On Wednesday, August 10, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by the Interspecies Justice Foundation (FJI) against the decision of the Court of Appeals of San Miguel, which declared inadmissible the amparo – or habeas corpus – presented in favour of the Bornean orangutan “Sandai”, held in captivity at the Parque Zoológico Buin Zoo S.A.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the fact that article 19 of the Constitution of the Republic establishes that “The Constitution ensures to the people…” (sic), and that in accordance with the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, the term “person” refers to “every individual of the human species”, thus confirming the decision of the Court of Appeals of San Miguel on July 27.

In addition to the above, the Supreme Court ordered the Livestock Service (SAG) to adopt all appropriate measures to ensure that the Buin Zoo complies with the legal regulations concerning Sandai, specifically: -

“that the deprivation of his liberty does not cause him suffering and any other alteration of its normal development, verifying that they have the appropriate facilities for his species, avoiding all mistreatment and deterioration of his health”.

Thus, the Supreme Court has recognised that Sandai, the orangutan is deprived of its liberty at the Buin Zoo, but that the emergency action brought on his behalf is inadmissible, given that he is not a person.

In response to the decision, the Fundación Justicia Interespecie stated that:

“We regret the decision of the Supreme Court. We believe that the highest court of the country, by denying the possibility of the matter being heard, has lost a historic opportunity to place itself at the forefront of global animal law and to demonstrate to all citizens that the current Constitution could have been interpreted in a dynamic way in order to recognise these new realities and social demands.”

Furthermore, they pointed out that “in addition to the above, we believe that the Supreme Court has ignored one of the inherent qualities of habeas corpus, insofar as it is an action that, in different historical moments has been admitted in defence of the interests of individuals who have been placed outside the law, and who have even been considered as chattel, as in the case of slaves, some political prisoners, and even women and children.”

With regard to the scope of the term “person”, used in the ruling, the Foundation regretted that “the Supreme Court has used a dictionary to determine the scope of such an important legal institution as “person” or “personality”, leaving aside thousands of years of discussion and legal and philosophical
evolution on the subject, which is technically baffling.”.

The Foundation responded to the ruling: -

“While we agree with the Court’s finding that Sandai is deprived of his liberty in the Buin Zoo, we disagree with the Supreme Court, insofar as it disregarded Sandai’s status as a non-human person…In this sense, we believe that liberty constitutes an attribute or interest that is of individuals, of persons, since it is based on their dignity or inherent interests, of which Sandai is also a holder.”

“We appreciate the fact that the Supreme Court has ordered SAG to adopt a series of appropriate measures to ensure that Buin Zoo complies with the legal regulations regarding Sandai.”

“Thus, the SAG will have the duty to verify that the deprivation of liberty affecting Sandai does not cause him suffering, that it does not cause an alteration in its normal development, and that the Buin Zoo has adequate facilities for his species.”

“However, according to the information we have, we believe that these requirements seem to be difficult or downright impossible to meet.”

“Therefore, we will remain vigilant with regard to the measures that both SAG and Buin Zoo may adopt for this purpose”.

HKALPO comments: -

The Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens in Central is home to approximately 180 birds, 80 mammals and 25 reptiles and has been in existence since 1871, with the keeping of animals since 1876. In the mid 1970s, the HKZBG changed its mission from one of keeping animals for purely entertainment purposes to now (i) foster an understanding of an appreciation for all living things through education, conservation and exhibition; and (ii) to develop appreciation for the interdependence of nature.

However, and despite clearly stating their mission - the enclosures that a lot of these highly intelligent animals are housed in bare little to no resemblance to their natural habitat. The enclosures remain cages which were designed in 1970s and despite a 2014 Consultancy Study proposing to replace the cages with ‘natural enclosures’, nothing has yet been done.

There is a distinct lack of transparency at the HKZBG. No animal profiles are published and the full list of animals in captivity is not open to the public - only the total number of animals. There are no official reports on the enclosure sizes and despite the numbers of animals in captivity ever increasing over the past 20 years, the number and sizes of the enclosures remain the same. Furthermore, two large scale consultancy studies commissioned by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department over the past 20 years have never been made public and information is only learned through a piecemeal fashion, through Government press releases and/or publications.

There is no justification for keeping intelligent and sentient animals in substandard enclosures. The embarrassing lack of space, stimuli and a feigned impression of ‘natural habitat’ creates extremely negative and concerning welfare standards for the animals which are trapped at HKZBG. Something needs to be done…