Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
claims on the seemingly fool proof safety of pesticides or fungicides, both as chemical
substances and in terms of human exposure to the same, since petitioners-appellant already
admitted that the pesticides or fungicides they used would prejudice the health of their workers if
manually sprayed. The admission would sensibly mean that exposure to such substances, even in
the diluted form, poses danger to the human health.
The CA continued: Our opinion is not necessarily a categorical indictment against the degree of
safety in the usage of these substances. However, without preponderant and actual empirical
proof of the testimonies of petitioners-appellants witnesses, no conclusion can be reached as to
whether or not the use of pesticides or fungicides is safe.
On the other hand, the court also said that the respondents did not prove that the aerial spraying
of substances is the proximate cause of the various ailments (itchiness and irritation of skin,
contraction and tightening of chest, minimal tuberculosis, recurring stomachaches, nausea and
lost appetite) they allegedly suffer.
On the basis of these two uncertainties the court decided to favor the planters. This raises the
issue whether in a conflicting situation like this where the court is uncertain as to who is wrong
and who is right a court should substitute its judgment for that of the legislator. Apparently the
legislator had made its judgment on the basis of evidence it had found and on labels on the
solutions saying, as the editor of SunStar Davao enumerates:
Harmful if absorbed through the skin, may cause nose, throat, eyes and skin irritation.
Do not breathe dust of spray mist.
This pesticide is toxic to fish. Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to aquatic
organisms in neighboring areas.
During aerial application, human flaggers must be in enclosed cabs.
What of the lack of equal protection? The argument is that the ordinance prohibits the use of all
sprays without distinction. Here again I am sure that the Supreme Court will have the
opportunity to explain how the equal protection clause operates. But first, does the ordinance
prohibit all forms of spray solutions or only those currently being used in the plantations? In
making allowable classifications, jurisprudence uses two possible approaches: the strict scrutiny
approach and the liberal or rational approach. The strict scrutiny approach is used to measure
classifications based on race, national origin, religion, alienage, denial of the right to vote,
interstate migration, access to courts and other rights recognized as fundamental.
The liberal or rational approach is used in economic matters: briefly, if the legislator finds a
rational basis for making the classification, even if not conclusive, the court will accept it as
valid. Did the Court of Appeals use the strict scrutiny approach?
In conclusion, I agree with the editor of SunStar Davao that the dispute will be a long haul.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090126-185524/Banana-planters-vsCity-of-Davao