DCCCII President ready to accept whatever SC ruling on spray ban
(by Jade C. Zaldivar, Sun.Star Davao, 08 October 2009) The president of Davao City Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc. (DCCCII) said he will support whatever decision the Supreme Court (SC) will make over the spray ban issue.
"We will respect that the law has to take its proper course. Whether aerial spraying will really be banned or will continue, we will support it," said DCCCII president Simeon Marfori in an interview after Kapehan sa SM.
The City Government of Davao was the one who crafted the ordinance banning aerial spraying in the city’s jurisdiction.
Marfori, however, expressed disagreement on the argument of banning aerial spraying.
"There is something wrong with the argument. It’s not aerial spraying naman that’s the cause of what they’re claiming as the root of the problems but the chemicals. Aerial spraying is just the method," Marfori said.
"Kung may kailangan i-ban na mga chemicals yun ang dapat i-ban and not the method. Kung kailangan i-ban ang chemicals, then that will be respected because aerial spraying is not the culprit. Dapat ang ipinagbawal ay yung mga chemicals," Marfori said.
He also said the chamber has looked into both the studies of the Pilipino Banana Growers Exporters Association (PBGEA) and the environmentalists.
"Mas naniniwala ako sa findings na sina-submit ng companies. There are some procedural methods in the study of the environmentalists that are confusing. Parang hindi maintindihan ang kanilang agenda," Marfori said.
He said the issue on aerial spraying should not be taken lightly.
"In a region that's agriculturally based, that’s dependent on agriculture, this matter should be given much attention. This shouldn't be taken lightly because you’re talking about a proposition that will really affect the local economy," he said.
The case between the PBGEA et al against the city is now with the SC.
The ordinance was passed in 2007 with the provision that banana exporting companies should comply to the ordinance after three months.
PBGEA et al contested the ordinance in the Regional Trial Court where the city was favored.
Upon forwarding the case to the Court of Appeals, PBGEA et al was favored both in their following petition and after the city and its intervenors filed for a motion for reconsideration. (JCZ)
