G.R. No. 189185.
August 16, 2016 (Case Brief / Digest)
Title: WILFREDO MOSQUEDA, ET AL. vs. PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS & EXPORTERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.
Facts:
After legislative deliberation, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City enacted Ordinance
No. 0309, Series of 2007, which bans aerial spraying as an agricultural practice by all
agricultural entities within its jurisdiction. The ordinance sought to eliminate the method on
public health and environmental grounds.
The Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association, Inc. (PBGEA), Davao Fruits
Corporation, and Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation (collectively, PBGEA,
et al.) filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City challenging the
constitutionality of the ordinance and praying for injunctive reliefs through a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction. Several residents intervened
against the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
The RTC granted the writ of preliminary injunction, but after trial, it declared Ordinance
No. 0309-07 valid and constitutional. However, recognizing the impracticability of the 3-
month transition period for shifting from aerial to other modes of pesticide application, the
RTC recommended an extension.
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision and declared Section 5 of
the ordinance void for being unreasonable and oppressive. It also found that the ordinance
violated the Equal Protection Clause due to lack of distinction in the substances being
aerially applied, and ruled that the maintenance of a 30-meter buffer zone constituted
taking of property without due process.
The City of Davao and the intervenors filed motions for reconsideration, which the CA
denied, leading to the petitions for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Supreme Court identified the following issues: whether Ordinance No. 0309-07 is
unconstitutional on due process and equal protection grounds for being unreasonable and
oppressive, being an invalid exercise of police power, and for its three-month transition
period for shifting pesticide application modes; and whether the imposition of the 30-meter
buffer zone was consistent with due process.
© 2024 - [Link] | 1
G.R. No. 189185. August 16, 2016 (Case Brief / Digest)
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court denied the petitions for lacking merit and affirmed the CA’s decision,
declaring Ordinance No. 0309-07 unconstitutional. The Supreme Court found that the
ordinance was arbitrary and not based on a substantial distinction, thereby violating the
Equal Protection Clause. The ordinance also failed the Due Process Clause, given the
impracticability of the transition period for shifting to different modes of application.
Further, the ordinance was ultra vires, as its enactment exceeded the powers delegated to
the City of Davao by Congress.
Doctrine:
The Court reiterated the two-tiered test for determining the validity of an ordinance,
encompassing both substantive and procedural dimensions of legality. For the procedural
aspect, an ordinance must be enacted in adherence to the requisite legal processes. On the
substantive side, it must not contravene the Constitution or existing statutes, must be fair,
not oppressive, must be impartial and not discriminatory, must not prohibit but may
regulate trade, and must be general and consistent with public policy and public morals,
pursuant to established jurisprudence.
Class Notes:
1. Substantive due process requires that an ordinance must serve a legitimate public
purpose and employ means that are reasonably necessary without being unduly oppressive.
2. The Equal Protection Clause necessitates a legitimate and substantial distinction for
different treatment among similarly situated individuals.
3. The exercise of police power by the local government must conform to the limitations
prescribed by the Constitution and existing statutes.
4. The principle of local autonomy empowers LGUs to legislate on matters relevant to their
jurisdictions, provided such legislation falls within the scope of their delegated powers and
does not contravene national laws and policies.
Historical Background:
The case provides an illustration of the dynamic between local autonomy and national laws
in the Philippines, highlighting the tension between local government initiatives to promote
health and environmental protection and the rights and business interests of entities within
their jurisdictions. It exemplifies the challenges faced in implementing local welfare
measures and the scrutiny these measures must endure to be deemed constitutional. The
© 2024 - [Link] | 2
G.R. No. 189185. August 16, 2016 (Case Brief / Digest)
context underscores the critical role of scientific evidence in shaping policy and determining
the legality of local government actions.
© 2024 - [Link] | 3
