aerial spraying case

CURRENT EVENTS: Davao planters vs. City of Davao

The City of Davao passed an ordinance prohibiting aerial spraying in all plantations within the province and criminally penalizing violation of the ordinance. The banana planters challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance. Is the Ordinance constitutional?

SUGGESTED ANSWER 1:

No. The Court of Appeals based in Cagayan de Oro City, by a vote of 4 to 1, upheld the contention of the planters that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it was oppressive and confiscatory. The argument of oppressiveness was based on a number of factual arguments: (1) the impossibility of switching to other forms of spraying within three months and the enormous cost it would take to accomplish the switch; (2) the harm to the health of workers who would do the manual spraying; (3) and the lack of scientific proof that aerial spraying was harmful to health. The CA also ruled that it violated the equal protection of law since the ordinance prohibits the use of all sprays without distinction.


SUGGESTED ANSWER 2:

Yes. The ordinance is constitutional. According to Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, “the case in essence is a conflict between the right to property and the right to life. The accepted jurisprudence is that in the hierarchy of rights life normally prevails over property.” (Banana planters vs City of Davao, by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, Philippine Daily Inquirer 01/26/2009)

“A provision in the 1987 Constitution, which once some saw as unnecessary, has been gradually gaining attention. Section 16 of Article II says: “The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” visit fellester.blogspot.com In tandem with it is Section 15, which says: “The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.”

Section 16 is unusual among those found in Article II in that, whereas almost all the other provisions in the Article are not self-executing but need implementing legislation to make them effective, Section 16 has been recognized by the Supreme Court as self-executing like the provisions in the Bill of Rights. (‘A balanced and healthful ecology,’ by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 02/02/2009)