WILFREDO MOSQUEDA ET AL vs PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS & EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., DAV AO FRUITS CORPORATION, and LAPANDAY LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and CITY GOVERNMENT OFDAVAO vs COURT OF APPEALS, PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS & EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION
After several committee committee hearings hearings and consultations consultations with various various stakeholders, stakeholders, the Sangguniang Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City enacted Ordinance No. 00!, Series of "00#, to im$ose a %an against aerial s$raying as an agricultural $ractice %y all agricultural entities within Davao City. A!"a# S$!a%"n & S$!a%"n & refers to a$$lication of su%stances through the use of aircraft of any form which dis$enses the su%stances in the air. A!"'(#)(!a# A!"'(#)(!a# P!a')"'s P!a')"'s & refer to the $ractices conducted %y agricultural entities in relation to their agricultural activities' A!"'(#)(!a# A')"v")"s A')"v")"s & refer to activities that include, %ut not limited to, land $re$aration, seeding, $lanting, cultivatlo.n, harvesting and %agging' A!"'(#)(!a# En)")"s & En)")"s & refer to $ersons, natural or (uridical, involved in agricultural activities RTC )he ordin ordinan ance ce was was chall challeng enged ed %y Pili$i Pili$ino no *ana *anana na +rowe +rowers rs and and -$o -$orte rters rs Associa ssociatio tion n ncor$orated after it took effect on /arch ", "00# more than a month after it was a$$roved %y then /ayor 1odrigo Duterte challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance, and to seek the issuance of $rovisional reliefs through a tem$orary restraining order 2)1O3 and4or writ of $reliminary in(unction. )hey alleged5 6. alleged that the the ordinance ordinance e-em$lified e-em$lified the the unreasona%le unreasona%le e-ercise of $olice $olice $ower' $ower' ". violated violated the e7ual e7ual $rotec $rotection tion clause' clause' . amoun amounted ted to8 the confi confisca scatio tion n of $ro$ert $ro$erty y witho without ut due $roces $rocess s of law' and lacke lacked d $u%licat $u%lication ion $ursuan $ursuantt to Section Section 966: 966: of 1e$u%li 1e$u%lic c Act Act No. #6:0 #6:0 2;ocal 2;ocal +overnm +overnment ent Code3.
RTC DECISION* 6. )he 1)C 1)C o$ined o$ined that the City City of Davao had had validly validly e-ercise e-ercised d $olice $olice $ower $ower under the +eneral
". )hat )hat the ordinance ordinance,, %eing %ased %ased on a valid valid classificat classification, ion, was was consistent consistent with the 7ual 7ual Protection Clause' . )hat aerial aerial s$raying s$raying was distinct from from other other methods of $esticides $esticides a$$lication a$$lication %ecause it e-$osed the residents to a higher degree of health risk caused %y aerial drift' and that the ordinance en(oyed the $resum$tion of constitutionality, and could %e invalidated only u$on a clear showing that it had violated the Constitution. =. >oweve >owever, r, the 1)C, 1)C, recog recogni ni?in ?ing g the im$racti im$ractica% ca%ili ility ty of the the &mon &month th trans transiti ition on $erio $eriod d under Section 9 of Ordinance No. 00!&0#, recommended the $arties to agree on an e-tended transition $eriod. 1)C granted the $rayer for a $reliminary in(unction, %ut later on d'#a!d )+ !d"nan' as va#"d and 'ns)")()"na#. CA Petitioners Davao City, and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL & INVALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER t is within the mandate and authority of the City of Davao to enact Ordinance since it is a measure measure that that has an ostensi% ostensi%le le ;A<@; ;A<@; S*BC) S*BC)55 $rotection $rotection of $u%lic $u%lic health health and the environment against the alleged harmful effects of aerial s$raying of $esticides or fungicides. >owever, N;A<@; /ANS since unduly o$$ressive to individuals and the three months $eriod shift from aerial s$raying to ground s$raying unreasona%le, o$$ressive and im$ossi%le to com$ly with. City of Davao lacked5
&
)echnica chnicall unde underst rstan andin ding g on the the intric intricaci acies es of the engin enginee eerin ring g works re7uir re7uired ed for the efficie efficient nt o$erati o$eration on of %anana %anana $lantat $lantations ions,, indiffe indifferenc rence e to cor$orea cor$oreall rights rights of %anana %anana $lanters to $rotect and enhance their investments.
&
)o a%an a%ando don n aerial aerial s$ray s$raying ing witho without ut afford affording ing them them enoug enough h time to convert convert and and ado$ ado$tt other s$raying $ractices would $reclude the %anana $lanters from %eing a%le to fertili?e their $lantations Such an a$$arent eventuality would $re(udice the o$eration of the $lantations $lantations and the economic re$ercussions re$ercussions thereof would (ust %e akin to shutting down the venture.
Also, lso, sinc since e SP SPA1A* 1A*; ;)E )E C;A C;AS S S NON& NON&F FS S) )N+ N+,, the the whol whole e ordi ordina nanc nce e is unconstitutional. No scientific %asis for %anning aerial s$raying. )estimonies in favor of City of Davao did not $rove that the aerial s$raying of su%stances is the $ro-imate cause of the various ailments the victims allegedly suffered.
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE CLAUSE it does NO) classify which su%stances are $rohi%ited from %eing a$$lied aerially even as reasona%le distinctions should %e made in terms of the ha?ards, safet safety y or %ene %enefic ficial ial effec effects ts of li7uid li7uid su%sta su%stance nces s to the the $u%li $u%lic c healt health, h, liveli liveliho hood od and and the the environment Ordinance is confiscation of $ro$erty without due $rocess of law, it de$rives $lantation owners of the lawful and %eneficial use of such areas to %e ceded, without (ust com$ensation 2with regards to %uffer ?ones re7uired %y the ordinance3
)he City of Davao and the intervenors filed their res$ective motions for reconsideration, reconsideration, %ut the CA denied the motions on August #, "00!
SC /os7ueda, et al. state that the CA ignored well&esta%lished $rece$ts 6. like the $rimacy $rimacy of human human rights rights over $ro$erty $ro$erty rights rights and and the $resum$t $resum$tion ion of validity validity in favor of the ordinance' ". that the CA CA $referred $referred the $reservation $reservation of the $rofits of res$onden res$ondents ts P*+A, P*+A, et al. to the the residentsG right to life, health and ecology, there%y disregarding the %enevolent $ur$ose of the ordinance' . that the CA assumed the functions functions of the the lawmaker lawmaker when itit set aside aside the wisdom wisdom %ehind %ehind the enactment of the ordinance' =. that the CA CA failed failed to a$$ly a$$ly the $recautionary $recautionary $rinci$le, %y which the State State was allowed to take $ositive actions to $revent harm to the environment and to human health des$ite the lack of scientific certainty' 9. that the CA erred erred in a$$lying a$$lying the Hstrict Hstrict scrutiny scrutiny method methodHH in holding holding that the ordinan ordinance ce violated violated the 7ual Protecti Protection on Clause Clause %ecause %ecause it only there%y a$$lied a$$lied in reviewing reviewing classifications that affected fundamental rights'
:. that that there there was was nothi nothing ng wrong wrong with with $rohi% $rohi%iti iting ng aerial aerial s$ray s$raying ing $er se consid consideri ering ng that even the aerial s$raying of water $roduced drift that could affect unwilling neigh%ors whose constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment might %e im$inged' #. that as far as the three three month month $eriod was was concerned concerned,, the CA should should have have considered considered that that manua manuall s$ray s$raying ing could could %e condu conducte cted d while while the the P*+ P*+A, A, et al. laid laid down down the $re$arations for the conduct of %oorri s$raying' I. that Greasona%len Greasona%lenessH essH could %e more a$$ro$riately a$$ro$riately weighed weighed %y %alancing %alancing the interests of of the $arties against the $rotection of %asic rights, like the right to life, to health, and to a %alanced and healthful ecology' !. that P*+A P*+A,, et al. did not su%stant su%stantiate iate their their claim of $otentia $otentiall $rofit losses losses that that would result from the shift' 60. that %usiness $rofits should should remain inferior and su%ordinate to their fundamental fundamental rights as residents of Davao City, which were the rights that the assailed ordinance has sought to $rotect' 66. 66. that P*+A, et al. did not e-$lore other modes of $esticide treatment treatment either as a sto$& ga$ or as a tem$orary measure while shifting to truck mounted %oom s$raying'"! that the im$osition of the 0&meter %uffer ?one was a valid e-ercise of $olice $ower that necessarily flowed from the $rotection afforded %y the ordinance from the unwanted effects of ground s$raying' that the im$osition of the %uffer ?one did not constitute com$ensa%le taking under $olice $ower
In G.R. N. :;1:;-, $)")"n!s Ms7(da, ) a#. !#% n )+ ##6"n !(nds, na5#%* I. )he court of a$$eals ignored fundamental $rece$ts and conce$ts of law which, $ro$erly considered, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the davao ordinance is constitutional and valid . )he davao ordinance is consistent with the e7ual $rotection clause . . )he )he means means em$loy em$loyed ed %y the the davao davao ordinan ordinance ce is more more than than reason reasona%l a%ly y relate related d to the the $ur$ose it seeks to achieve J. )he davao ordinance is valid, %eing demonstra%ly reasona%le and fair J )he re7uirement relating to the 0&meter %uffer ?one are consistent with due $rocess of law, %eing av alid e-ercise of $olice $ower
In G.R. N. :;10/-, $)")"n! C")% Dava s(45")s )+ ##6"n as )+ "ss(s ) 4 'ns"d!d and !s#vd, ) 6")* .
.
CITY OF DAVAO I A. )he City of Davao e-$lains that it had the authority to enact the assailed ordinance %ecause it would there%y $rotect the environment and regulate $ro$erty and %usiness in the interest of the general welfare $ursuant to Section =9I of the ;ocal +overnment Code' *. that the ordinance ordinance was enacted enacted to carry carry out its mandate of $romoting $romoting the $u%lic $u%lic welfare welfare under the +eneral
that as soon soon as fungicides fungicides are released released in the air, air, they %ecome %ecome air $ollutants $ollutants $ursuant $ursuant to Section 9 of 1e$u%lic Act Act No. I#=! 2Phili$$ine Clean Air Act Act of 6!!!3,I 6!!!3,I and the activity thus falls under the authority of the local government units to %an' and that the ordinance does not only seek to $rotect and $romote human health %ut also serves as a measure against air $ollution.
CITY OF DAVAO II A. )he City of Davao insists that it validly e-ercised $olice $ower %ecause it does not ther there% e%y y o%li o%lige ge the the shif shiftt from from aeri aerial al to truc truck& k&mo moun unte ted d %oom %oom s$ra s$rayi ying ng'' that that the the res$ondents only choose %oom s$raying to (ustify the alleged im$ractica%ility of the transition $eriod %y erroneously adding the months re7uired for each of the stages without considering other ste$s that may %e simultaneously undertaken' B. that the Court should a$$ly its ruling in Social Bustice Society v. Atien?a, Br., %y which the si-&month $eriod for the folding&u$ of %usiness o$erations o$erations was declared a legitimate e-ercise of $olice $ower' C. that the res$ondents did not $resent any documentary evidence on the feasi%ility of ado$ting other methods' D. that only 6,I00 hectares out of 9,"00 hectares of $lantations owned and o$erated %y P*+AGs mem%ers use aerial s$raying, hence, the $erceived ominous conse7uence of im$osing a %an on aerial s$ray to the %anana industry is entirely misleading' E. that the urgency of $rohi%iting aerial s$ray (ustifies the three&month transition $eriod'
F. that the com$laints of the community residents & ranging from skin itchiness, contraction and4or tightening in the chest, nausea, a$$etite loss and difficulty in %reathing after e-$osure to s$ray mist & only $rove that aerial s$raying %rings discomfort and harm to the residents' G. that that cons consid ider erin ing g that that the the test testim imon ony y of Dr. Dr. ;ynn Cris Crisan anta ta 1. Pang Pangan ani% i%an an,, a $harmac $harmacolog ologist ist and to-icolo to-icologist gist,, esta%li esta%lished shed that fungicid fungicides es could could cause cause de%ilita de%ilitating ting effects on the human %ody once inhaled or digested, the CA erred in holding that there was no correlation %etween aerial a$$lication and the com$laints of the residents' <. that given that aerial s$ray $roduces more drift and is uncontrolla%le com$ared to the other methods of a$$lying fungicides, the 8 ordinance %ecomes reasona%le' I. that the medical&related com$laints of the residents need not %e $roven %y medical records considering that these were %ased on $ersonal knowledge. CITY OF DAVAO III )he City of Davao contends that the im$osition of the 0&meter %uffer ?one is a valid e-ercise of $olice $ower, rendering the claim for (ust com$ensation untena%le' &
that that the mainte maintena nanc nce e of the %uffer %uffer ?one ?one does does not re7ui re7uire re the res$o res$onde ndent nts s to cede a $ortion of their landholdings' that the $lanting of diversified trees within the %uffer ?one will serve to insulate the residents from s$ray drift'
&
that such such %uffe %ufferr ?one does does not not de$rive de$rive the land landown owners ers of the the lawful lawful and %ene %eneficia ficiall use of their $ro$erty'
&
that the the %uffe %ufferr ?one is is consiste consistent nt with with the Const Constitu itution, tion, which which reminds reminds $ro$erty $ro$erty owners owners that the use of $ro$erty %ears a social function.
MAIN ISSUE )he main issue is whether or not Ordinance No. 00!&0# is unconstitutional on due $rocess and e7ual $rotection grounds for %eing unreasona%le and o$$ressive, and an invalid e-ercise of $olice $ower5 2a3 in im$osing a %an on aerial s$raying as an agricultural $ractice in Davao City under Section 9' 2%3 in decre decreein eing g a &mon &month th transi transitio tion&$ n&$eri eriod od to shift shift to othe otherr mode modes s of $esti $esticid cide e a$$lication under Section 9' 2c3 in re7uiring the maintenance of the 0&meter %uffer ?one under Section : thereof in all agricultural lands in Davao City.
igh Court unanimously denied the consolidated $etitions on certiorari for lack of merit. )he SC made $oints on the 7uestion of Hwhether a $rohi%ition against aerial s$raying is a lawfully $ermissi%le method that the city government can ado$t to $revent the effects of the so& called aerial driftH5
6. )he ordinance violates the due $rocess clause & )he >igh Court said Davao City Hmust not act ar%itrarily, whimsically or des$otically regardless of the ordinanceGs salutary $ur$ose.H &
&
On Secti Section on 9, the the SC said said months months would would %e inade inade7u 7uate ate time time for the the city to shift shift from from aerial to truck&mounted %oom s$raying, effectively de$riving the city an efficient means to com%at disease. *ut the the >igh Court Court disag disagreed reed with with P*+A P*+A that that the %uffer %uffer ?one ?one re7uir re7uired ed %y the the ordinanc ordinance e is in violation of due $rocess since the $ur$ose is to minimi?e the effects of aerial s$raying.
". )he ordinance violates the e7ual $rotection clause & )he SC said e7ual $rotection was violated since the ordinance made no su%stantial distinctions when it $rohi%ited aerial s$raying $er se regardless of the su%stance or the level of concentration of the chemicals to %e a$$lied, and when it im$osed the 0&meter %uffer ?one in all agricultural lands in Davao City regardless of the si?e of landholdings.
. )he ordinance is an ultra vires act & According to the SC, the city disregarded regulations im$lemented %y the @ertili?er and Pesticides Authority 2@PA3, including its identification and classification of safe $esticides and other agricultural chemicals. 1egulation 1egulation and control of $esticides and other agricultural chemicals, the SC said, is a function lodged with the @PA and not with local government units. )hus, when Davao City enacted the ordinance Hwithout inherent and e-$licit authority to do soH the SC said the local government $erformed an ultra vires act.
