to five-time Company of the Year honors at the Philippine Quill Awards and leading the only PR team ever named Team of the Year in the history of the Anvil Awards.
Manong Joe’s leadership also extends as a respected member of the Board of Trustees for the Public Relations Society of the Philippines (PRSP), concurrent with his role as Chairman of the International Association of Business Communicators Philippines (IABC Philippines) where he also served as its President.
Manong Joe is a distinguished awardee of the medallion of honor and scroll of commendation from the University of Manila, owing to his years in public service as a communications professional. He shares his insights through columns in renowned publications, including The Philippine Star’s The Z Factor, and Philippine News Agency’s ESPRESSO MORNINGS.
Last week, I chanced upon a social media post of Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) executive director, lawyer Anna Cabrera and was saddened to know about the bureaucratic hurdles faced by the organization.
According to Cabrera, the Quezon City Veterinarian has refused to issue veterinary clearance to PAWS, citing a technicality: the words “administrative office” appear on the organization’s permit. This is the same permit that Cabrera said the Quezon City local government has granted to PAWS since 2002.
A known animal welfare organization that has operated a shelter for years in Quezon City, PAWS has secured clearances under the same circumstances. Suddenly, what was acceptable for more than two decades is now deemed a “mistake.”
In her social media post, Cabrera lamented the development, noting: “This is how public employees delay processing of permits for compliant establishments-with technicalities that do not serve the purpose of why we grant permits in the first place. It is not because we operate with unlicensed vets or that we have animal welfare violations. It is because, this year, the words ‘administrative office’ appearing on the document suddenly matters more than what common sense dictates.”
While the Quezon City government has yet to publicly address the concern, I am hopeful that this will be properly resolved the soonest so as not to affect the critical service delivered by PAWS.
Permits exist to ensure that facilities meet standards of safety, legality and accountability. PAWS has consistently met those standards as proven by the permits the local government granted it in the past. Now, to suddenly deny clearance because of a semantic quibble is to betray the very spirit of regulation. Rules are meant to protect the public, not to obstruct organizations that are already doing good work.
While I do not question the need for permits for institutions, bureaucracy and technicalities should not be weaponized against institutions — especially those that help communities. Permits should be implemented consistently.
Now to suddenly deny a compliant institution clearance over a bureaucratic technicality is not only counterproductive, but also obstruction of the service that institution provides. When government agencies make life harder for organizations like PAWS, they are not just inconveniencing administrators—they are undermining public confidence.
Technicalities should not outweigh compassion, common sense and decades of proven service.
For years, PAWS has been a lifeline for animals and pet owners, not just in Quezon City. As an animal welfare advocate myself, I have long been a witness to this.
Long before animal welfare became a mainstream advocacy, PAWS was already operating a registered low-cost spay-neuter clinic and shelter. It served indigent pet owners who had nowhere else to turn, offering affordable veterinary care that helped reduce stray populations. Its shelter has rescued, rehabilitated and rehomed thousands of animals. In short, PAWS has been part of the solution to a problem that continues to plague our communities. The city should be proud to have such an institution within its jurisdiction, and it should work to strengthen, not weaken, its ability to serve.
Animal welfare is not a luxury. It is a reflection of our humanity.
In the end, this is not just about PAWS. It is about the kind of governance we want to see in our communities. Do we want a system that punishes compliance and discourages service? Or do we want one that recognizes the value of organizations that have dedicated themselves to the public good?
I hope that a few words on a permit will not eclipse decades of animal welfare advocacy, compassion and service to the community.
