THOUSANDS of Filipinos lost their livelihoods in a day…not because of typhoon Yolanda—but because of a law. Welcome to the time when green turns grim.
The Crisis: When Well-Intentioned Laws Create Unintended Consequences
Governor Aris Aumentado has earned respect for his leadership in environmental stewardship and the protection of Bohol’s heritage. He implemented Provincial Ordinance No. 2020-008, which put a stop to whale shark watching and interaction activities in the towns of Lila, Alburquerque, and Dauis. However, this well-intentioned action has resulted in the loss of livelihood for hundreds of Boholanos who depended on whale shark tourism—an industry that once generated approximately P300,000 per day in each location.
I do not oppose the Governor’s vision; rather, I seek to align with his broader commitment to the welfare of the Boholano people. The kind of leader I know him to be presents a valuable opportunity to pioneer a more balanced approach—one that serves both conservation and community needs.
The decision and the public clamor reveal a fundamental flaw in our legal framework: laws that prioritize theoretical notions of wildlife behavior over the survival of Filipino families. Anchored on Fisheries Administrative Order No. 193 (1998), the Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550), and Joint Memorandum Circular No. 01 (2020), this framework reflects a troubling departure from the human-centered values that should guide a Christian nation.
Biblical Mandate: Human Stewardship Over Animal Ideology
These laws contradict Biblical teachings, such as God’s mandate in Genesis 1:26–28, which grants humans dominion over animals and authority to govern creation. This dominion emphasizes prioritizing human needs while upholding the responsibility of wise and faithful stewardship.
Are we aware that Scripture explicitly affirms the greater worth of human life? In Matthew 10:29–31, while sparrows are sold for two pennies, Jesus says, “You are worth more than many sparrows.” In Luke 14:5, He prioritizes human welfare over rigid rules when livelihoods are at stake. Genesis 9:2–3 grants humans permission to use animals for sustenance, and Proverbs 12:10, while condemning cruelty, does not prohibit the use of animals to meet genuine human needs.
Established moral philosophy supports human priority. Moral anthropocentrism considers it morally permissible to prioritize human interests over animals when they conflict. Kant argued that animal treatment matters mainly as it affects human morality—feeding sharks without cruelty for significant human benefit like livelihood is morally permissible. Even utilitarian views assign greater weight to human well-being, especially when livelihoods are threatened.
Legal Framework Crisis: Foreign Philosophy vs. Filipino Values
The current regulatory approach mirrors Hindu concepts of animal sanctity rather than Christian values foundational to Filipino society. Hindu philosophy’s ahimsa (non-violence toward all beings) treats animals as equals to humans—a worldview that, while respectable, conflicts with Christian understanding and shouldn’t govern Philippine law.
National Laws Prioritizing Animals:
- FAO 193 (1998) stretches whale shark protection beyond preventing killing to ban any tourism affecting behavior
- Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550) empowers LGUs to prohibit activities without considering human livelihoods
- JMC 01 (2020) prohibits “marine wildlife provisioning” without community consultation
Provincial Overreach:
- Provincial Ordinance 2020-008 bans feeding without providing livelihood alternatives
- Executive Order 10 implements immediate elimination of established operations
This enforcement treats hardworking families as criminals while offering no viable alternatives, criminalizing poverty-alleviation efforts.
Economic Devastation: The Human Cost
Whale shark tourism supported complex employment networks: boat operators, guides, restaurants, vendors, transportation, and support services. Eliminating activities removes millions monthly from local economies, forcing family separation as parents migrate for work.
Social Consequences:
- Family Breakdown: Parents forced to work elsewhere, weakening community fabric
- Educational Impact: Children leave school when family income collapses
- Juvenile Delinquency: Unsupervised children face increased risks of substance abuse and crime
- Community Decay: Young people leave, elderly lack support, traditional structures collapse
This violates Christian principles that families are society’s foundation. Current policies directly cause social problems they claim to prevent.
Constitutional Violations Requiring Reform
Current laws violate fundamental constitutional principles:
- Equal Protection: Destroying specific communities’ livelihoods without alternatives
- Due Process: Implementing bans without consultation or transition periods
- Religious Freedom: Imposing non-Christian animal rights ideology
Comprehensive Legal Reform Framework
Immediate Amendments Needed:
- Fisheries Administrative Order No. 193: Distinguish harmful exploitation from sustainable tourism; allow regulated feeding causing no physical harm; require livelihood impact assessments
- Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550): Add human welfare requirements for restrictions; establish appeals processes; mandate transition assistance
- Joint Memorandum Circular No. 01: Develop guidelines distinguishing harmful from beneficial interactions; allow supervised feeding programs; require community consultation
- Provincial/Local Ordinances: Consider human welfare impacts; mandate alternative livelihoods before restrictions; establish community consultation requirements
International Success Models
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, Costa Rica’s eco-tourism, and Norway’s whale watching demonstrate that regulated wildlife tourism, including controlled feeding, can serve both conservation and community needs when properly managed.
Christian Stewardship vs. Animal Rights Extremism
True Biblical stewardship strikes a balance between caring for creation and promoting human flourishing. Genesis 1:28 grants humanity dominion, which includes responsibility for both environmental care and the well-being of human communities. Psalm 24:1 reminds us that “the earth is the Lord’s”—encompassing not only wildlife but also human families.
Both Catholic and Protestant social teachings uphold the dignity of the human person, insisting that policies must serve people first. The principle of subsidiarity calls for environmental decisions to be made at the local level, with the direct involvement of affected communities. The preferential option for the poor demands special consideration for livelihoods at risk—all of which are overlooked by the current legal framework.
Practical Steps Forward
For Congress:
- Amend Fisheries Code requiring human welfare assessments
- Revise administrative orders allowing sustainable practices
- Create community-managed conservation frameworks
For Provincial/Local Government:
- Repeal blanket tourism bans
- Establish community consultation requirements
- Develop sustainable tourism standards protecting both wildlife and families
For Communities:
- Formal consultation processes for policy changes
- Community representation on conservation bodies
- Recognition of traditional knowledge and practices
Economic Justice Requirements
Before any restrictions:
- Provide alternative livelihood programs
- Offer retraining opportunities
- Establish community development funds
- Create community-managed conservation employment
Conclusion: Choosing Human Dignity
Regarding the halt of whale shark activities in Bohol, two competing visions emerge: an abstract ideology of animal rights versus the concrete needs of Filipino families. Why should we adopt a framework rooted in Hindu principles to navigate this moral dilemma? The environment was made for humanity—not the other way around. Genuine environmental stewardship must serve human communities, not undermine them.
Biblical teaching, moral philosophy, and practical experience demonstrate that responsible wildlife tourism with appropriate safeguards serves both conservation and human development. We respectfully urge Governor Aumentado and our lawmakers to choose reform that:
- Honors Christian heritage through Biblical stewardship principles
- Respects local expertise from generations of sustainable resource management
- Supports family aspirations for better community futures
- Recognizes human rights to use God-given resources responsibly
The legal framework from FAO 193 through Provincial Ordinance 2020-008 requires comprehensive reform restoring balance between environmental protection and human welfare, guided by Christian principles of human dignity and preferential concern for the poor.
Bohol’s crisis provides opportunity to model balanced stewardship for the nation. We must demonstrate that a Christian nation can care for creation while putting families first. The alternative—continued sacrifice of Filipino communities for extreme environmentalism—serves neither moral nor practical purposes.
Reform is urgently needed. Boholano families deserve justice. Their welfare matters as much as any whale shark, and our laws must reflect this fundamental Christian truth.
