G.R. No. 189185 - Mosqueda vs. Pilipino Baa Growers and Exporters Association, Inc.

On January 23, 2007, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City enacted Ordinance No. 0309-07, “An Ordinance Banning Aerial Spraying as an Agricultural Practice in all Agricultural Activities by all Agricultural Entities in Davao City.” It defined key terms, imposed a ban on aerial spraying effective three months after publication, mandated a 30-meter buffer zone with diversified trees, and prescribed fines, imprisonment, and permit suspensions for violations.
Mayor Rodrigo Duterte approved the ordinance on February 9, 2007; it was published March 23, 2007 in a newspaper of general circulation.

In May 2007, the Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters Assoc., Inc. (PBGEA), Davao Fruits Corp. and Lapanday Agri. & Dev’t Corp. filed a petition in the RTC seeking injunctive relief and declaring the ordinance unconstitutional for unreasonable police power, equal protection violation, uncompensated taking, and lack of publication.
On June 4, 2007, Davao City residents led by Wilfredo Mosqueda were permitted to intervene in support of the ordinance. On June 20, 2007, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the ban.

On September 22, 2007, the RTC rendered judgment upholding the ordinance’s validity and constitutionality, cancelled the preliminary injunction, but acknowledged the three-month transition was impracticable and suggested an agreed extension.
PBGEA et al. appealed to the Court of Appeals. On January 9, 2009, the CA reversed the RTC: it voided Section 5 (ban and transition period) as unreasonable and oppressive; found Section 3(a)’s definition of aerial spraying violative of equal protection; held Section 6’s buffer-zone requirement a taking without due process; and struck the entire ordinance for lack of a separability clause. Motions for reconsideration were denied on August 7, 2009.

Whether the three-month ban on aerial spraying and transition period under Section 5 is a valid exercise of police power (due process).
Whether the ordinance’s blanket prohibition of aerial spraying violates equal protection by under- and over-inclusive classification.
Whether the 30-meter buffer-zone requirement constitutes a taking without just compensation (due process).
Whether the City of Davao had authority to enact the ordinance given P.D. 1144 and FPA’s exclusive jurisdiction over pesticide regulation (ultra vires).
Whether reliance on the precautionary principle without scientific certainty justified the ordinance.