ANY artistic pursuit should mean no harm nor violate rights against a person or an animal as it defeats the very purpose of art that is good, beautiful, and deep.

We've been hearing news and engaged in discussions about a dog allegedly slaughtered for a film (Oro), yes a film, which is meant to present a social commentary about an infamous massacre of four small-scale miners of Barangay Gata, Caramoan in Camarines Sur, who are until now still victims of injustices.

How ironic.

On the defense of the filmmakers, "Oro" director Alvin Yapan strongly refutes allegations that their crew committed animal rights violations and featured the actual death of an innocent dog in the film, asserting it was based on real witness accounts and was just filming a local practice as it happens, a depiction of tradition.

But, one of its production members, Japo Parcero (cinematographer), in a Facebook post, claimed Yapan somehow initiated the dog's killing, as "it was precisely timed according to the production schedule" and "it was included in the sequence guide," adding the team killed two dogs, "one accidentally and one deliberately." Pathetic.

That established, whether the director did or did not lie in justifying such move, still the Oro team is in the losing end.

The scene, which garnered negative reactions from concerned citizens, most notably from the Philippine Animal Welfare Society (Paws) which is mulling charges against the film's crew, is but unnecessary.

Unnecessary because the core story, the murder of four miners which the film crew would want to wage and present will not, in any way, be affected with or without the brutal scene. But if they wish to really insist on including such `for authenticity' and `realism' purposes, filming the dog's murder is and should not be a solution. Let alone prosthetics and effects.

While we are one in Oro's "greater cause" -- making justice served to the people of Gata and the four slain miners, we abhor the fact that the production team opted to tell the story overriding the dog's rights and life in the process.

The production team may be right in stating that the controversial dog scene veiled the noble intention of the film, but, is it all because of their own doing? Wrong move it is.

May this issue be a lesson to all (filmmakers or not), that a product of a poisonous tree, no matter how good the intention is, can still poison.

But on a greater note, let us not be blinded by the current controversy and continue to take part in the "battle for justice" of all victims of whatever crime or injustice.