Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Mosqueda vs. Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters Association G.R. No. 189185
774
MOSQUEDA vs. PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS, G.R. 189185
Created by PERSON
for PERSON
Ordinance No. 0309, Series of 2007
- Enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City.
- To impose a ban against aerial spraying as an agricultural practice by all agricultural entities within Davao City.
Facts
- Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Assosciation, Inc. (PBGEA), herein respondents challenged the ordinance by questioning its constitutionality before the Regional Trial Court.
- PBGEA alleged that the ordinance exemplified the unreasonable exercise of Police Power, Violated the equal protection clause, violated due process of law.
Subtopic
RTC RULING
- Ordinance is valid.
CA RULING
- Reversed Judgment of RTC
- Unreasonable and Oppressive
- 3-month transition period impractical
- No reasonable distinction (Equal Protection Violation)
- 30-meter buffer zone constitutes taking of property w/o due process.
Issue
- W/N Ordinance No. 0309, Series of 2007 is violative of the 1987 constitution.
Subtopic 2
Petitioner reasons out the following:
- LGC Sec. 458 (Interest of General Welfare)
- LGC Sec. 16
- No violation of Equal Protection since distinction lies in aerial spray as a method of application being more deleterious than other methods.
- No need for substantial distinction on the level of concentration since fungicide in the air is already pollution pursuant to Section 5 of RA 8749.
- That the 30-meter buffer zone is zone is a valid exercise of police power. That the maintenance of the buffer zone does not require respondents to cede a portion of their landholdings and that such buffer zones does not deprive its owners of its beneficial use and such is consistent with the Consitution as the land is made available for a social function.
Issues
Whether or not Ordinance No. 0309-07 is unconstitutional on due process and equal protection grounds for being unreasonable and oppressive, and an invalid exercise of police power: (a) in imposing a ban on aerial spraying as an agricultural practice in Davao City under Section 5; (b) in decreeing a 3-month transition-period to shift to other modes of pesticide application under Section 5; and
(c) in requiring the maintenance of the 30-meter buffer zone under Section 6 thereof in all agricultural lands in Davao City.
SC Rationale
The Sangguniang Bayan of Davao Cityenacted Ordinance No. 0309-07under its corporate powers... 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.
Ordinance No. 0309-07 violates the Due Process Clause
A valid ordinance must not only be enacted within the corporate powers of the local government and passed according to the procedure prescribed by law.[108] In order to declare it as a valid piece of local legislation, it must also comply with the following substantive requirements, namely: (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.
The required civil works for the conversion to truck-mounted boom spraying alone will consume considerable time and financial resources given the topography and geographical features of the plantations.[117] As such, the conversion could not be completed within the short timeframe of three months. Requiring the respondents and other affected individuals to comply with the consequences of the ban within the three-month period under pain of penalty like fine, imprisonment and even cancellation of business permits would definitely be oppressive as to constitute abuse of police power.
The respondents posit that the requirement of maintaining a buffer zone under Section 6 of the ordinance violates due process for being confiscatory; and that the imposition unduly deprives all agricultural landowners within Davao City of the beneficial use of their property that amounts to taking without just compensation.
Ordinance No. 0309-07 violates the Equal Protection Clause
The constitutional right to equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. The guaranty equal protection secures every person within the State's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statue or by its improper execution through the State's duly constituted authorities. The concept of equal justice under the law demands that the State governs impartially, and not to draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to the legitimate governmental objective.
The occurrence of pesticide drift is not limited to aerial spraying but results from the conduct of any mode of pesticide application. Even manual spraying or truck-mounted boom spraying produces drift that may bring about the same inconvenience, discomfort and alleged health risks to the community and to the environment.[141] A ban against aerial spraying does not weed out the harm that the ordinance seeks to achieve.[142] In the process, the ordinance suffers from being "underinclusive" because the classification does not include all individuals tainted with the same mischief that the law seeks to eliminate.[143] A classification that is drastically underinclusive with respect to the purpose or end appears as an irrational means to the legislative end because it poorly serves the intended purpose of the l