This document summarizes the legal proceedings regarding an ordinance passed in Davao City banning aerial spraying as an agricultural practice. It discusses how the ordinance was enacted in January 2007 and took effect in March 2007. In April 2007, banana growers filed a petition against the ordinance. In September 2007, a regional trial court declared the ordinance valid. The banana growers appealed to the Court of Appeals, which granted a temporary restraining order against the ordinance in November 2007. In January 2009, the Court of Appeals ruled the appeal was partly meritorious, finding that the banana growers had acquired rights to their land before others moved there and could not be prohibited from aerial spraying. However, the court also said the rights were subject to regulation

1. Ang Pakigbisog Batok sa Aerial SprayAng Pakigbisog Batok sa Aerial Spray
MAMAMAYAN AYAW SA AERIALMAMAMAYAN AYAW SA AERIAL
SPRAYSPRAY (MAAS)(MAAS)
Injustice on Justice Injustice on Justice

2. MGA PANGHITABOMGA PANGHITABO
 23 January 2007: SP Davao City enacted23 January 2007: SP Davao City enacted
Ordinance No. 0309-07-Ordinance No. 0309-07- “An Ordinance“An Ordinance
Banning Aerial Spraying as anBanning Aerial Spraying as an
Agricultural Practice in all AgriculturalAgricultural Practice in all Agricultural
Activities by all Agricultural Entities inActivities by all Agricultural Entities in
Davao City”Davao City”
 9 February 2007: DC Mayor Rodrigo Duterte9 February 2007: DC Mayor Rodrigo Duterte
signed the said ordinance and was eventuallysigned the said ordinance and was eventually
published in the Mindanao Mirrorpublished in the Mindanao Mirror

3.  23 March 2007- ordinance took effect with a 3-23 March 2007- ordinance took effect with a 3-
month phase-out period for those affected tomonth phase-out period for those affected to
convert into other modes of spraying, other thanconvert into other modes of spraying, other than
aerial spraying, or until 23 June 2007.aerial spraying, or until 23 June 2007.
 20 April 2007- PBGEA filed Petition for20 April 2007- PBGEA filed Petition for
Injunction at RTC claiming that the ordinance isInjunction at RTC claiming that the ordinance is
unreasonable and/or unconstitutional.unreasonable and/or unconstitutional.

4.  May 8, 2007: 12 community members filedMay 8, 2007: 12 community members filed
their Motion for Intervention in the case astheir Motion for Intervention in the case as
taxpayers and as citizens affected by thetaxpayers and as citizens affected by the
aerial spraying asserting their right beingaerial spraying asserting their right being
the real parties in interest.the real parties in interest.
 Class action filed on behalf of othersClass action filed on behalf of others
affected by aerial spraying as wellaffected by aerial spraying as well

5. RTC DecisionRTC Decision
 22 September 2007: declared the subject22 September 2007: declared the subject
ordinanceordinance valid and constitutionalvalid and constitutional inin
all aspects of the grounds assailedall aspects of the grounds assailed
 The Court cannot find any positiveThe Court cannot find any positive
objection to the validity andobjection to the validity and
constitutionality of the assailed Ordinanceconstitutionality of the assailed Ordinance

6. Appeals to the Court of AppealsAppeals to the Court of Appeals
 25 September 2007, PBGEA filed its Notice of25 September 2007, PBGEA filed its Notice of
Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA)Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA)
 16 November 2007, CA Mindanaw Station16 November 2007, CA Mindanaw Station
granted the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)granted the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
on the implementation of the ordinanceon the implementation of the ordinance
 28 January 2007, Writ of Preliminary Injunction28 January 2007, Writ of Preliminary Injunction
is issued enjoining all persons from enforcingis issued enjoining all persons from enforcing
and implementing the assailed Ordinance untiland implementing the assailed Ordinance until
further Orders from the CA.further Orders from the CA.

7.  28 July 2008- CA’s deadline within which28 July 2008- CA’s deadline within which
to decide on the main case on appeal.to decide on the main case on appeal.
 30 July 2008- the30 July 2008- the ponenteponente wrote a letter towrote a letter to
the CJ Puno and requested that she bethe CJ Puno and requested that she be
granted an extension of six (6) monthsgranted an extension of six (6) months
from 25 July 2008 within which to resolvefrom 25 July 2008 within which to resolve
the instant appeal submitted to her forthe instant appeal submitted to her for
decision.decision.

8.  January 9, 2009: in a vote of 4 CA justiceJanuary 9, 2009: in a vote of 4 CA justice
voting in favor and 1 dissenting opinion byvoting in favor and 1 dissenting opinion by
the Executive Justice of the CA Mindanaothe Executive Justice of the CA Mindanao
Station, the Court of Appeals ruled thatStation, the Court of Appeals ruled that
“The appeal is partly meritorious.”“The appeal is partly meritorious.”

9. Panghunahuna sa CAPanghunahuna sa CA
 Banana plantations are located in areas occupied by PBGEA toBanana plantations are located in areas occupied by PBGEA to
their practice of aerial spraying to curb the deleterious effects oftheir practice of aerial spraying to curb the deleterious effects of
virulent banana diseases, long before dwellers, title holders, andvirulent banana diseases, long before dwellers, title holders, and
even squatters, surfaced, acquired and inhabited neighboringeven squatters, surfaced, acquired and inhabited neighboring
portions thereof.portions thereof.
 PBGEA have acquired a right of prior appropriation, as againstPBGEA have acquired a right of prior appropriation, as against
these inhabitants, can invoke such right and they cannot be undulythese inhabitants, can invoke such right and they cannot be unduly
disturbed in their use of these landholdings and be prohibited,disturbed in their use of these landholdings and be prohibited,
among others, from practicing aerial spraying thereon, to theamong others, from practicing aerial spraying thereon, to the
detriment to their corporeal rights, as the assailed Ordinancedetriment to their corporeal rights, as the assailed Ordinance
intends to impose.intends to impose.
 Nonetheless, such right may still be subject to reasonable legislationNonetheless, such right may still be subject to reasonable legislation
and/or government regulation.and/or government regulation. Primus in tempore, potior jure,Primus in tempore, potior jure, firstfirst
in time, stronger in right.in time, stronger in right.

10. Dissenting Opinion ni J. BorjaDissenting Opinion ni J. Borja
 I must break rank with my colleagues inI must break rank with my colleagues in
the Division for their invocation of thethe Division for their invocation of the
principle of prius in tempore potior in jureprinciple of prius in tempore potior in jure
(first in time, first in right) in justifying the(first in time, first in right) in justifying the
continuation of the practice of aerialcontinuation of the practice of aerial
spraying in the banana plantations inspraying in the banana plantations in
Davao City. This matter was never raisedDavao City. This matter was never raised
by appellants either before the trial courtby appellants either before the trial court
or in the present appeal.or in the present appeal.

11.  No evidence appears to have been adduced inNo evidence appears to have been adduced in
support of the thesis that appellants’ plantationssupport of the thesis that appellants’ plantations
and the practice of aerial spraying of pesticidesand the practice of aerial spraying of pesticides
and fungicides predated the ownership orand fungicides predated the ownership or
occupation of the properties by the personsoccupation of the properties by the persons
affected by aerial spraying. The reference toaffected by aerial spraying. The reference to
some of the affected persons as squatters issome of the affected persons as squatters is
purely gratuitous and grossly unfair. Lastly, thepurely gratuitous and grossly unfair. Lastly, the
principle has utterly no applicability in theprinciple has utterly no applicability in the
present case. Environmental degradationpresent case. Environmental degradation
cannot be justified on the basis of prior or long-cannot be justified on the basis of prior or long-
adopted practice.adopted practice.

12.  ALL TOLD, I am of the opinion that appellantsALL TOLD, I am of the opinion that appellants
have failed to overthrow the presumption inhave failed to overthrow the presumption in
favor of the validity of the Ordinance. To me,favor of the validity of the Ordinance. To me,
appellants’ arguments have, at most,appellants’ arguments have, at most,
engendered some doubt. But under theengendered some doubt. But under the
prevailing constitutional jurisprudence, suchprevailing constitutional jurisprudence, such
doubt is not sufficient for this Court to declaredoubt is not sufficient for this Court to declare
the Ordinance unconstitutional.the Ordinance unconstitutional.

13.  Motion for Reconsideration, 2 February 2009Motion for Reconsideration, 2 February 2009
 PBGEA files its Opposition to the MRPBGEA files its Opposition to the MR
 CA submits the case for decisionCA submits the case for decision
 CA has 90 days from the date when the courtCA has 90 days from the date when the court
declares it submitted for resolution.declares it submitted for resolution.
 After CA denies MR, appeal to SCAfter CA denies MR, appeal to SC

14. We need your help !We need your help !
 March 20March 20
Interfaith Rally for Environmental JusticeInterfaith Rally for Environmental Justice
 April 16-17April 16-17
SC Forum at Davao City :SC Forum at Davao City :

15. Daghang Salamat !Daghang Salamat !
Special Thanks to Atty. Mon Salas of SALIGAN MIN for this presentationSpecial Thanks to Atty. Mon Salas of SALIGAN MIN for this presentation