WILFREDO MOSQUEDA v.
PILIPINO BANANA The RTC opined that the City of Davao had
GROWERS & EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION, GR No. validly exercised police power[13] under the
189185, 2016-08-16 General Welfare Clause of the Local Government
Code;[14] that the ordinance, being based on a
Facts:
valid classification, was consistent with the
After several committee hearings and Equal Protection Clause; that aerial spraying
consultations with various stakeholders, the was distinct from other methods of pesticides
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City enacted application because it exposed the residents to
Ordinance No. 0309, Series of 2007, to impose a a higher degree of health risk caused by aerial
ban against aerial spraying as an agricultural drift;[15] and that the ordinance enjoyed the
practice by all agricultural entities within Davao presumption of constitutionality, and could be
City invalidated only upon a clear showing that it had
violated the Constitution.
The Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters
Association, Inc. (PBGEA) and two of its On January 9, 2009, the CA promulgated its
members, namely: Davao Fruits Corporation and assailed decision reversing the judgment of the
Lapanday Agricultural and Development RTC.[22] It declared Section 5 of Ordinance No.
Corporation (PBGEA, et al.), filed their petition in 0309-07 as void and unconstitutional for being
the RTC to challenge the constitutionality of the unreasonable and oppressive;
ordinance
The CA did not see any established relation
They alleged that the ordinance exemplified the between the purpose of protecting the public
unreasonable exercise of police power; violated and the environment against the harmful effects
the equal protection clause; amounted to the of aerial spraying, on one hand, and the
confiscation of property without due process of imposition of the ban against aerial spraying of
law; and lacked publication pursuant] to Section all forms of substances, on the other.
511[6] of Republic Act No. 7160
Issues:
On September 22, 2007, after trial, the RTC
whether or not Ordinance No. 0309-07 is
rendered judgment declaring Ordinance No.
unconstitutional on due process and equal
0309-07 valid and constitutional
protection grounds for being unreasonable and
oppressive, and an invalid exercise of police line separates authority to enact legislations
power: (a) in imposing a ban on aerial spraying from the method of accomplishing the same.
as an agricultural practice in Davao City under
Ordinance No. 0309-07 violates the Due Process
Section 5; (b) in decreeing a 3-month transition-
Clause
period to shift to other modes of pesticide
application under Section 5; and (c) in requiring A valid ordinance must not only be enacted
the maintenance of the 30-meter buffer zone within the corporate powers of the local
under Section 6 thereof in all agricultural lands government and passed according to the
in Davao City. procedure prescribed by law.[108] In order to
declare it as a valid piece of local legislation, it
Ruling:
must also comply with the following substantive
The Sangguniang Bayan of Davao Cityenacted requirements, namely: (1) it must not contravene
Ordinance No. 0309-07under its corporate the Constitution or any statute; (2) it must be
powers... the right to a balanced and healthful fair, not oppressive; (3) it must not be partial or
ecology under Section 16 is an issue of discriminatory; (4) it must not prohibit but may
transcendental importance with regulate trade; (5) it must be general and
intergenerational implications. It is under this consistent with public policy; and (6) it must not
milieu that the questioned ordinance should be be unreasonable.[109]In the State's exercise of
appreciated. police power, the property rights of individuals
may be subjected to restraints and burdens in
Advancing the interests of the residents who are
order to fulfill the objectives of the Government.
vulnerable to the alleged health risks due to
[110] A local government unit is considered to
their exposure to pesticide drift justifies the
have properly exercised its police powers only if
motivation behind the enactment of the
it satisfies the following requisites, to wit: (1)
ordinance. The City of Davao has the authority
the interests of the public generally, as
to enact pieces of legislation that will promote
distinguished from those of a particular class,
the general welfare, specifically the health of its
require the interference of the State; and (2) the
constituents. Such authority should not be
means employed are reasonably necessary for
construed, however, as a valid license for the
the attainment of the object sought to be
City of Davao to enact any ordinance it deems fit
accomplished and not unduly oppressive.[111]
to discharge its mandate. A thin but well-defined
The first requirement refers to the Equal The respondents posit that the requirement of
Protection Clause of the Constitution; the maintaining a buffer zone under Section 6 of the
second, to the Due Process Clause of the ordinance violates due process for being
Constitution.[112]Substantive due process confiscatory; and that the imposition unduly
requires that a valid ordinance must have a deprives all agricultural landowners within
sufficient justification for the Government's Davao City of the beneficial use of their property
action.[113] This means that in exercising police that amounts to taking without just
power the local government unit must not compensation.
arbitrarily, whimsically or despotically enact the
The position of the respondents is untenable.
ordinance regardless of its salutary purpose. So
long as the ordinance realistically serves a In City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr.,[118] we have
legitimate public purpose, and it employs means thoroughly explained that taking only becomes
that are reasonably necessary to achieve that confiscatory if it substantially divests the owner
purpose without unduly oppressing the of the beneficial use of its property
individuals regulated, the ordinance must
Ordinance No. 0309-07 violates the Equal
survive a due process challenge.
Protection Clause
The required civil works for the conversion to
The constitutional right to equal protection
truck-mounted boom spraying alone will
requires that all persons or things similarly
consume considerable time and financial
situated should be treated alike, both as to
resources given the topography and
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It
geographical features of the plantations.[117]
requires public bodies and institutions to treat
As such, the conversion could not be completed
similarly situated individuals in a similar
within the short timeframe of three months.
manner. The guaranty equal protection secures
Requiring the respondents and other affected
every person within the State's jurisdiction
individuals to comply with the consequences of
against intentional and arbitrary discrimination,
the ban within the three-month period under
whether occasioned by the express terms of a
pain of penalty like fine, imprisonment and even
statue or by its improper execution through the
cancellation of business permits would
State's duly constituted authorities. The
definitely be oppressive as to constitute abuse
concept of equal justice under the law demands
of police power.
that the State governs impartially, and not to A reasonable classification includes all persons
draw distinctions between individuals solely on or things similarly situated with respect to the
differences that are irrelevant to the legitimate purpose of the law.
governmental objective.
Davao City justifies the prohibition against aerial
Equal treatment neither requires universal spraying by insisting that the occurrence of drift
application of laws to all persons or things causes inconvenience and harm to the residents
without distinction,[120] nor intends to prohibit and degrades the environment. Given this
legislation by limiting the object to which it is justification, does the ordinance satisfy the
directed or by the territory in which it is to requirement that the classification must rest on
operate.[121] The guaranty of equal protection substantial distinction?We answer in the
envisions equality among equals determined negative.
according to a valid classification.[122] If the
The occurrence of pesticide drift is not limited
groupings are characterized by substantial
to aerial spraying but results from the conduct
distinctions that make real differences, one
of any mode of pesticide application. Even
class may be treated and regulated differently
manual spraying or truck-mounted boom
from another.[123] In other word, a valid
spraying produces drift that may bring about the
classification must be: (1) based on substantial
same inconvenience, discomfort and alleged
distinctions; (2) germane to the purposes of the
health risks to the community and to the
law; (3) not limited to existing conditions only;
environment.[141] A ban against aerial spraying
and (4) equally applicable to all members of the
does not weed out the harm that the ordinance
class.
seeks to achieve.[142] In the process, the
In our view, the petitioners correctly argue that ordinance suffers from being "underinclusive"
the rational basis approach appropriately because the classification does not include all
applies herein. Under the rational basis test, we individuals tainted with the same mischief that
shall: (1) discern the reasonable relationship the law seeks to eliminate.[143] A classification
between the means and the purpose of the that is drastically underinclusive with respect to
ordinance; and (2) examine whether the means the purpose or end appears as an irrational
or the prohibition against aerial spraying is means to the legislative end because it poorly
based on a substantial or reasonable distinction. serves the intended purpose of the law.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the
consolidated petitions for review on certiorari
for their lack of merit; AFFIRMS the decision
promulgated on January 9, 2009 in C.A.-G.R. CV
No. 01389-MIN. declaring Ordinance No. 0309-07
UNCONSTITUTIONAL;
