CIVIL-society organizations (CSOs) took the cudgel for a renowned Filipino chemical safety expert who is reportedly being harassed by agribusiness giant Lapanday Agricultural Development Corp. for his advocacy against aerial spraying of pesticides in Davao del Sur.
The CSOs, belonging to IPEN, a global network working for chemical safety and Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (Panap), appealed to Philippine authorities to dismiss what they described as malicious charges filed against Romeo F. Quijano, a doctor, scientist and an internationally recognized health expert.
Quijano, a member of the Steering Committee of Panap and president of PAN Philippines, is facing charges of “unprofessionalism” before the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). He is also the former cochairman of IPEN.
The complaint against Dr. Quijano stems from his 2000 work “Poisoned Lives,” which documents pesticide poisoning in the banana plantations of Ladeco in the province of Davao del Sur.
In a letter to the PRC, the groups urged the PRC to “ensure that Quijano’s exemplary work for chemical safety and public health is duly honored and protected against dubious complaints that seek to cast doubt on his professional integrity as a medical doctor, scientist and retired professor in Pharmacology and Toxicology at the College of Medicine of the University of Philippines in Manila.” The PRC, which will hear the case, regulates and supervises the practice of professionals in the Philippines, including doctors. It can strip Quijano of his medical license if declared guilty, Quijano’s supporters said.
In a statement, Olga Speranskaya, IPEN cochairman, said that when Dr. Quijano spoke at a Congressional inquiry in June in favor of House Bill 3857, which seeks to ban aerial spraying as a method of applying highly hazardous pesticides on agricultural crops, the fourth session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management in held in Geneva, Switzerland delegates recognized the harmful impact on human health and the environment of highly hazardous pesticides, particularly in developing countries three months later.
The IPEN and Panap also urged the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to “use its legal and moral authority to halt the malicious harassment against Quijano and to support his efforts “to ferret out the truth and obtain justice for the victims of pesticide poisoning,” citing CHR of “The People’s Right to Chemical Safety: A Fifteen-Point Human Rights Agenda” that affirms the commission’s support to the people’s right to live in a toxic-free environment.
“If the questionable case raised against Dr. Quijano will be allowed to prosper, it would be a setback to the people’s campaign and strides made against hazardous pesticides in the Philippines. It will send an alarming signal to groups and individuals—including experts and scientists—who are vigilantly monitoring and reporting on agrochemicals and their harmful impact on human health and the environment,” Panap Executive Director Sarojeni V. Rengam said in the same statement.
The groups noted that while the six complainants before the PRC are ordinary residents of the village that was the subject of Quijano’s study, there was reason to believe that banana and pesticide companies could be behind the latest case filed against Quijano.
“There is clearly a pattern of legal persecution to intimidate Dr. Quijano. Remember that this PRC case is just the latest in a series of lawsuits that he has faced for his work on pesticide poisoning in banana plantations. Who else has the motive and capacity to launch such systematic and sustained offensive but the big businesses being directly hit by Dr. Quijano’s research and advocacy,” Rengam said.
The groups said the complaint against Quijano before the PRC is another attempt to discredit the Filipino chemical health expert for his groundbreaking work.
In 2000, Ladeco sued Quijano and his journalist daughter for libel and damage over the “Poisoned Lives” study. The case was eventually dismissed in 2007. A separate libel and falsification suit still based on the same study was filed in 2010 but was again dismissed in 2013.
