Email: info@pdfcoffee.

com 0 Login 1 Register 2 English

! % Top Categories " Top # Best + Add $ My

Home stories stories Story Stories

Home / 04 Mosqueda v Pilipino Banana Growers

Mosqueda v Pilipino Banana Growers FACTS: Citation preview

04 Sangguniang Panglungsod of Davao City
enacted Ordinance 0309 s. 2007 imposing
Mosqueda Mosqueda v Pilipino Banana Growers

) Views 608 * Downloads 28

v + File size 41KB

FACTS: Sangguniang Panglungsod of
Davao City enacted Ordinance 0309 s.

Pilipino , Report DMCA / Copyright 2007 imposing a ban on aerial

spraying as an agricultural practice by

Banana  DOWNLOAD FILE all agricultural entities within Davao

City. Mayor Duterte (hehe) approved

Growers 1 of 1 the ordinance. Banana growers were

given 3 months to comply. Pilipino
Banana Growers and Exporters
Association (PBGEA) challenged the
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. Constitutionality of the ordinance,
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.
arguing that it was an unreasonable
RTC: ordinance is valid police power exercise; aerial spraying was distinct because of the higher
health risk it caused to residents. exercise of police power, a violation of
CA: ordinance is Unconstitutional for being unreasonable and oppressive; definition of "aerial

equal protection, and was confiscatory.

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? Residents living near banana

HELD: YES. plantations, led by Wilfredo Mosqueda,
SC took judicial notice of significance of banana industry, and that SP of Davao did have authority

intervened. RTC: ordinance is valid

to pass the ordinance. HOWEVER, the ordinance violates substantive due process in the imposition

& Author 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). police power exercise; aerial spraying
Uploaded *reqs for valid ordinance:

(1) it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; was distinct because of the higher
(2) it must be fair, not oppressive;

(3) it must not be partial or discriminatory;

(4) it must not prohibit but may regulate trade;

health risk it caused to residents. CA:
PJA
ordinance is Unconstitutional for
(5) it must be general and consistent with public policy; and

(6) it must not be unreasonable.

being unreasonable and oppressive;

' ( definition of "aerial spraying" did not
make reasonable distinction between
Like 0 different effects, classes of
0 Comments Sort by Oldest pseticides/fungicides, and
concentration levels, buffer zone
requirement was confiscatory; no
separability clause.

Add a comment...
ISSUE: WON Ordinance is
Unconstitutional?

Facebook Comments plugin 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
Recommend Stories
needed changes within the given
period); buffer zone was not
confiscatory because it did not divest
Mosqueda vs Pilipino
Banana Growers owner of beneficial use of property
(eto Constitutional); ordinance violated
G.R. No. 189185, August
equal protection in that the means
16, 2016 WILFREDO
(prohibition on aerial spraying) was not
MOSQUEDA,et al.
based on substantial distinction
Petitioners, v. PILIPINO
(because the problem-pesticide drift--
BANANA GROWERS &
still occurs with ground-based
EXPORTERS ASSOCIATIO
spraying). *reqs for valid ordinance: (1)
) 39 * 4 + 398KB it must not contravene the
Read more Constitution or any statute; (2) it must
be fair, not oppressive; (3) it must not
be partial or discriminatory; (4) it must
Mosqueda-v.-Pilipino- not prohibit but may regulate trade;
Banana-Growers.docx (5) it must be general and consistent
WILFREDO MOSQUEDA, with public policy; and (6) it must not
MARCELO VILLAGANES, be unreasonable.
JULIETA LAWAGON,
CRISPIN
ALCOMENDRAS,
CORAZON SABINADA,
VIRGINIA CATA-AG,
FLORENC

) 12 * 3 + 110KB

Read more

Mosqueda v Pilipino
Banana Growers _
Exporters Association,
Inc.

) 15 * 1 + 572KB

Read more

22 - MOSQUEDA V
PILIPINO BANANA
GROWERS.docx
MOSQUEDA v. PILIPINO
BANANA GROWERS &
EXPORTERS
ASSOCIATION G.R. No.
189185, August 16, 2016
BERSAMIN, J.: Facts:
After

) 9 * 4 + 154KB

Read more

Wilfredo Mosqueda Et Al
vs Pilipino Banana
Growers Case
WILFREDO MOSQUEDA
ET AL vs PILIPINO
BANANA GROWERS &
EXPORTERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., DAV
AO FRUITS
CORPORATION, and
LAPANDA

) 173 * 6 + 71KB

Read more

Mosqueda vs. Pilipino

Banana Growers and
Exporters Association
Mosqueda vs. Pilipino
Banana Growers and
Exporters Association
Facts: After several
committee hearings and
consultations

) 269 * 5 + 39KB

Read more

Banana Growers Case

2.pdf
Republic of the
Philippines Court of
Appeals Cagayan de Oro
City PILIPINO BANANA
GROWERS AND
EXPORTERS
ASSOCIATION, IN

) 14 * 0 + 412KB

Read more

Mosqueda v. Reyes
Basic kinds of
succession: Reyes v.
Mosqueda Facts: 1. Dr.
Emilio Pascual died
intestate on November
18,1972. He was sur

) 69 * 8 + 102KB

Read more

Mosqueda, Et Al Vs.
Pilipino Banana Growers
& Exporters Association,
Inc., Et Al. G.R. No.
189185, 16 August, 2016
En Banc, J. Bersamin
MOSQUEDA, ET AL VS.
PILIPINO BANANA
GROWERS &
EXPORTERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., ET
AL. G.R. No. 189185, 16
August, 2016 En Ba

) 30 * 2 + 607KB

Read more

About Us SUBSCRIBE OUR WEEKLY

NEWSLETTER

Contact Us
Enter your E-mailSubscribe
Contact
information Copyright

Ronald F. Clayton
Privacy Policy
. info@pdfcoffee.com

Terms and Conditions

/ Address:

46748 Colby FAQ

MotorwayHettingermouth,
QC T3J 3P0
Cookie Policy

Copyright © 2022 PDFCOFFEE.COM. All rights reserved. ' ( 4 5 6

Our partners will collect data and use cookies for ad personalization and measurement. Learn how
we and our ad partner Google, collect and use data. 3 Agree & close