Hello. Position paper to follow but at least, for guidance, please see the following.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

1.

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that Davao Citys regulatory choice of banning aerial spraying is void and in effect, failing to appreciate the scope of the local governments powers under the general welfare clause under the Local Government Code, and disregarding Section 5 of the same Code mandating an interpretation in favor of the local government of scope of the general welfare provision and the role it plays in upgrading the quality of life of the people (in this case, the people of Davao City) The Honorable Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in holding that the Ordinance 03-09-07 is an unreasonable exercise of its delegated police power. Specifically, the Court patently erred in its findings concerning: 2.1. Unreasonableness of the three month period for compliance with the ordinance even in light of the existence of other feasible alternatives, which could be speedily implemented 2.2. Unfounded and self-serving estimates of banana growers of huge expenses to be incurred in complying with the ordinance, thereby unduly prioritizing business interests over the dangers of continued aerial spraying to human health and the environment.

2.

3.

Assuming without conceding that the three month period is unreasonable, The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that the lack of separability clause would necessarily render the entire ordinance unconstitutional even in the face of legislative intent to the contrary. The Honorable Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion failing to appreciate the dangers of aerial spraying on the people of Davao City and the consequent environmental ramifications documented in cases here and abroad. The Honorable Court of Appeals grievously erred in holding that the ordinance violates the equal protection clause despite the substantial distinctions between aerial spraying and the other methods of spraying. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Buffer zone implemented under Section 6 of the Ordinance is void for being an unlawful taking without due process when in fact the same is justifiable as a police power measure under the Local Government Code as well as Rules promulgated by executive agencies such as the DENR, determination of which, are entitled to deference. Finally, the Honorable Court failed to appreciate the long-term effects of aerial spraying on climate change, the continued disregard of which, would amount to a violation of our commitments under the International Convention on Climate Change and other environmental conventions. [1]

4.

5. 6.

7.

SAN JUAN AND FRANCISO-LAO LAW OFFICE Counsel for the City of Davao

[1] Still finalizing research on this one.