Implement the Ban Aerial Spraying Ordinance of Davao City!

Date

Highlights

August 2004

· Councilor Nenen Orcullo, who lives in an aerial spraying community, authors a Resolution for the passage of an ordinance regulating aerial spraying in Davao City.

· Local NGOs-POs attending committee hearings assert that the practice should not be merely regulated but stopped altogether.

April 2005

· Councilor Orcullo files an ordinance banning aerial spraying with 5-year phase out period.

· Ordinance does not move in the City Council.

21 April 2006 Earth Day

Stop the Toxic Shower: Ban Aerial Spraying in Davao City Campaign is launched

· Affected residents and farmers of aerial spraying communities from four barangays in Calinan District organized themselves as Mamamayan Ayaw sa Aerial Spray (MAAS) to spearhead moves to calling on the local government to ban aerial spraying

June 2006

Interfaith Prayer Power to Stop Toxic Shower

§ MAAS and various religious groups, academe, people’s and non-government organization held an Interfaith Prayer Activity in front of Sangguniang Panlungsod Building to call for the passage of the ban aerial spraying ordinance

July 2006

TWG discussions & Committee Hearings on the draft ordinance

August 2006

Presentation of committee report at the City Council Session

§ The City Councilors calls for a Committee as a Whole Hearing in which various experts, resource persons were called to shed light on the issue

October 2006

The City Government creates a Fact finding body headed by CPDC Mario Luis Jacinto to conduct investigations on the issue

§ MAAS made a parallel independent documentation on complaints of community residents who are directly affected by aerial spraying. 182 cases were documented and submitted to the City Mayor

December 2006

Jacinto report is submitted to Council endorsed by the Mayor; Committee hearing on the Jacinto report.

§ The Fact finding body Report recommends that aerial spraying should not be banned for lack of conclusive evidence to support the said call

§ The report receives violent reactions from various sectors within and outside Davao City and various groups strengthen calls the passage of the ban aerial spray ordinance.

January 2007

Ban aerial spraying ordinance passes on 2nd and 3rd readings.

February 2007

· Mayor signs ban aerial spraying ordinance inspite of last minute lobby attempts by DA Secretary Arthur Yap.

· Ordinance is published in the newspaper.

March 23, 2007

Effectivity of the ordinance

§ First day of the three-month phase out period of the banana companies to shift from aerial spraying to ground spraying

April 2007

PBGEA, Lapanday, DFC files civil case against Davao City to stop the implementation of the ordinance.

§ PBGEA et. al sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO), and preliminary injunction to suspend its implementation, and a permanent injunction to declare the ordinance null and void;

§ The banana companies asserts that :

- It is physically impossible to comply with the three-month phase-out, they would need at least 3 years to shift to ground spraying

- The ordinance is an abuse of police power, and is unconstitutional

§ The case is heard at Branch 17 of RTC Judge Renato Fuentes. PBGEA et.al. is represented by Villarasa Law Office, while the City Legal Office is the counsel for the City Government.

May 2007

Marathon hearings to hear PBGEA side on the issue of preliminary injunction

PBGEA et. al presented 6 witnesses, which made damaging testimony to the plantation’s case:

§ Accountant: “We can shift to manual spraying tomorrow, even today”; plantations would need more workers if ground spraying is employed

§ Pilot: “There are natural phenomenon that affects wind drift beyond the pilot’s control”

§ Other ‘expert’ witnesses discredited – Dr Pedrosa is not a toxicologist but a plant pathologist who is not familiar with effects of pesticides; an expert on banana industry does not know members of PBGEA

Affected communities file a motion for intervention in the case. PBGEA, et. al opposes but the Court grants the motion for intervention. Intervenors represented by SALIGAN Mindanaw.

June 2007

Marathon hearings to hear side of the City Government & intervenors

§ Six (6) witnesses presented, 4 of which are affected residents, one a retired commercial pilot, and lastly, a banana plantation owner who employs ground spraying in her plantation

20 June 2007

Court grants preliminary injunction

§ A preliminary injunction on the ordinance is granted for a period of three months, from 23 June-23 Sept 2007. After which, there shall be no extension on the period set for preliminary injunction;

§ Banana plantations asked to post a Php 1 million bond

§ “3-month phase out period in the ordinance is unreasonable”

§ Main case will be decided within the 3 months

July 2007

Mediation and conciliation to ‘settle’ case failed

§ Bottomline of plantations: resist the ban

§ Bottomline of City: retain the ban

§ Bottomline of the Intervenors: validity of the ordinance

Plantation offer of settlement:

§ Will abide by strict regulations in aerial spraying

§ Will use only pesticides approved by FPA

§ Will shoulder cost of monitoring their practices

§ Will be transparent in all their activities

August 2007

Preliminary conferences for court hearings on granting of permanent injunction

10-11 Sept 2007

Marathon hearings to hear side of PBGEA on the main case – unconstitutionality of the ordinance.

Four witnesses were presented each giving weak justification why aerial spraying should not be banned

§ PCA: admitted that fungicides being aerially sprayed can also kill beneficial fungi that controls Rhinobeetle infestation, & failed to explain complaints of farmers on symptoms of coconut damage not related to rhinobeetle infestation;

§ Dr. Rogelio Ilog: tried in vain to discredit a community resident witness, by admitting that he diagnosed & prescribed medicine for Virginia Cataag despite not subjecting patient to necessary laboratory tests;

§ Hydrogeologist : could not relate direct effect of aerial spraying to surface water of residents near plantations, and admitted that pesticides can contaminate roots of plants and trees through capillary action;

§ Toxicologist from Dow AgroSciences Inc.: The disclaimer & warning labels on its products was a patent admission of its dangerous effects to users and a manifestation of irresponsible discharge of the burden of manufacturer

12-13 Sept 2007

Marathon hearing to hear side of Intervenors & City Government

Presented four witnesses who are members of community and are directly affected with aerial spraying

§ Community residents of some affected areas testified that they organized themselves to safeguard and defend their environment, submitted complaints to City Government and reprimanded action to stop aerial spraying ;

§ A member of Kingdom of Jesus Christ in Tamayong complained of being constantly exposed to aerial spraying and was later diagnosed to have nose cancer and pulmonary tuberculosis;

§ Dr. Lynn Panganiban, head of the National Poison Control and Management Center, a medical doctor and a toxicologist testifies that fungicides used in aerial spraying is inherently poisonous and the mode of pesticide application puts more people’s lives in danger.

22 Sept 2007

RTC rules that ban aerial spraying ordinance is valid and constitutional and the preliminary injunction is cancelled

§ Court finds residents affected of aerial spraying

“Simple people whose actual situation and happenings on the incident of aerial spraying were open and exposed to court, such that the evidence derived from their testimonies are not theories, not projection of possible experiment and/or philosophy but a reflection of their own simple lives, gravely affected by a concerted problem, confronting them in their everyday endeavor..the court believes such an evidence from their situation”

§ “The court found the testimony of Dr. Lynn Panganiban for the residents highly appreciable ….along with her renowned qualification as a toxicologist by clearly putting into understandable presentation her thesis: all fungicides are poison and outright dangerous to health and safety of human beings & surrounding environment”

§ The court cannot overcome the collective stand of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, who after sufficient study and evaluation, acted wisely and decisively to put the welfare and concern of the people, giving it highest priority and consideration.

24 Sept 2007

Local communities are now spared the toxic shower from airplanes giving them respite after decades of exposure.

October 2007

PBGEA elevates case to the Court of Appeals in Cagayan de Oro City. Requests for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). Davao City Government and Intervenors oppose the motion for a TRO.

MAAS holds series of activities in Cagayan de Oro to gather civil society support for the case.

23 November

Court of Appeals Branch 22 issues a 60-day Temporary Restraining Order, stopping the implementation of the ordinance, paving the way for the resumption of aerial spraying.