The organisations involved in this project are

MAAS and IDIS. MAAS was formed mainly by farmers in Davao City and initially requested the city government to ban aerial spraying of banana plantations. Their activities have now expanded nationwide for a ban on aerial spraying on plantations [1]. IDIS was registered as a non-profit in 1999 in Davao [7], which discussed the aerial spraying ban with political parties [8]. In the Davao City Senate resolution, the opposition of MAAS and IDIS was to function as a civil society strategy [4, p.10]. The Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association (PBGEA) appealed to the Court of Appeal on the unconstitutional ruling on adopting the aerial spraying ban ordinance in 2007 [4, p.9]. They sought an unconstitutional judgement because of the impact on profits of banana plantations producing for export in the Davao City area [4, p.9]. The Court of Appeal made the unconstitutional decision in 2009 and did the Supreme Court in 2016.

The Court of Appeal focused on establishing a 30-metre buffer zone in agricultural land holdings, regardless of the size designated. They cited this as a reason for the unconstitutional decision, “it shows an arbitrary and dictatorial intention on the part of the city government”. Additionally, concerning the switchover period from aerial spraying to ground spraying is only three months, the Court of Appeal mentioned that “the ordinance invades on the due process rights of the banana plantation side” [4, p.26].

The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional because the Davao City Government has no authority to regulate or control the use of pesticides and chemicals, which is beyond their rights [9; 4, p.26]. 

In Panabo city, northeast of Davao City, city councillors expressed support for the aerial spraying of pesticides in a rally organised by banana company officials and the PBGEA in 2013 [10]. Banana plantations account for 70% of the agribusiness in Panabo city.

Department of Agriculture has made no official position statement, and MAAS has criticised the administration’s attitude regarding health hazards to the population [10].

On the Government side, 13 bills on the prohibition of aerial spraying were introduced between 2010 and 2016 [4, p.5]. However, all the bills have been scrapped without being adopted.

A challenge with aerial spraying in banana plantations is the continuous random spraying of multiple chemical formulations - commonly known as ‘Chemical Cocktails’ - [11]. Paredes (11) reports that this is done deliberately to prevent the targeted pathogens from becoming resistant to certain chemicals. However, the formulation of the chemicals is a black box, as it is constantly changing, and the dosage is not specified. This fact prevents them from showing the necessary direct causation when claiming harm to the human body. A survey conducted by IDIS in 2011 reported that trace amounts of pesticides were detected in the air and at the watershed of rivers (Tilomo-Lipadas and Panigan-Tamugan) [9]. Moreover, the United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSP) on the Right to Food urged the Philippine Government to address pesticide spraying as a risk to public health in 2014 [15]. 

Aerial spraying is cost-effective and can be applied rapidly over large areas [1]. Proponents of aerial spraying deny any impact on human health as aerial spraying targets specific pathogens [10]. Additional infrastructure and labour investments related to transitioning from aerial spraying to ground spraying are also pointed out [1]. Small drones to spread efficient aerial pesticide spraying is adopted by some farmers [13].