July 28, 2017

Mr. Ramon C. Tan

#20 Shield Street, Kingsville Court Subdivision,
Mambugan, Antipolo City

Dear Mr. Tan

Here is the opinion that you requested.
The facts, as I gather from you and all other documents provided are as
follows:
On 2011, David John Slater travelled to Indonesia in order to take pictures
of the macaques, one of which is the one known as “Naruto”. The macaque then
took photos of itself using his unattended camera, now known as the “Monkey
Selfies”. Slater, partnering with Blurb, Inc., an American self-publisher then
published and sold for profit a book which contains copies of the these photos.
The book recognizes him and Wildlife Personalities, Ltd., as the owners of the
photographs.
On 2015, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a
suit against Slater claiming to do so, on behalf of the macaque as Next Friends.
PETA claims that Naruto has the right to own and benefit from the copyright in the
photographs just as well as any other author.
The question you asked is whether or not Naruto is able to claim copyright
and if PETA may sue on behalf of the macaque under RA 8293, the Intellectual
Property Code of the Philippines.
My opinion is that Naruto would not have the judicial capacity to sue. In
order to gain copyright, one must be a human being. PETA would also not be
capable of representing on behalf of the macaque, they are not even able to claim
ownership of him.
I base my opinion on the following.
Part V Chapter I Section 171 of Republic Act No. 8293 provides:
Sec. 171.1. - "Author" is the natural person who has created the
work;
Book 1 Title I Chapter 1 Article 37 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
Art. 37. – Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of
legal relations, is inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death.
Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and
may be lost.
Chapter III Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9147 provides:
Section 8. Possession of Wildlife. — No person or entity shall be allowed
possession of wildlife unless such person or entity can prove financial and
technical capability and facility to maintain said wildlife: Provided, that the
source was not obtained in violation of this Act.
Chapter 2 Article II Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9147 provides:
Section 23.Collection of Threatened Wildlife, By-Products and
Derivatives. — The collection of threatened wildlife, as determined and listed
pursuant to this Act, including its by-products and derivatives, shall be allowed
only for scientific, or breeding or propagation purposes in accordance with
Section 6 of this Act: Provided, That only the accredited individuals, business,
research, educational or scientific entities shall be allowed to collect for
conservation breeding or propagation purposes.
The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines states that an “Author” is
a natural person who created the work. Naruto, being an animal and not a natural
person, thus, cannot be an author and therefore, would not have claim to
copyright. According to the Civil Code of the Philippines, natural persons may
have judicial capacity. The Civil Code only wrote of persons and no mention of
animals being capable of judicial capacity. Since Naruto is not a natural person,
he would not have a capacity to sue since he lacks judicial capacity. In Philippine
law, it is possible to represent those that are incapable of suit. However, I cannot
find any mention of animals, only minors and disabled. By the language of the
law, PETA would not be able to sue on behalf of Naruto. According to Republic
Act No. 9147, PETA is not listed as one that may claim ownership over a wild
animal. Their connection to Naruto, therefore, is far. Considering that this case is
the first of its kind, it would be difficult for PETA to cite other judicial decisions
in order for them to help their case.
Please let me know if I can be of further service to you in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Tim R. Tan
References:
Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 8293, [June 6,
1997]
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, [June 18, 1949]
Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act, Republic Act No. 9147,
[July 30, 2001]
Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act, Republic Act No. 9147,
[July 30, 2001]
Wong, J. (2017, July 13) Monkey selfie photographer says he's broke: 'I'm
thinking of dog walking'. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/monkey-selfie-macaque-
copyright-court-david-slater
“Natural person.” legal-dictionary.com. https://www.merriam-
webster.com/help/citing-the-dictionary