Cockfighting Law: When Local Officials Can Hold Events Outside Licensed Cockpits

The Supreme Court recently clarified the scope of Presidential Decree No. 449, the "Cockfighting Law of 1974," in a ruling that also reaffirmed the limits of the Office of the Ombudsman's prosecutorial discretion. The case involved local officials of Ubay, Bohol, who authorized a three-day cockfighting event during their town fiesta. The decision offers practical guidance for local government officials and clarifies when cockfights may lawfully be held outside licensed cockpits.

The Facts of the Case

In late 2013 and early 2014, the Sangguniang Bayan of Ubay, Bohol, passed resolutions requesting permission to hold a three-day "3-win" cockfighting event. The stated purpose was to entertain balikbayans (returning Filipinos) and tourists during the annual town fiesta. The municipal mayor approved the resolutions and issued a special permit. The Philippine National Police (PNP) also issued a special permit for the event, which was held at the Union Cultural and Sports Center—a covered court, not a licensed cockpit.

A private complainant later filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against the mayor, vice mayor, councilors, and barangay officials. The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge them with violating PD 449, specifically Section 5(d), which requires cockfights during local fiestas to be held in licensed cockpits. The officials challenged this finding before the Supreme Court.

The Legal Framework: Sections 5(d) and 5(e)

PD 449 contains two relevant provisions. Section 5(d) generally allows cockfighting only in licensed cockpits during Sundays, legal holidays, and local fiestas for not more than three days. It also allows cockfights during fairs, carnivals, or expositions, subject to certain conditions and approval.

Section 5(e) provides a separate privilege: cockfighting for the entertainment of foreign dignitaries, tourists, or balikbayans, or for authorized charitable fundraising, may be held upon resolution of the local council and with approval of the Chief of Constabulary (now the PNP). Crucially, this may be held "in licensed cockpits or in playgrounds or parks"—not solely in licensed cockpits. The privilege is limited to once a year, for not more than three days.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the local officials, finding that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that Section 5(e), not Section 5(d), applied to the case.

The Court reasoned that the resolutions and the PNP special permit clearly indicated the primary purpose was to entertain balikbayans and tourists. While the event coincided with the town fiesta, Section 5(e) contains no prohibition against holding such events within the month of a local fiesta, unlike Section 5(d). The Court also noted that the Union Cultural and Sports Center could qualify as a "playground" or "park" under Section 5(e), given that a gymnasium is a place for recreational and social activities.

The Limits of Ombudsman Discretion

The decision also reaffirmed an important principle: while courts generally do not interfere with the Ombudsman's findings on probable cause, this deference is not absolute. Where the Ombudsman's action is tainted by grave abuse of discretion—meaning a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment—the courts may intervene through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

In this case, the Ombudsman's misapplication of Section 5(d) instead of Section 5(e) constituted such grave abuse, warranting the reversal of its resolution and the withdrawal of the criminal information against the officials.

Practical Takeaways

• Know which provision applies. If a cockfighting event is primarily for entertaining tourists or balikbayans, Section 5(e) of PD 449 applies, which allows holding the event in playgrounds or parks—not just licensed cockpits.
• Document the purpose. Local legislative resolutions should clearly state the primary purpose of the event. The Court relied heavily on the whereas clauses of the resolutions in determining intent.
• Secure the proper permits. For events under Section 5(e), a resolution of the local council and approval from the PNP are required. The privilege is limited to once a year for not more than three days.
• Ombudsman findings are not absolute. While the Ombudsman enjoys wide latitude in determining probable cause, its findings may be challenged in court if they are tainted by grave abuse of discretion.
• Check local circumstances. If no licensed cockpit exists in the municipality, an event under Section 5(e) may still be lawful if held in a venue that qualifies as a playground or park.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.