Title
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. vs. Greenpeace Southeast Asia
Case
G.R. No. 209271
Decision Date
Dec 8, 2015
Supreme Court upheld permanent injunction of Bt talong field trials, applying precautionary principle due to potential GMO risks, emphasizing strict environmental compliance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-64167)

Biosafety Regulatory Framework

From 1990 EO 430 created the NCBP and issued 1991 Philippine Biosafety Guidelines; these were revised in 1998 to cover deliberate release of GMOs. In 2002 DA AO 08-2002 transferred field-trial regulation to BPI, requiring BPI permits and prior NCBP contained-use certification. In 2006 EO 514 established a National Biosafety Framework, reaffirming DAO 08-2002 but mandating transparency, public participation, environmental impact assessment, and the precautionary principle.

Petition for Writ of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus

In April 2012, Greenpeace et al. filed for writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus, seeking: (a) an injunction against BPI and FPA from further Bt talong field trials or registrations; (b) uprooting existing Bt talong; (c) mandamus directing environmental impact assessments, independent risk studies, public-consultation certificates, draft regulatory amendments, and nationwide information campaigns; (d) sanctions for legal violations; and (e) cancellation of field tests and congressional remedies.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA (May 17, 2013) granted the writ of kalikasan and permanently enjoined Bt talong field trials. It found existing DA and DOST regulations inadequate, applied the precautionary principle (Rules for Environmental Cases, Rule 20), and prioritized the constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology over scientific certainty. UPLB’s academic-freedom challenge was rejected (Sept. 20, 2013).

Issues on Supreme Court Review

(1) Standing of Greenpeace et al. under liberalized environmental­right jurisprudence; (2) mootness due to permit expirations and termination of field tests; (3) primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies under DAO 08-2002; (4) applicability of the Philippine EIS System to GMO field trials; (5) proof of environmental or health damage or threat across multiple provinces; (6) failure of public agencies to require environmental clearances; (7) application of the precautionary principle.

Mootness and Standing

Respondents have standing under Oposa-line citizen-suit precedents to litigate ecological rights. Despite permit expirations (June 2012) and completed trials (August 2012), the controversy remains capable of repetition yet evading review, and concerns of Bt eggplant release raise grave public interest. Thus the petitions were not dismissed as moot.

PEISS Coverage of GMO Field Trials

EO 514 directs DENR-EMB to ensure environmental assessments for all biosafety decisions. DAO 08-2002 does not expressly withdraw GMO field tests from PEISS. The Philippine EIS System and DAO 03-30 classify “new processes/technologies with uncertain impacts” (Group V) as requiring a Project Description Report and possible ECC or CNC. DENR-EMB failed to evaluate Bt talong field trials under PEISS, nor required any ECC/CNC, contravening EO 514’s mandate and ignoring group-V classification.

Invalidity of DA Administrative Order No. 08-2002

DAO 08-2002 omits PEISS integration, public-consultation standards and appeal procedures, and allows applicants to select their Institutional Biosafety Committee’s community representatives. These flaws violate (a) the 1987 Constitution’s positive duty to protect health and ecology; (b) EO 514’s biosafety framework and public-participation requirements; and (c) the Cartagena Protocol’s t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms