Case Digest (G.R. No. 209271)
Facts:
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri‑Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301 and 209430, July 26, 2016, Supreme Court En Banc, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.The controversy arose from field trials of a genetically engineered eggplant (commonly called Bt talong) conducted under a Memorandum of Undertaking among private research foundations and implementing institutions, including petitioner University of the Philippines Los Baños Foundation, Inc. (UPLBFI) and International Service for the Acquisition of Agri‑Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAAA). A contained experiment on Bt talong was conducted from 2007 to 2009 under the supervision of the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP), which issued a Certificate of Completion. The Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) subsequently issued two‑year biosafety permits (March 16 and June 28, 2010) authorizing field testing at several sites; field trials proceeded thereafter.
On April 26, 2012, Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), MASIPAG, and other respondents filed a Petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan with prayer for a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO), alleging violations of environmental constitutional rights, absence of an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), inadequate public consultation, insufficient safety evidence, and invoking the precautionary principle. The Supreme Court issued the writ on May 2, 2012 and directed a verified return; the environmental agencies, UPLBFI, ISAAA and others filed returns asserting compliance with DA regulatory rules (DAO 08‑2002) and denying that an ECC was required for limited field trials.
Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, the case was referred to the Court of Appeals (CA) for reception of evidence and adjudication. In a Decision dated May 17, 2013 the CA permanently enjoined petitioners from conducting the Bt talong field trials, applying the precautionary principle under Section 1, Rule 20 of the Environmental Rules, and later denied motions for reconsideration (Resolution, Sept. 20, 2013). Petitioners brought separate petitions for review to the Supreme Court.
In a Decision dated December 8, 2015, the Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed with modification the CA ruling: it applied the precautionary principle, declared DAO 08‑2002 invalid for failing to implement the National Biosafety Framework (NBF) and public participation obligations under EO 514 and the Cartagena Protocol, permanently enjoined field testing of Bt talong, and temporarily enjoined any contained use, field testing, propagation, commercialization, and importation of GMOs until new administrative rules were promulgated.
Multiple motions for reconsideration (nine motions filed by petitioners and intervenors, including CropLife Philippines, Inc., EMB/BPI/FPA, UPLB and others) followed, challenging mootness, the Court’s consideration of the validity of DAO 08‑2002, and the Court’s reliance on certain scientific studies. The Court reexamined the matter and, by Resolution penned by Justice Perlas‑Bernabe on July 26, 2016, granted the motions for ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the petition for Writ of Kalikasan is moot and therefore non‑justiciable in view of the expiration of the biosafety permits and the completion/termination of the Bt talong field trials.
- Whether the exceptions to the mootness doctrine (the exceptional character/paramount public interest exception and the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception) apply to justify adjudication despite mootness.
- Whether the Court should have ruled on the validity of DAO 08‑2002 and applied the precautionary principl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)