Animal rights; Constitutional protection from undue confinement not applicable to animals

Botanical and Zoological Foundation of Barranquilla - Fundazoo v. Supreme Court of Justice – Civil Room

Date:  23/01/2020

Judge-Rapporteur:  Carlos Libardo Bernal Pulido

Concurrence:    Alejandro Linares Cantillo.  Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo.  Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado.  Cristina Pardo Schlesinger.  José Fernando Reyes Cuartas

Dissent:  Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera.  Alberto Rojas Ríos (partial).

Facts:  A 22–24-year-old spectacled bear (Andean bear) called Chucho, born in La Planada Nature Reserve, in the department of Nariño, was transferred, when he was four, as per petition of the Regional Autonomous Corporation of Caldas (departmental environmental authority), to the Protected Forest Reserve of the River Blanco in Manizales, Caldas.  In 2017, the Botanical and Zoological Foundation of Barranquilla (Fundazoo) requested to host the bear, which was granted the same year on June 16.  Afterward, Luis Domingo Gómez Maldonado filed a Habeas Corpus action in favor of the bear, considering that his transfer gave rise to permanent captivity in inappropriate conditions for his kind.  The motion was denied by the District Tribunal of Manizales - Civil and Family Chamber based on that Habeas Corpus was not legally intended for animal rights.  Appellation was decided in favor of the plaintiff by the Civil Room of the Supreme Court of Justice, the first decision dismissed, and the environmental authorities ordered to transfer Chucho bear to a more suitable place, in semi-captivity, according to his needs.  The defendant filed an Amparo action (Tutela) to get the protection of its right to due process.  In turn, the Labor and Criminal Rooms of the Supreme Court granted the constitutional Amparo and dismissed the decision of the Civil Room based upon the legal restrictions of the Habeas Corpus action, which cannot be used to get the protection of animal rights.  The Constitutional Court, hereby, reviews the latter judicial decisions.

Issue:  Do animals have the right of freedom and protection against unduly confinement as guaranteed by the Constitution to humans? Could this right be enforced through the special action of Habeas Corpus?

Ruling and reasoning.  No.  The Court GRANTED the protection of the right to due process to Fundazoo and therefore, confirmed the reviewed decisions of the Labor and Criminal Rooms of the Supreme Court of Justice.  The Chamber determined that the Habeas Corpus is not the legal mechanism to solve the controversy related to the permanence of the Chucho Andean bear in a zoo, insofar as that it is a legal instrument for the protection of the freedom of human beings, which cannot be said of animals.