Ang Pakigbisog Batok sa Aerial Spray Ang Pakigbisog Batok sa Aerial Spray

MAMAMAYAN AYAW SA AERIAL MAMAMAYAN AYAW SA AERIAL SPRAYSPRAY (MAAS) (MAAS)

Injustice on Injustice on Justice Justice 

MGA PANGHITABO MGA PANGHITABO

23 January 2007: SP Davao City enacted 23 January 2007: SP Davao City enacted Ordinance No. 0309-07- Ordinance No. 0309-07- “An Ordinance “An Ordinance Banning Aerial Spraying as an Banning Aerial Spraying as an Agricultural Practice in all Agricultural Agricultural Practice in all Agricultural Activities by all Agricultural Entities in Activities by all Agricultural Entities in Davao City” Davao City”

9 February 2007: DC Mayor Rodrigo Duterte 9 February 2007: DC Mayor Rodrigo Duterte

signed the said ordinance and was signed the said ordinance and was eventually published in the Mindanao Mirror eventually published in the Mindanao Mirror

23 March 2007- ordinance took effect with 23 March 2007- ordinance took effect with a 3-month phase-out period for those a 3-month phase-out period for those affected to convert into other modes of affected to convert into other modes of spraying, other than aerial spraying, or spraying, other than aerial spraying, or until 23 June 2007.until 23 June 2007.

20 April 2007- PBGEA filed Petition for 20 April 2007- PBGEA filed Petition for

Injunction at RTC claiming that the Injunction at RTC claiming that the ordinance is unreasonable and/or ordinance is unreasonable and/or unconstitutional.unconstitutional.

May 8, 2007: 12 community members May 8, 2007: 12 community members filed their Motion for Intervention in filed their Motion for Intervention in the case as taxpayers and as citizens the case as taxpayers and as citizens affected by the aerial spraying affected by the aerial spraying asserting their right being the real asserting their right being the real parties in interest.parties in interest.

Class action filed on behalf of others Class action filed on behalf of others affected by aerial spraying as wellaffected by aerial spraying as well

RTC DecisionRTC Decision

22 September 2007: declared the subject 22 September 2007: declared the subject ordinance ordinance valid and constitutionalvalid and constitutional in in all aspects of the grounds assailedall aspects of the grounds assailed

The Court cannot find any positive The Court cannot find any positive

objection to the validity and objection to the validity and constitutionality of the assailed constitutionality of the assailed Ordinance Ordinance

Appeals to the Court of Appeals to the Court of AppealsAppeals

25 September 2007, PBGEA filed its Notice of 25 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 Station 16 November 2007, CA Mindanaw Station

granted the Temporary Restraining Order granted the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the implementation of the (TRO) on the implementation of the ordinanceordinance

28 January 2007, Writ of Preliminary 28 January 2007, Writ of Preliminary

Injunction is issued enjoining all persons from Injunction is issued enjoining all persons from enforcing and implementing the assailed enforcing and implementing the assailed Ordinance until further Orders from the CA.Ordinance until further Orders from the CA.

28 July 2008- CA’s deadline within 28 July 2008- CA’s deadline within which to decide on the main case on which to decide on the main case on appeal.appeal.

30 July 2008- the 30 July 2008- the ponente ponente wrote a wrote a letter to the CJ Puno and requested letter to the CJ Puno and requested that she be granted an extension of that she be granted an extension of six (6) months from 25 July 2008 six (6) months from 25 July 2008 within which to resolve the instant within which to resolve the instant appeal submitted to her for decision.appeal submitted to her for decision.

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

Panghunahuna sa CA Panghunahuna sa CA Banana plantations are located in areas occupied by PBGEA Banana plantations are located in areas occupied by PBGEA

to their practice of aerial spraying to curb the deleterious to their practice of aerial spraying to curb the deleterious effects of virulent banana diseases, long before dwellers, effects of virulent banana diseases, long before dwellers, title holders, and even squatters, surfaced, acquired and title holders, and even squatters, surfaced, acquired and inhabited neighboring portions thereof. inhabited neighboring portions thereof.

PBGEA have acquired a right of prior appropriation, as PBGEA have acquired a right of prior appropriation, as against these inhabitants, can invoke such right and they against these inhabitants, can invoke such right and they cannot be unduly disturbed in their use of these cannot be unduly disturbed in their use of these landholdings and be prohibited, among others, from landholdings and be prohibited, among others, from practicing aerial spraying thereon, to the detriment to their practicing aerial spraying thereon, to the detriment to their corporeal rights, as the assailed Ordinance intends to corporeal rights, as the assailed Ordinance intends to impose.impose.

Nonetheless, such right may still be subject to reasonable Nonetheless, such right may still be subject to reasonable legislation and/or government regulation. legislation and/or government regulation. Primus in Primus in tempore, potior jure, tempore, potior jure, first in time, stronger in right.first in time, stronger in right.

Dissenting Opinion ni J. Dissenting Opinion ni J. Borja Borja

I must break rank with my colleagues in I must break rank with my colleagues in the Division for their invocation of the the Division for their invocation of the principle of prius in tempore potior in principle of prius in tempore potior in jure (first in time, first in right) in jure (first in time, first in right) in justifying the continuation of the justifying the continuation of the practice of aerial spraying in the banana practice of aerial spraying in the banana plantations in Davao City. This matter plantations in Davao City. This matter was never raised by appellants either was never raised by appellants either before the trial court or in the present before the trial court or in the present appeal. appeal.

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

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

Motion for Reconsideration, 2 February Motion for Reconsideration, 2 February 20092009

PBGEA files its Opposition to the MRPBGEA files its Opposition to the MR CA submits the case for decision CA submits the case for decision CA has 90 days from the date when the CA has 90 days from the date when the

court declares it submitted for resolution.court declares it submitted for resolution.

After CA denies MR, appeal to SC After CA denies MR, appeal to SC

We need your help !We need your help !

March 20 March 20

Interfaith Rally for Environmental Interfaith Rally for Environmental JusticeJustice

April 16-17April 16-17

SC Forum at Davao City : SC Forum at Davao City :

Daghang Salamat !Daghang Salamat !

Special Thanks to Atty. Mon Salas of SALIGAN MIN for this Special Thanks to Atty. Mon Salas of SALIGAN MIN for this presentation presentation