G.R. No. 189185 , August 16, 2016
WILFREDO MOSQUEDA, MARCELO VILLAGANES, JULIETA LAWAGON, CRISPIN ALCOMENDRAS, CORAZON SABINADA, VIRGINIA CATA-AG, FLORENCIA SABANDON, AND LEDEVINA ADLAWAN, PETITIONERS, VS. PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS & EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., DAVAO FRUITS CORPORATION, AND LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 189305] CITY GOVERNMENT OF DAVAO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS & EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION (PBGEA), DAVAO FRUITS CORPORATION, AND LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case involves a challenge to Davao City Ordinance No. 0309-07, Series of 2007, which prohibits aerial spraying in agriculture. The petitioners include affected residents and the City Government of Davao, while the respondents are agricultural corporations. Justice Leonen, in his Concurring Opinion, agrees with the result of the Court’s Decision to strike down the ordinance but provides clarifications on specific points.

ISSUE

The primary issue addressed in the concurring opinion is whether the local ordinance is valid, focusing on its breadth, the regulatory powers of local government units, the application of the precautionary principle, and the interpretation of relevant laws.

RULING

Justice Leonen concurs in the result, holding that Ordinance No. 0309-07 is invalid because it is too broad, as it prohibits aerial spraying regardless of the substance and method involved. He clarifies several points:
1. The disposition does not constitute an absolute prohibition against banning the aerial spraying of certain chemicals. The local legislation was overbroad; justification for one case (e.g., chemicals for Black Sigatoka) does not justify a blanket ban.
2. A local government unit may pass a sufficiently narrow ordinance banning the aerial spraying of a specific pesticide, justified by its general welfare powers under Section 16 of the Local Government Code and the constitutional guarantee of local autonomy. He disagrees with the ponencia’s interpretation of Presidential Decree No. 1144, stating that the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority’s powers to certify pesticide use do not prohibit local governments from regulating the mode of delivery of allowed chemicals to prevent localized harm.
3. The constitutional precautionary principle (Article II, Section 16 and Article III, Section 1) applies, but it requires some proof of causation and must be qualified by transience, scientific progress, and cost-effectiveness.
4. The equal protection clause is not applicable, as any discrimination against large plantation owners is speculative.
5. The Decision should not negate the trial court’s findings of fact regarding the testimony of affected residents; the government must still address their problems with urgency.