Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters Association Inc. v City of Davao (Environmental Law)

Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters Association Inc. v City of Davao  

January 9, 2009 

CA Mindanao Station, Lantion 

NOTE: still pending in the SC

FACTS:

Sangguniang Panglungsod of Davao enacted Ordinance No. 0309-07, Series of 2007: “An Ordinance Banning Aerial spraying as an agricultural practice in all agricultural activities by all agricultural entities in Davao City” 

RTC: rendered ordinance valid and unconstitutional 

ISSUES:

WON the ordinance banning aerial spraying is unconstitutional Constitutional right to health and to a healthful and balanced ecology. 

RULING:

(Still pending SC decision)  

CA: UNCONSTITUTIONAL & INVALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER 

It is within the mandate and authority of the City of Davao to enact Ordinance since it is a measure that has an ostensible LAWFUL SUBJECT: protection of public health and the environment against the alleged harmful effects of aerial spraying of pesticides or fungicides.  

However, UNLAWFUL MEANS since unduly oppressive to individuals and the three months period shift from aerial spraying to ground spraying unreasonable, oppressive and impossible to comply with.  

City of Davao lacked: 

- Technical understanding on the intricacies of the engineering works required for the efficient operation of banana plantations, indifference to corporeal rights of banana planters to protect and enhance their investments. 

- To abandon aerial spraying without affording them enough time to convert and adopt other spraying practices would preclude the banana planters from being able to fertilize their plantations… Such an apparent eventuality would prejudice the operation of the plantations and the economic repercussions thereof would just be akin to shutting down the venture.  

• Also, since SEPARABILITY CLAUSE IS NON-EXISTING, the whole ordinance is unconstitutional. 

• No scientific basis for banning aerial spraying. Testimonies in favor of City of Davao did not prove that the aerial spraying of substances is the proximate cause of the various ailments the victims allegedly suffered. 

• EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE – it does NOT classify which substances are prohibited from being applied aerially even as reasonable distinctions should be made in terms of the hazards, safety or beneficial effects of liquid substances to the public health, livelihood and the environment 

• Ordinance is confiscation of property without due process of law, it deprives plantation owners of the lawful and beneficial use of such areas to be ceded, without just compensation (with regards to buffer zones required by the ordinance)