Case Digest (G.R. No. 209271)
Facts:
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri‑Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et al., G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301 and 209430, December 8, 2015, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from field trials of a genetically modified eggplant (commonly called Bt talong) organized by researchers at the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) in collaboration with several foreign and local partners, and administered under a Memorandum of Undertaking among UPLB Foundation, ISAAA and other institutions. The Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) issued Biosafety Permits authorizing multi‑locational field tests in 2010 after a contained experiment had been completed; trials took place in several provinces (Laguna, North Cotabato, Pangasinan, Camarines Sur, Davao). Petitioners characterize the trials as regulated, limited research; respondents alleged inadequate public consultation and potential health and environmental harm.
On April 26, 2012, Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), MASIPAG and individual respondents filed a petition for a writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus in the Supreme Court seeking, inter alia, a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) to stop all Bt talong field trials and to compel environmental assessment and regulatory reform. The Court issued the writ of kalikasan on May 2, 2012 directing returns; by resolution dated July 10, 2012 the case was referred to the Court of Appeals (CA) for trial and factual reception of evidence.
At the CA the parties litigated jurisdictional and procedural questions (standing, mootness, justiciability) and then presented expert evidence in a concurrent “hot‑tub” hearing (Nov. 20, 2012). The CA, after hearing, granted the petition in a Decision dated May 17, 2013 and directed respondents to permanently cease and desist from conducting Bt talong field trials and to protect and restore the environment; its September 20, 2013 Resolution denied motions for reconsideration and explained application of the precautionary principle. Multiple parties (ISAAA; EMB, BPI and FPA of the Department of Agriculture; UPLB; UPLB Foundation; UP; plus intervenors Crop Life Philippines and Biotechnology Coalition/Coalition parties) sought review of the CA Decision before the Supreme Court via consolidated petitions to reverse the CA rulings.
The consolidated petitions challenged (inter alia) the CA’s findings on standing, mootness, exhaustion of administrative remedies/primary jurisdiction, the CA’s application of the precautionary principle, and whether field trials were covered by the Philipp...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Do respondents (Greenpeace et al.) have legal standing to file a petition for writ of kalikasan?
- Is the case moot because the Biosafety Permits expired and field trials were terminated?
- Did respondents fail to exhaust administrative remedies or otherwise implicate the doctrine of primary jurisdiction so as to bar judicial relief?
- Were the Bt talong field trials subject to the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System (PD 1151/PD 1586) and did the implementing agencies satisfy the EIS/public‑participation requirements under the National Biosafety Framework (EO 514)?
- Did petitioners present sufficient evidence that the Bt talong field trials caused or threatened damage to health or the environment in two or more provinces?
- Should the precautionary principle be applied to enjoin the Bt talong field trials?
- Was DA Administrative Order No. 08...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)