Case Summary (G.R. No. 209271)
Petitions and Reliefs Sought
Respondents filed a petition for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan, praying for a temporary environmental protection order and permanent injunction against field trials of Bt-engineered eggplant (Bt talong). They alleged violations of constitutional rights to health and a balanced ecology, absence of an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), failure of public consultations, and inadequate independent safety data.
Applicable Law and Regulatory Framework
Under the 1987 Constitution (Article II, Section 16; Article XII, Section 2; Article VIII, Section 1), citizens have a right to a balanced ecology. Environmental cases invoke the precautionary principle (Rule 20, Sec. 1, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases). Biotechnology field trials fell under Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 2002 (DAO 08-2002), Executive Order No. 430 (creation of National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines [NCBP]), Executive Order No. 514 (National Biosafety Framework), and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Subsequently, Joint Department Circular No. 1, Series of 2016 (JDC 01-2016) superseded DAO 08-2002.
Factual Background
From 2007 to 2009, UPLB conducted contained experiments on Bt talong under NCBP supervision. In March and June 2010, BPI issued two-year biosafety permits for open-field trials in North Cotabato, Pangasinan, Camarines Sur, Davao City, and Laguna. Respondents filed their petition in April 2012, after field trials had largely concluded and permits neared expiration.
Court of Appeals Ruling
In May 2013, the Court of Appeals applied the precautionary principle, found regulatory measures insufficient to guarantee environmental and health safety, and permanently enjoined Bt talong field tests. The appellate court refused to dismiss as moot, invoking exceptions for issues capable of repetition yet evading review and exceptional public interest.
Supreme Court Decision (December 8, 2015)
Affirming with modifications, the Supreme Court agreed that uncertain but potentially irreversible harm justified the precautionary principle. It held DAO 08-2002 invalid for failing to incorporate public participation mandates under the National Biosafety Framework. The Court enjoined all contained use, field testing, propagation, commercialization, and importation of genetically modified organisms until a legally compliant administrative order was issued.
Issues on Reconsideration
Petitioners contended that the case was moot and academic, that DAO 08-2002’s validity had not been directly challenged, and that the Court erred in relying on scientific studies not formally offered in evidence and concerning Bt corn rather than Bt talong. Respondents maintained exceptions to mootness, raised adequacy of DAO 08-2002, and defended the Court’s judicial notice of scientific literature.
Supreme Court Resolution on Mootness
On reconsideration, the Court reversed its earlier ruling and granted the motions. Emphasizing Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution, it reiterated that adjudication requires an actual, ongoing controversy. With biosafety permits expired and field trials concluded, respondents’ requested reliefs could no longer be executed.
Mootness Principles and Exceptions
The Court explained that a case is moot if issues are resolved by supervening events, absent exceptions: (1) grave constitutional violation; (2) exceptional character and paramount public interest; (3) need for controlling principles to guide bench and bar; or (4) issues capable of repetition yet evading review.
Application to This Case
No constitutional violation remained for enforcement. The completion and termination of field trials negated the necessity of injunctive relief. No historical or frequent practice justified application of the paramount public interest exception. The petition targeted only Bt talong under DAO 08-2002, which has since been superseded by
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 209271)
Facts
- Petitioners (ISAAA, UPLB Foundation, EMB/DENR, BPI, FPA, Crop Life, UP Los Baños) conducted contained and field trials of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) eggplant (“Bt talong”) from 2007 to 2009 under a Memorandum of Undertaking and with NCBP supervision.
- NCBP issued a Certificate of Completion of Contained Experiment (March 30, 2009), finding all biosafety measures complied with and no incident occurred.
- BPI granted two-year Biosafety Permits (March 16 and June 28, 2010) under DA Administrative Order No. 08-2002, allowing field testing in several provinces.
- Respondents (Greenpeace, MASIPAG, public figures, scientists, farmers) filed a Petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan (April 26, 2012), alleging:
• Lack of an Environmental Compliance Certificate (PD 1151) before trials;
• Failure to conduct required public consultations (Local Government Code);
• Insufficient or uncertain safety data on Bt talong and presumed harm under DAO 08-2002;
• Need to apply the precautionary principle to halt field tests. - Supreme Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan (May 2, 2012) against petitioners (except UPLB) and UPMFI, ordering verified returns within ten days.
Procedural History
- Petitioners filed verified returns denying violations, asserting full compliance with environmental laws, biosafety protocols, public consultations, and non-consumptive use of trial plants.
- CA (July 10, 2012 Resolution) accepted returns and set hearing dates; UP Los Baños was impleaded and filed its answer adopting UPLB Foundation’s arguments. UPMFI was later discharged (February 13, 2013).
- CA Decision (May 17, 2013) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00013 ordered permanent cessation of Bt talong field trials, applying the precautionary principle due to potential irreversible harm and insufficient regulatory safeguards.
- CA denied motions for reconsideration (September 20, 2013), emphasizing ecological imbalance risk and clarifying that only field trials – not research per se – were enjoined.
- Petitioners elevated separate petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301, 209430).
Issues
- Whether the petition for Writ of Kalikasan is moot and academic upon expiration of Biosafety Permits and completion of field trials.
- Applicability of mootness exceptions: (1) exceptional character and paramou