Wilfredo Mosqueda Et Al vs Pilipino Banana Growers Case
Final MosquedaFull description
political law digestFull description
04 SBTC v CuencaFull description
wine preparation from bananaFull description
Full description
mañana habit
for Sacred Sacerdotal Ordination
hedging, mitigation riskFull description
banana
Case DigestFull description
MAED
Glosario te GeomorfoliaDescripción completa
A progress report on the 2017-2018 growing season and summary of best practices for growing hops in Maryland. Flying Dog Brewery and the University of Maryland's College of Agriculture and N…Full description
Partitura Banana Boat SongFull description
banana chipsFull description
hi
kasaysayan
Mosqueda v Pilipino Banana Growers
FACTS: Sangguniang Panglungsod of Davao City enacted Ordinance 0309 s. 2007 imposing a ban on aerial spraying as an agricultural practice by all agricultural entities within Davao City. Mayor Duterte (hehe) approved the ordinance. Banana growers were given 3 months to comply. Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association (PBGEA) challenged the Constitutionality of the ordinance, arguing that it was an unreasonable exercise of police power, a violation of equal protection, and was confiscatory. Residents living near banana plantations, led by Wilfredo Mosqueda, intervened. RTC: ordinance is valid police power exercise; aerial spraying was distinct because of the higher health risk it caused to residents. CA: ordinance is Unconstitutional for being unreasonable and oppressive; definition of "aerial spraying" did not make reasonable distinction between different effects, classes of pseticides/fungicides, and concentration levels, buffer zone requirement was confiscatory; no separability clause.
ISSUE: WON Ordinance is Unconstitutional?
HELD: YES. SC took judicial notice of significance of banana industry, and that SP of Davao did have authority to pass the ordinance. HOWEVER, the ordinance violates substantive due process in the imposition of the 3-month compliance period (physically impossible daw to implement the needed changes within the given period); buffer zone was not confiscatory because it did not divest owner of beneficial use of property (eto Constitutional); ordinance violated equal protection in that the means (prohibition on aerial spraying) was not based on substantial distinction (because the problem-pesticide drift--still occurs with ground-based spraying). *reqs for valid ordinance: (1) it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) it must be fair, not oppressive; (3) it must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) it must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) it must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) it must not be unreasonable.
