Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bridgeta Fatima Y. Pascua Final Draft: Facts
Bridgeta Fatima Y. Pascua Final Draft: Facts
Bridgeta Fatima Y. Pascua Final Draft: Facts
Pascua
FINAL DRAFT
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. 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.
FACTS
The then city Mayor Rodrigo Duterte approved Ordinance No. 0309-07,
imposing a ban on aerial spraying as an agricultural practice in Davao city,
which would be strictly enforced three months after publication. The Pilipino
Banana Growers and Exporters Association, Inc. (PBGEA) and two of its
members, namely: Davao Fruits Corporation and Lapanday Agricultural and
Development Corporation filed their petition in the Regional Trial Court (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. 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; and
lacked publication. The residents living within and adjacent to banana
plantations in Davao City led by Wilfredo Mosqueda, joined by other residents
of Davao City, submitted their Motion for Leave to Intervene and Opposition to
the Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction which was granted by the RTC.
The RTC sustained the constitutionality and validity of the ordinance and
held that the City of Davao has validly exercised police power under the
General Welfare Clause of the Local Government Code. Furthermore, the
ordinance being based on a valid classification was consistent with the equal
protection clause.
However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC. It
declared the ordinance as void and unconstitutional for being unreasonable
and oppressive; found the three-month transition period impractical and
oppressive in view of the engineering and technical requirements of switching
from aerial spraying to truck-mounted boom spraying; and opined that the ban
ran afoul with the Equal Protection Clause. The term aerial spraying - did not
make reasonable distinction between the hazards, safety and beneficial effects
of liquid substances that were being applied aerially; the different classes of
pesticides or fungicides; and the levels of concentration of these substances
that could be beneficial and could enhance agricultural production.
ISSUES
(1) Is Davao City Ordinance No. 0309-07, imposing a ban on aerial spraying
as an agricultural practice in Davao City, unconstitutional for being
violative of the due process and equal protection clause?
(2) Is the City of Davao justified in enacting Ordinance No. 0309-07 in order
to prevent harm to the environment and human health despite the lack of
scientific certainty under the Precautionary Principle?
RULING