Why can’t the PVMA simply file criminal cases against illegal veterinary practitioners?
Dr. Geoff Carullo, DVM, FPCCP, DPCVSCA
- Articles
- 5 min read
Whenever a video of someone illegally practicing veterinary medicine goes viral, the same question comes up:
“Bakit walang ginagawa ang PVMA? Bakit hindi na lang sila magsampa ng kaso?”
It is a reasonable question. After all, if practicing veterinary medicine without a license is illegal, why can’t our national veterinary association simply file charges against those responsible?
The answer is more complicated than most people realize.
First, we need to understand that the Philippine Veterinary Medical Association (PVMA) is a professional organization, not a law enforcement agency.
Under Republic Act No. 9268, or the Philippine Veterinary Medicine Act of 2004, practicing veterinary medicine without the required professional license is prohibited.
Violators may face imprisonment of one to five years, a fine of ₱50,000 to ₱100,000, or both.
So why can’t the PVMA simply sue everyone caught illegally practicing veterinary medicine?
The PVMA can report suspected violations, assist complainants, provide legal support, and help initiate appropriate complaints.
However, criminal prosecution is the responsibility of government prosecutors, while determining guilt belongs to the courts.
The PVMA cannot simply order someone arrested, close down an establishment, or force prosecutors to file criminal charges.
Those powers belong to the appropriate government authorities.
Imagine watching a video of an unlicensed individual performing surgery on a dog.
Thousands of people share it. Veterinarians become furious. Everyone demands immediate action.
But before a criminal case can succeed, investigators must establish important facts.
Who performed the procedure? Where did it happen? Was the person really unlicensed? Who witnessed the incident? Can the video and other evidence be verified?
What appears obvious on Facebook must still be proven through the proper legal process.
Without sufficient evidence, even a legitimate complaint may fail.
Not necessarily.
A pet owner is not always required to personally initiate a criminal complaint before government authorities can investigate illegal veterinary practice.
However, the owner’s cooperation can be extremely important.
For example, the owner may be the only person who witnessed the procedure, paid the individual, or communicated with the alleged illegal practitioner.
Without that testimony, gathering enough evidence becomes more difficult.
This is why some cases never move forward, even when the incident becomes widely known.
Yes. And this is an important distinction.
The PVMA is not completely powerless.
It can formally report suspected illegal practitioners to the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), assist in gathering evidence, support witnesses, help prepare complaints, and coordinate with law enforcement authorities.
Under the PRC’s administrative investigation rules, a qualified party in interest may also file an appropriate administrative complaint.
The PRC may likewise initiate investigations based on reports of suspected violations.
In other words, the PVMA does not necessarily need to conduct an entrapment operation or wait for a viral controversy before taking action.
Properly documented complaints can already provide grounds for government authorities to investigate.
Certainly not.
Understanding the legal limitations of the PVMA should not become an excuse for inaction.
Veterinarians have every right to ask their professional organizations:
These are reasonable questions that deserve reasonable answers.
There is a difference between not having the legal authority to prosecute and not doing anything to help initiate legal action.
Perhaps we should stop expecting the PVMA to function like the police, the PRC, or the Department of Justice.
Instead, we should encourage the organization to establish a clear and effective system for reporting and pursuing cases against illegal veterinary practitioners.
A system where veterinarians and pet owners know where to report violations, what evidence to collect, and where to seek legal assistance.
Because the problem is not simply about filing complaints.
The real challenge is building cases strong enough to hold illegal practitioners accountable.
Republic Act No. 9268 has been in existence since 2004. More than two decades later, illegal veterinary practice remains a serious concern.
The law already exists. What we need is stronger cooperation among professional organizations, regulatory agencies, law enforcement authorities, veterinarians, and pet owners.
And ultimately, this is not just about protecting licensed veterinarians from unfair competition.
It is about protecting animals from unqualified individuals performing medical procedures they are not legally authorized to undertake.
That responsibility deserves more than angry comments on social media.
It deserves organized and meaningful action.
Sharing this helps others understand what it really means to be a vet. Like and follow if you’re with us.
Dr. Geoff Carullo is a Fellow and the current President of the Philippine College of Canine Practitioners.
