IN JULY of 2007, four months after I brought home my first show dog, I found myself at Tiendesitas, Pasig, attending my first dog show. Soon after, in the first quarter of 2008, I became one of the officers of the Philippine Golden Retriever Club, Inc. (PGRCI), as a public relations officer. On May 18, 2008, I helped organize and mount the 7th and 8th Philippine Golden Retriever Club, Inc. Specialty Show at Eastwood, Pasig. Judging from the number of golden retrievers competing, about thirty entries, it was a success.
Coming from a hiatus, the PGRCI leadership at that time had a reason to look forward to a promising future. New breed enthusiasts emerged. The pillars of the country’s golden retriever community gave their full-support to the undertaking. For a time, it appeared that the reorganized PGRCI had all the makings of achieving, or even surpassing, the success and prestige of the old club. The Philippine Canine Club Inc.’s (PCCI) first All-Breed Show Dog Hall of Fame (SHDF) was a golden retriever, “Bear”, Best in Show (BIS) American Champion/Philippine Champion Karagold's Canterburry Tails, SDHF, Grand Register of Merit (ROM) (10/5/1995-12/16/2005). Bear was also the all-time winningest golden retriever in PCCI’s history and PCCI’s 1998 Dog of the Year. Bear’s achievements paved the way for the popularity of the golden retrievers in the country.
But PGRCI’s golden future was not meant to be.
As we, the new PGRCI leadership, were revising the By-Laws and Code of Conduct of the club, we were presented with a major hump. The officers were divided on a clause about ethical breeding. In a nutshell, the ethical breeding provision prohibits the breeding of any dog (or bitch) that failed the health clearances required internationally of breeding stock. Any member who will violate the said provision will be expelled from the club. Unfortunately, the majority won over those against the exclusion of the ethical breeding provision. Although the process was “democratic”, I realized that in principle, the objectives of the club were against my breeding practices. To me, as the guardians of the breed, breeders are duty bound to safeguard the health of puppies being produced.
Along with the other officers who also shared my convictions about breeding, I resigned as an officer of PGRCI. The 7th and 8th Specialty Show was the last breed specialty held for golden retrievers. And to this day, even with the enormous popularity of the golden retrievers in the country, there is no breed club presently accredited by the PCCI.
At the present, the administration has been vigorously pushing to amend the 1987 Constitution. Depending on whose version the proposed amendments are, there is still a compelling reason to be concerned on the major changes sought. For one, there is the removal of the anti-political dynasty and term limit provisions. For another, there is the limitation of the protection of the freedom of speech. There is also the much bandied shift to a federal form of government. Philippines will have the following states: Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao, Bangsamoro, and Metro Manila. And a very disturbing removal of the phrase "other high crimes or betrayal of public trust" as among the reasons to impeach the president, vice president, SC justices, members of constitutional commissions, and the Ombudsman.
As a dog breeder trying to safeguard the quality of puppies produced, it is much easier to deal with a “charter change” that is obviously self-serving. Dog breeders who are dedicated in being guardians of the breed could actually work out of the framework of a breed club. By doing so, the message is sent effectively and strongly that there are people unwilling to compromise the soundness and health of (golden retriever) puppies being brought into this world.
Of course, it is trickier and harder if you are a Filipino citizen.
If the present government is a breed club, it seems that there is a great divide between whose interest should be advanced as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution and whose interests are being advanced in reality. It seems that those interpreting the (1987) Constitution are suffering from cognitive dissonance threatening our welfare if we were a breed of dogs.
The 1987 Constitution was framed primarily to avoid the abuse of power (and wealth). And in the context of Philippine politics, how the electorate behaves and are exploited by those who have the means, the framers of the 1987 Constitution saw the need to provide safeguards like term limits, anti-political dynasty provisions, strengthening the right to free speech, and holding our public officials in the highest of standards. The recent malevolent efforts to fast-track the amendment of the Constitution is a clear indication that the present government is not actually looking out for the people.
How could we have a devolved system of government when mostly the rich have the means to run for a political office and an electorate who still succumb to patronage politics? How could we have a Constitution that allows terms with no limits? How could we allow public officials whose positions are far-reaching and not held in a much higher standard and greater accountability? How could we be a democracy yet have a government that stifles our right to have our voices heard?
But if the Philippines were a breed of golden retrievers, and if you were a golden retriever enthusiast like me who loves this breed, you can do something like what we did when we resigned form our breed club.
We did it in the snap elections in November 3, 1985. I could still recall vividly when my mother arrived from the polling precinct she served as a canvasser for so many years. She was behaving uncharacteristically, excited, unlike her usual stoic demeanor. She whispered to me, “Cory won in my precinct, and don’t tell your Lolo, yes, I voted for her.”
For feedback, email to noblepinegoldens@gmail.com