I. Introduction

The Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act, Republic Act No. 9147 (RA 9147), enacted on July 30, 2001, represents a cornerstone of Philippine environmental legislation aimed at conserving and protecting wildlife species and their habitats. The Act seeks to regulate the collection, possession, and trade of wildlife, promote biodiversity conservation, and fulfill international commitments under conventions such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). In the Philippine context, where marine biodiversity is exceptionally rich—encompassing over 2,000 species of fish, numerous marine mammals, turtles, and corals—RA 9147 plays a critical role in safeguarding marine animals. However, despite its comprehensive framework, the Act exhibits several limitations that undermine its effectiveness in protecting marine species. These limitations stem from structural deficiencies, enforcement challenges, overlaps with other laws, and evolving environmental threats. This article examines these constraints in detail, drawing on the Act's provisions, implementation records, and broader legal and ecological considerations within the Philippines.

II. Overview of RA 9147's Provisions Relevant to Marine Animals

RA 9147 defines "wildlife" broadly to include all wild flora and fauna, encompassing marine animals such as whales, dolphins, sharks, rays, sea turtles, and various fish species. Key provisions include:

Classification of Species: Wildlife is categorized into endangered, threatened, vulnerable, and other categories (Section 5). Marine species like the Philippine eagle ray, dugong, and hawksbill turtle are listed as critically endangered or vulnerable under Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Orders.
Prohibited Acts: The Act prohibits killing, injuring, collecting, or trading wildlife without permits (Sections 7-11, 27). For marine animals, this extends to hunting, possession, and export, with exemptions for scientific research or indigenous practices under strict regulation.
Habitat Protection: Critical habitats can be designated (Section 25), potentially including marine protected areas (MPAs) like coral reefs or seagrass beds essential for species such as marine turtles and dugongs.
Permitting System: Commercial breeding, collection, and trade require Certificates of Wildlife Registration or Wildlife Farm Permits (Sections 12-19), overseen by the DENR or the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) in Palawan.
Enforcement and Penalties: Violations carry fines up to PHP 1,000,000 and imprisonment up to 12 years (Section 28), with confiscated wildlife subject to rehabilitation or release.
Institutional Framework: The DENR, in coordination with the Department of Agriculture (DA) through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), implements the Act. Local government units (LGUs) and communities are involved via wildlife enforcement officers and deputized personnel.

While these provisions provide a solid legal basis, their application to marine animals reveals inherent limitations, particularly in a archipelagic nation where marine ecosystems face unique pressures from overfishing, pollution, and climate change.

III. Structural and Definitional Limitations

A. Narrow Scope and Definitional Gaps

RA 9147's definition of wildlife focuses on individual species rather than ecosystems, which is a significant limitation for marine animals. Marine species often depend on interconnected habitats like mangroves, seagrasses, and coral reefs, yet the Act does not explicitly mandate holistic ecosystem-based management. For instance, while critical habitats can be declared, the process is bureaucratic and slow, leaving many marine areas unprotected. The Act's emphasis on terrestrial wildlife—evident in its origins from earlier forestry laws—results in inadequate attention to marine-specific threats, such as ocean acidification or plastic pollution, which are not directly addressed.

Moreover, the classification system relies on outdated lists that may not reflect current scientific data. Many marine species, including certain sharks and rays targeted in the finning trade, are not promptly updated in DENR inventories, leading to underprotection. The Act also lacks provisions for migratory marine species, such as whales and turtles that traverse international waters, complicating enforcement against transboundary threats.

B. Overlaps and Conflicts with Other Laws

A major limitation arises from RA 9147's interaction with the Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550, as amended by RA 10654 in 2015), which primarily governs aquatic resources. While RA 9147 covers wildlife conservation, RA 10654 focuses on sustainable fisheries, creating jurisdictional overlaps. For example, endangered marine species like the Napoleon wrasse may fall under both laws, but enforcement priorities often favor fisheries management, allowing commercial exploitation under BFAR quotas that contradict RA 9147's conservation ethos.

Conflicts also exist with the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (RA 7586, as amended), which establishes MPAs but does not fully integrate with RA 9147's wildlife-specific protections. This fragmentation leads to inconsistent application: BFAR may issue fishing permits in areas where DENR has declared critical habitats, resulting in habitat degradation for marine animals. Additionally, the Mining Act (RA 7942) permits offshore mining that can destroy marine habitats, with RA 9147 offering limited recourse due to its lack of preemptive authority over economic activities.

IV. Enforcement and Implementation Challenges

A. Resource and Capacity Constraints

Enforcement of RA 9147 is hampered by inadequate funding, personnel, and technology. The DENR and BFAR lack sufficient patrol vessels, monitoring equipment, and trained officers to cover the Philippines' vast 2.2 million square kilometers of exclusive economic zone (EEZ). In remote marine areas, such as the West Philippine Sea or the Sulu Sea, illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing—often involving foreign vessels—goes unchecked, leading to bycatch of protected species like sea turtles and dolphins.

Deputization of wildlife enforcement officers (Section 30) is underutilized due to limited training and incentives, exacerbating corruption and lax enforcement. Reports from environmental groups indicate that confiscated marine wildlife, such as live corals or turtles, often perish due to poor rehabilitation facilities.

B. Penalties and Deterrence Issues

While penalties under RA 9147 are severe on paper, their implementation is inconsistent. Courts frequently impose minimal fines or acquit violators due to evidentiary challenges, such as proving intent in marine poaching cases. The Act's penalties do not scale with the ecological value of species; for instance, killing a dugong carries the same maximum penalty as collecting a common bird, failing to deter high-value marine wildlife crimes like shark finning or sea turtle egg harvesting.

Moreover, the Act lacks provisions for corporate liability, allowing large-scale fishing operations to evade responsibility through shell companies. Administrative sanctions, such as permit revocations, are rarely enforced, permitting repeat offenders to continue operations.

C. Community and Awareness Deficits

RA 9147 promotes community involvement through Local Conservation Areas (Section 26), but in practice, coastal communities—often dependent on fishing—lack awareness of the Act's provisions. Indigenous peoples' rights to sustainable wildlife use (Section 7) are recognized but poorly implemented, leading to conflicts in marine areas like those inhabited by the Tagbanua or Sama-Bajau. Without robust education campaigns, illegal practices persist, such as dynamite fishing that destroys marine habitats.

V. Emerging Threats and Adaptive Shortcomings

RA 9147, enacted over two decades ago, does not adequately address contemporary threats to marine animals. Climate change impacts, including coral bleaching and sea level rise, are not covered, leaving species like reef-dependent fish vulnerable. Invasive species, marine plastic pollution, and noise pollution from shipping—known to disrupt marine mammals—are absent from the Act's framework.

The Act's static nature contrasts with dynamic marine ecosystems; for example, it does not incorporate adaptive management for shifting species distributions due to warming oceans. International obligations under CITES are integrated (Section 33), but enforcement against illegal marine wildlife trade, such as in pangasius or abalone, is weak due to porous borders and limited customs capacity.

VI. Case Studies Illustrating Limitations

Several incidents highlight RA 9147's shortcomings. The 2013 interception of a Chinese vessel in Tubbataha Reef, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, revealed enforcement gaps: despite RA 9147's protections, habitat damage to corals (home to marine species) resulted in minimal penalties under overlapping laws. Similarly, ongoing IUU fishing in the Philippine Rise has led to declines in marine mammal populations, with RA 9147's provisions rarely invoked due to jurisdictional disputes.

In Palawan, where the PCSD co-implements the Act, marine turtle poaching persists despite designations, underscoring resource limitations. The 2020 oil spill in Oriental Mindoro affected marine wildlife, but RA 9147 provided no direct mechanism for rapid response or liability assessment.

VII. Recommendations for Reform

To address these limitations, amendments to RA 9147 could include:

Enhanced ecosystem-based approaches, integrating marine-specific provisions.
Harmonization with RA 10654 and other laws through a unified marine conservation code.
Increased funding for enforcement, including technology like satellite monitoring.
Stricter penalties and corporate accountability.
Incorporation of climate resilience and emerging threats.
Strengthened community engagement and education.

Such reforms would align with the Philippine Constitution's mandate for environmental protection (Article II, Section 16) and international commitments.

VIII. Conclusion

RA 9147 has undoubtedly advanced wildlife conservation in the Philippines, but its limitations in protecting marine animals—ranging from definitional gaps and enforcement challenges to inadequate adaptation to new threats—undermine its potential. In an archipelago reliant on marine resources for food security and tourism, addressing these flaws is imperative to prevent biodiversity loss. Until comprehensive reforms are enacted, marine animals will continue to face existential risks, highlighting the need for a more robust, integrated legal framework.