Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers

Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters Association, Inc., G.R. No.
189
185, August 16, 2016
Facts: Davao City enacted ordinance Ordinance No. 0309-07 which banned against
aerial spraying as an agricultural practice by all agricultural entities. The Pilipino Banana
Growers and Exporters Association, Inc. (PBGEA) then filed a petition to challenge the
constitutionality of the ordinance. They alleged that the ordinance exemplified the
unreasonable exercise of police power; violated the equal protection clause; amounted
to the confiscation of property without due process of law.
Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association, Inc. (PBGEA) and two of its
members, namely: Davao Fruits Corporation and Lapanday Agricultural and
Development Corporation (PBGEA, et al.), filed their petition in the RTC to challenge
the constitutionality of the ordinance, and to seek the issuance of provisional reliefs
through a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The
petition argues that the total ban against aerial spraying, coupled with the inadequate
time to shift to truck-mounted boom spraying, effectively deprives the farmers with an
efficient means to control the spread of diseases that threatens the banana plantations.
As such, the ordinance is unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, and tantamount to a
restriction or prohibition of trade. The petition also submits that the maintenance of the
30- meter buffer zone under Section 5 of the ordinance constitutes an improper exercise
of police power; that the ordinance will require all landholdings to maintain the buffer
zone, thereby diminishing to a mere 1,600 square meters of usable and productive land
for every hectare of the plantation bounding residential areas, with the zone being
reserved for planting "diversified trees;" that this requirement amounts to taking without
just compensation or due process; and that the imposition of the buffer zone unduly
deprives all landowners within the City of Davao the beneficial use of their property.
Issue: Whether or not the Ordinance No. 0309-07 has disregarded the health of the
plantation workers, contending that by imposing the ban against aerial spraying the
ordinance would place the plantation workers at a higher health risk because the
alternatives of either manual or truck-boom spraying method would be adopted; and
that exposing the workers to the same risk sought to be prevented by the ordinance
would defeat its purported purpose.
RULING: No. With or without the ban against aerial spraying, the health and safety of
plantation workers are secured by existing state policies, rules and regulations
implemented by the FPA, among others, which the respondents are lawfully bound to
comply with. The respondents even manifested their strict compliance with these rules,
including those in the UN-FAO Guidelines on Good Practice for Aerial Application of
Pesticides (Rome 2001). We should note that the Rome 2001 guidelines require the
pesticide applicators to observe the standards provided therein to ensure the health and
safety of plantation workers. As such, there cannot be any imbalance between the right
to health of the residents vis-a-vis the workers even if a ban will be imposed against
aerial spraying and the consequent adoption of other modes of pesticide treatment.
Furthermore, the constitutional right to health and maintaining environmental

integrity are privileges that do not only advance the interests of a group of
individuals. The benefits of protecting human health and the environment
transcend geographical locations and even generations. This is the essence of
Sections 15 and 16, Article II of the Constitution. In Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. we declared
that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology under Section 16 is an issue of
transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. It is under this milieu that
the questioned ordinance should be appreciated.
Advancing the interests of the residents who are vulnerable to the alleged health risks
due to their exposure to pesticide drift justifies the motivation behind the enactment of
the ordinance. The City of Davao has the authority to enact pieces of legislation that will
promote the general welfare, specifically the health of its constituents. Such authority
should not be construed, however, as a valid license for the City of Davao to enact any
ordinance it deems fit to discharge its mandate. A thin but well-defined line separates
authority to enact legislations from the method of accomplishing the same.

Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters Association, Inc., G.R. No.

Furthermore, the constitutional right to health and maintaining environmental

You might also like