Case Summary (G.R. No. 189185)
Petitioners
• Wilfredo Mosqueda, Marcelo Villaganes, Julieta Lawagon, Crispin Alcomendras, Corazon Sabinada, Virginia Cata-Ag, Florencia Sabandon, Ledevina Adlawan (intervening residents)
• City Government of Davao (in separate consolidated petition)
Respondents
• Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters Association, Inc. (PBGEA)
• Davao Fruits Corporation
• Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation
Key Dates
• January 23, 2007 – Ordinance No. 0309-07 enacted
• February 9, 2007 – Mayor’s approval
• March 23, 2007 – Ordinance takes effect
• June 20, 2007 – RTC grants preliminary injunction
• September 22, 2007 – RTC upholds constitutionality of the ordinance
• January 9, 2009 – Court of Appeals reverses the RTC, permanently enjoins enforcement
• August 16, 2016 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (General Welfare, Due Process, Equal Protection, Local Autonomy)
• Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160) – Sections 16, 22, 53, 54, 458, 511
• Presidential Decree No. 1144 (Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority powers)
• Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 (RA No. 8749)
• FAO/UN-FAO Guidelines on Good Agricultural Practices for Aerial Application of Pesticides
Ordinance No. 0309-07 Overview
• Ban on aerial spraying by all agricultural entities in Davao City, effective three months after publication
• Definition of aerial spraying, agricultural activities, buffer zone (30 m planted with tall trees)
• Penal provisions for first to third offenses (fines, imprisonment, permit suspension/cancellation)
Antecedents
• Committee hearings and stakeholder consultations highlighted alleged drift hazards from aerial fungicide spraying
• PBGEA and its members file suit in RTC challenging constitutionality, seeking injunction
• Residents intervene opposing blanket ban; RTC grants preliminary injunction
RTC Decision
• September 2007 – Upholds ordinance as valid exercise of police power under Local Government Code General Welfare Clause
• Finds classification reasonable (aerial spraying distinct due to drift risk) and buffer-zone requirement non-compensable
• Recommends extending the three-month transition period for practical implementation
Court of Appeals Decision
• January 2009 – Declares Sections 5 (ban/transition period) and 6 (buffer zone) void for being oppressive, unreasonable, confiscatory, and lacking reasonable classification
• Holds three-month period impractical, transition requires years and PhP 400 million capital
• Finds blanket ban underinclusive (other application methods also cause drift) and overinclusive (prohibits harmless substances)
• Declares buffer zone requirement a taking without just compensation and ordinance non-severable
Issues
- Validity of police power exercise (three-month ban and buffer zone)
- Consistency with the Equal Protection Clause (classification of aerial spraying and substances)
- Due Process compliance (reasonableness, non-oppressiveness)
- Applicability of the precautionary principle
- Ultra vires enactment vis-à-vis FPA’s regulatory powers
Supreme Court Ruling
Exercise of Police Power
• Formal requisites met (proper enactment, approval, publication)
• Corporate power under Local Government Code Sections 16 and 458 encompasses health, safety, and ecology measures
• Local autonomy permits regulation but not in derogation of national statutes
Substantive Due Process
• Ordinance must serve a legitimate public purpose by reasonable, non-oppressive means
• Three-month transition is unworkable given infrastructural, financial, and time requirements (evidence: engineering and feasibility studies)
• Short deadline under threat of penalties is unduly oppressive; Section 5 invalid
Equal Protection
• Classification must rest on substantial distinctions germane to the ordinance’s purpose
• Aerial spraying is neither uniquely responsible for drift nor represents all harmful conduct—other methods (ground, manual) also generate drift
• Ordinance underinclusive (omits other drift-causing methods) and overinclusive (bans harmless substances, e.g., water, vitamins)
• Buffer-zone rule applies regardless of landholding size, crop type, or actual drift risk—arbitrary and discriminatory
• Section 5 and Section 6 violate Equal Protection
Precauti
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 189185)
Antecedents
- The Davao City Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Ordinance No. 0309-07 (Series of 2007) after committee hearings and stakeholder consultations, to ban aerial spraying by all agricultural entities in Davao City.
- Ordinance No. 0309-07 was titled “An Ordinance Banning Aerial Spraying as an Agricultural Practice in all Agricultural Activities by all Agricultural Entities in Davao City,” approved by Mayor Duterte on February 9, 2007, published March 23, 2007, and with enforcement set three months thereafter (Section 5).
- PBGEA, Davao Fruits Corp., and Lapanday Agri. & Dev’t Corp. (collectively PBGEA, et al.) filed in RTC Davao City (Civil Case No. 31,837-07) a petition to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and to secure a TRO/Writ of Preliminary Injunction, alleging unreasonable police power, equal protection and due process violations, and lack of proper publication under Section 511 of the Local Government Code.
- Residents led by Wilfredo Mosqueda moved to intervene and opposed relief, which the RTC granted on June 4, 2007.
- On June 20, 2007, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the City enforcing the ordinance upon PBGEA’s ₱1 million bond.
Davao City Ordinance No. 0309-07 (Series of 2007)
- Section 1 (Title): Names the ban on aerial spraying by all agricultural entities in Davao City.
- Section 2 (Policy): Declares City policy to eliminate aerial spraying as an agricultural practice.
- Section 3 (Definitions):
• Aerial Spraying: application of substances via aircraft.
• Agricultural Practices/Activities/Entities: from land preparation through harvest, by persons or corporations.
• Buffer Zone: identified 30-meter strip within farm boundaries, to be planted with diversified trees to minimize harm. - Section 4 (Scope): Applies to all agricultural entities in Davao City.
- Section 5 (Ban): Strict enforcement of aerial-spray ban three months after effectivity.
- Section 6 (Buffer Zone): Mandatory 30-meter GPS-survey-identified zone to be submitted to City Mayor’s Office.
- Section 7 (Penalties): Fines (₱5,000) and progressive imprisonment (1–12 months) on repeated offenses, suspension or cancellation of permits.
- Section 8 (Repealing Clause): Inconsistent ordinances amended or repealed.
- Section 9 (Effectivity): Thirty days after publication.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Proceedings and Decision
- The RTC trial commenced; PBGEA and residents presented evidence on health complaints, technical feasibility, and buffer-zone impact.
- On September 22, 2007, the RTC upheld the ordinance’s validity and constitutionality:
• The City validly exercised police power under the General Welfare Clause of the Local Government Code.
• The ordinance was based on a valid classification, passing equal-protection muster.
• Aerial spraying posed higher health risks due to drift.
• A three-month transition was impracticable; parties were encouraged to agree on an extension. - The RTC cancelled its preliminary injunction on