DAVAO CITY—Councilor Diosdado Mahipus admitted that the anti-aerial spraying ordinance of the city that was recently junked by the Supreme Court lacked supporting evidence.
Mahipus said that even during the conception of the said ordinance in 2004 he already manifested that they “cannot ban something which is not inherently illegal.”
“My manifestation before was we cannot make a conclusion unless we have very strong validated information that spraying is really detrimental to public health and then there is a clear and present danger,” he said.
Mahipus said the content of the ordinance when the city council drafted it in 2007 was based on speculations that aerial spraying is dangerous to our health and to the environment.
Being a lawyer, however, he voted for the aerial spraying ordinance because it was the consensus of his party.
Mahipus said that the city council must find evidence to prove spraying was detrimental to public health to open a new discussion in the city council and even in the court.
Meanwhile, an anti-aerial spraying group, IDIS, expressed their dismay at the SC’s declaration that the ordinance was “unconstitutional.”
Mary Ann Fuertes, IDIS executive director, said they waited for seven years and hoped that the SC ruling would favor them.
She said while waiting they asked different environmental and health agencies to support them and to declare their opposition to aerial spraying.
Fuertes said they are now hoping that a national bill will be passed to stop the usage of aerial spraying not just in Davao City but in the entire country.
Mahipus said that despite the ordinance some banana plantations continued aerial spraying because they have secured an injunction.
The City Health Office (CHO) supported the claim of Mahipus that the ordinance needed further study.
CHO chief Dr. Josephine Villafuerte said the council should have secured a regulation on the aerial spraying before they passed the ordinance.
“The spraying should be regulated and also the chemical, distance and many more, but it wasn’t present in the ordinance,” she said.
