Case Summary (G.R. No. 209271)
Factual Background
The dispute arose from field trials of genetically engineered eggplant known as Bt talong, conducted pursuant to a Memorandum of Undertaking entered into by UPLBFI, ISAAA, and other institutions. Bt talong expressed a Cry1Ac protein derived from Bacillus thuringiensis intended to control lepidopteran pests. From 2007 to 2009 UPLB conducted a contained experiment under the supervision of the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) created under EO 430, and the NCBP issued a certificate of completion. Thereafter the BPI issued two (2)-year Biosafety Permits on March 16, 2010 and June 28, 2010 authorizing field testing in various trial sites. On April 26, 2012 respondents filed a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan and continuing mandamus against the implementing agencies and institutions, alleging among others that the field trials proceeded without an Environmental Compliance Certificate under PD 1151, without proper public consultations under the Local Government Code, and absent independent, peer-reviewed scientific proof of safety, and invoking the precautionary principle because of alleged scientific uncertainty and possible irreversible harm.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals accepted the return of the writ, heard evidence, and in a Decision dated May 17, 2013 ruled for respondents and ordered petitioners to permanently cease and desist from conducting the Bt talong field trials. The CA applied Rule 20, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, invoking the precautionary principle given the Philippines’ biodiversity and potential irreversible effects from introduction of genetically modified plants. The CA found that the regulatory regime then in force did not sufficiently guarantee environmental and public health safety, denied reconsideration in a September 20, 2013 Resolution, and observed that the writ did not curtail academic freedom but only suspended the particular field procedures while safety remained unassured.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
Petitioners sought review and the Supreme Court, in a December 8, 2015 Decision, affirmed the CA with modification. The Court concurred that the precautionary principle applied because of uncertainty and the potential for serious and irreversible harm, noted the socio-economic importance of eggplant cultivation by small-scale farmers, and declined to dismiss the petition as moot on the ground that the matter involved exceptions to mootness—primarily exceptional character and capacity for repetition yet evading review. The Court additionally found that DAO 08-2002 failed to implement public participation mandated by the National Biosafety Framework under EO 514 and that the field testing should have been subjected to an Environmental Impact Assessment. The Court permanently enjoined field testing and declared DAO 08-2002 null and void for failure to consider the NBF, and further issued a temporary injunction limiting applications or approvals for contained use, field testing, propagation, commercialization, and importation of GMOs until a new administrative order was promulgated.
The Parties’ Contentions on Reconsideration
Petitioners filed multiple motions for reconsideration contending principally that the case had become moot because the Biosafety Permits expired and the field trials had been completed; that the Court erred by adjudicating the validity of DAO 08-2002 when that issue was not squarely raised; and that the Court improperly relied on scientific studies not offered in evidence and concerning Bt corn rather than Bt talong. Respondents opposed reconsideration and argued the case was not moot because field testing was a stage in a continuum leading to propagation and commercialization; that respondents had raised DAO 08-2002’s inadequacy in their petition; and that the Court properly took judicial notice of scientific studies and correctly applied the precautionary principle.
The Court’s Ruling on Mootness
On the motions for reconsideration the Court granted relief on the ground of mootness. The Court reiterated the constitutional limitation that judicial power extends only to actual, ongoing controversies under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, and emphasized that courts should not decide moot or academic questions except under recognized exceptions. Although the Court had earlier deemed the case excepted from mootness because of paramount public interest and capability of repetition, it reconsidered and found those exceptions inapplicable. The Court observed that the Biosafety Permits had expired and the field tests had been completed, thereby negating any need for injunctive relief, and that no perceivable public benefit would accrue from deciding a controversy resolved by subsequent events and by a changed regulatory regime.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court canvassed the jurisprudential exceptions to mootness and compared authorities where exceptions applied because of palpable public benefit or recurring governmental action, including Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, De Castro v. Commission on Elections, David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, Constantino v. Sandiganbayan, and Funa v. MECO. It concluded that those precedents involved a clear, recurring, or exigent public interest absent in this case. The Court further explained that under DAO 08-2002 three distinct regulatory stages govern GMOs—contained use, field testing, and propagation—and that the present controversy never progressed beyond field testing; therefore propagation, commercialization, and related regulatory conditions were not at issue and no concrete, continuing harm had been shown. The Court emphasized that DAO 08-2002 had been superseded by JDC 01-2016, which established a substantially different regulatory framework, including adoption of the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for risk assessment, broader inter-agency participation with DOST as lead, enhanced public posting and consultation requirements, modified Institutional Biosafety Committee composition, and more exacting qualifications for the Scientific and Technical Review Panel. Given that regulatory overhaul, the Court held the matter was not one capable of repetition yet evading review. Finally, the Court declined to entertain a collateral constitutional attack upon DAO 08-2002 because respondents had not directly and distinctly pleaded constitutional invalidity and courts normally avoid ruling on constitutional questions absent clear necessity.
Disposition
The Court set aside its December 8, 2015 Decision and entered a new judgment dismissing the petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan with prayer for a Temporary Environmental Protection Order on the ground of mootness. The
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 209271)
Parties and Posture
- International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. was one of the petitioners before the Court.
- Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines) and MAGSIPAG were principal respondents and original petitioners for the Writ of Kalikasan.
- Crop Life Philippines, Inc. appeared as petitioner-in-intervention in the proceedings.
- The case originated as CA-G.R. SP No. 00013 before the Court of Appeals and was docketed in multiple G.R. Nos. before the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court issued a Decision dated December 8, 2015 which affirmed with modification the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 17, 2013 and was thereafter the subject of nine motions for reconsideration.
- The present Resolution dated July 26, 2016 disposed of the motions for reconsideration and set aside the Court's December 8, 2015 Decision.
Key Facts
- The subject of the controversy was field trials of genetically engineered eggplant called Bt talong which expresses the Cry1Ac protein derived from Bacillus thuringiensis.
- The implementing institution for the field trials was the University of the Philippines Los Baños which conducted contained experiments from 2007 to 2009 under the supervision of the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP).
- The NCBP issued a Certificate of Completion for the contained experiment dated March 30, 2009 declaring biosafety measures complied with.
- The Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) issued two-year Biosafety Permits on March 16, 2010 and June 28, 2010 that authorized field testing at multiple trial sites.
- On April 26, 2012, respondents filed a petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan alleging failure to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate under PD 1151, to conduct required public consultations under the Local Government Code, and to produce independent peer-reviewed studies establishing safety.
- The petition invoked the precautionary principle and sought a Temporary Environmental Protection Order to enjoin the Bt talong field trials.
- The Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan on May 2, 2012 and referred the case to the Court of Appeals for hearing and reception of evidence.
Procedural History
- The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on May 17, 2013 ordering a permanent cessation of the Bt talong field trials.
- The Court of Appeals denied motions for reconsideration in a Resolution dated September 20, 2013.
- Petitions for review were filed before the Supreme Court, which issued a Decision on December 8, 2015 affirming with modification the Court of Appeals and applying the precautionary principle.
- The December 8, 2015 Decision also declared DAO 08-2002 null and void and temporarily enjoined applications relating to contained use, field testing, propagation, commercialization, and importation of GMOs pending a new administrative order.
- Multiple parties filed motions for reconsideration before the Supreme Court, and the Court issued the present Resolution on July 26, 2016 granting those motions and dismissing the petition as moot.
Issues Presented
- Whether the petition for Writ of Kalikasan had become moot and academic upon the expiration of the Biosafety Permits and completion of the field trials.
- Whether the Supreme Court properly adjudicated the validity of DAO 08-2002 when its invalidity was not directly and expressly pleaded as a principal issue.
- Whether the precautionary principle could be applied in the circumstances of these concluded field trials.
- Whether the Court properly relied on scientific studies not formally offered in evidence and involving Bt corn rather than Bt talong.
- Whether exceptions to the mootness doctrine — including the paramount public interest and capable of repetitio