INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS, INC. vs.

GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES)

GR No. 209271 | July 26, 2016

Perlas-Bernabe, J.

Facts of the Case

 This case arose from the conduct of field trials for “bioengineered eggplant” known as Bacillus thuringiensis
eggplant (Bt talong) by the UPLB, ISAAA, and UP Mindanao Foundation, Inc. (UPMFI), among others.
 Bt talong contains the crystal toxin genes from soil bacterium Bt, which produces the CrylAc protein that is toxic to
target insect pests, specifically to lepidopteran larvae, the most destructive insect pest to eggplants,
 2007-2009 – petitioner UPLB, the implementing institution of field trials, conducted a contained experiment on Bt
talong under the supervision of NCBP.
 Upon the completion of the contained experiment, the NCBP issued a certificate stating that all biosafety measures
were complied with, and no untoward accident had occurred.
 March 16 & June 28, 2010 – Bureau of Plant Industries (BPI) issued 2-year Biosafety Permits for field testing of Bt
talong after UPLB’s field test proposal satisfactorily completed biosafety risk assessment for field testing pursuant
to DA AO No. 8, series of 2002.
 Field testing proceeded in approved trial sites in North Cotabato, Pangasinan, Camarines Sur, Davao City, and
Laguna.
 April 26, 2010 – respondents Greenpeace, Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG)
and other respondents filed before the Court a Petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ
of Kalikasan with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) against herein
petitioners the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), the BPI and the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) of the DA, UPLBFI, and ISAAA, and
UPMFI, alleging that the Bt talong field trials violated their constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology
considering, among others, that: (a) the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), as required by Presidential
Decree No. (PD) 1151, was not secured prior to the field trials; (b) the required public consultations under the Local
Government Code (LGC) were not complied with; and (c) as a regulated article under DAO 08-2002, Bt talong is
presumed harmful to human health and the environment, and that there is no independent, peer-reviewed study
showing its safety for human consumption and the environment. 
 Further, they contended that since the scientific evidence as to the safety of Bt talong remained insufficient or
uncertain, and that preliminary scientific evaluation shows reasonable grounds for concern, the precautionary
principle should be applied and, thereby, the field trials be enjoined.
RTC Ruling
o The Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan against petitioners (except UPLB) and UPMFI, ordering them to make a
verified return.
o In compliance therewith, petitioners filed their respective verified returns, and therein maintained that: (a) all
environmental laws were complied with, including the required public consultations in the affected
communities; (b) an ECC was not required for the field trials as it will not significantly affect the environment nor
pose a hazard to human health; (c) there is a plethora of scientific works and literature, peer-reviewed, on the safety
of Bt talong for human consumption; (d) at any rate, the safety of Bt talong for human consumption is irrelevant
because none of the eggplants will be consumed by humans or animals and all materials not used for analyses will be
chopped, boiled, and buried following the conditions of the Biosafety Permits; and (e) the precautionary principle
could not be applied as the field testing was only a part of a continuing study to ensure that such trials have no
significant and negative impact on the environment.
o The Court issued a Resolution referring the case to the CA for acceptance of the return of the writ and for hearing,
reception of evidence, and rendition of judgment.
o UPLB was impleaded as a party to the case and was directed to file its comment to the petition.
o UPLB filed its Answer adopting the arguments and allegations in the verified return filed by UPLBFI.
o CA discharged UPMFI as a party to the case pursuant to the Manifestation and Motion filed by respondents in order
to expedite the proceedings and resolution of the latter's petition.
 CA Ruling:
o CA ruled in favor of the respondents and directed the petitioners to permanently cease and desist from conducting
the Bt talong field trials.
o At the outset, it did not find merit in petitioners' contention that the case should be dismissed on the ground of
mootness, noting that the issues raised by the latter were "capable of repetition yet evading review" since the Bt
talong field trial was just one of the phases or stages of an overall and bigger study that is being conducted in relation
to the said genetically-modified organism.
o  It then held that the precautionary principle set forth under Section 1,38 Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases is relevant, considering the Philippines' rich biodiversity and uncertainty
surrounding the safety of Bt talong. It noted the possible irreversible effects of the field trials and the
introduction of Bt talong to the market, and found the existing regulations issued by the DA and DOST
insufficient to guarantee the safety of the environment and the health of the people.
o Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied bby CA and remarked that introducing genetically
modified plant into the ecosystem is an ecologically imbalancing act. 
o Anent UPLB 's argument that the Writ of Kalikasan violated its right to academic freedom, the CA emphasized that
the writ did not stop the research on Bt talong but only the procedure employed in conducting the field trials, and
only at this time when there is yet no law ensuring its safety when introduced to the environment.
o Dissatisfied, petitioners filed their respective petitions for review on certiorari before this Court.
2015 Decision
The Court denied the petitions and accordingly, affinned with modification the ruling of the CA. It permanently enjoined the
field testing of Bt talong. In addition, it declared DAO 08-2002 null and void for failure to consider the provisions of the
NBF. The Court also temporarily enjoined any application for contained use, field testing, propagation, commercialization,
and importation of genetically modified organisms until a new administrative order is promulgated in accordance with law.
Issues presented for Motions for Reconsideration:
(a) the case should have been dismissed for mootness in view of the completion and termination of the Bt talong field trials
and the expiration of the Biosafety Permits;
(b) the Court should not have ruled on the validity of DAO 08-2002 as it was not raised as an issue; 
(c) the Court erred in relying on the studies cited in the December 8, 2015 Decision which were not offered in evidence and
involved Bt corn, not Bt talong.
SC Ruling:
Granted the motions on the ground of mootness.

The Court found no perceivable benefit to the public in resolving respondents’ petition for Writ of Kalikasan on the
merits.

o Respondents’ petition for Writ of Kalikasan, were mooted by the undisputed expiration of the Biosafety Permits
issued by the BPI and the completion and termination of the Bt talong field trials subject of the same. These incidents
effectively negated the necessity for the reliefs sought by respondents in their petition for Writ of Kalikasan as there
was no longer any field test to enjoin. Hence, at the time the CA rendered its Decision dated May 17, 2013, the
reliefs petitioner sought and granted by the CA were no longer capable of execution.
o The completion and termination of the field tests do not mean that herein petitioners may inevitably proceed
to commercially propagate Bt talong. There are three (3) stages before genetically-modified organisms
(GMOs) may become commercially available under DAO 08-200284 and each stage is distinct, such that
"[s]ubsequent stages can only proceed if the prior stage/s [is/]are completed and clearance is given to engage
in the next regulatory stage."
o As the matter never went beyond the field testing phase, none of the foregoing tasks related to propagation were
pursued or the requirements therefor complied with. Thus, there are no guaranteed after-effects to the already
concluded Bt talong field trials that demand an adjudication from which the public may perceivably benefit. Any
future threat to the right, herein respondents or the public in general to a healthful and balanced ecology is therefore
more imagined than real.
o In fact, it would appear to be more beneficial to the public to stay a verdict on the safeness of Bt talong - or GMOs,
for that matter - until an actual and justiciable case properly presents itself before the Court.
o True enough, the concluded field tests ·- like those in these cases – would yield data that may prove useful for future
studies and analyses. If at all, resolving the petition for Writ of Kalikasan would unnecessarily arrest the results of
 further research and testing on Bt talong, and even GMOs in general, and hence, tend to hinder scientific
advancement on the subject matter.
o It is clear that no benefit would be derived by the public in assessing the merits of field trials whose
parameters are not only unique to the specific type of Bt talong tested, but are now, in fact, rendered obsolete
by the supervening change in the regulatory framework applied to GMO field testing. To be sure, DAO 08-
2002 has already been superseded by Joint Department Circular No. 1, series of 201689 (JDC 01-2016), issued
by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), the DA, the DENR, the Department of Health (DOH),
and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), which provides a substantially different
regulatory framework from that under DAO 08-2002. Thus, to resolve respondents' petition for Writ
of Kalikasan on its merits, would be tantamount to an unnecessary scholarly exercise for the Court to assess
alleged violations of health and environmental rights that arose from a past test case whose bearings do not
find any - if not minimal -- relevance to cases operating under today's regulatory framework.
o The Court notes that the petition for Writ of Kalikasan specifically raised issues only against the field testing
of Bt talong under the premises 'of DAO 08,..2002,91 i.e., that herein petitioners failed to: (a) fully inform the
eople regarding the health, environment, and other hazards involved;92 and (b) conduct any valid risk
assessment before conducting the field trial. As further pointed out by Justice Leonen, the reliefs sought did
not extend far enough to enjoin the use of the results of the field trials that have been completed. Hence, the
petition's specificity prevented it from falling under the above exception to the mootness rule.
o More obviously, the supersession of DAO 08-2002 by JDC 01-2016 clearly prevents this case from being one
capable of repetition so as to warrant review despite its mootness. (See full text for the tabular presentation of
differences between DAO 08-2002 and JDC 01-2016)
o It is apparent that the regulatory framework now applicable in conducting risk assessment in matters involving the
research, development, handling, movement, and release into the environment of genetically modified plant and plant
products derived from the use of modem biotechnology is substantially different from that which was applied to the
subject field trials. In this regard, it cannot be said that the present case is one capable of repetition yet evading
review.
o Therefore, it was improper for the Court to resolve the merits of the case which had become moot in view of the
absence of any valid exceptions to the rule on mootness, and to thereupon rule on the objections against the validity
and consequently nullify DAO 08-2002 under the premises of the precautionary principle.
MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION ARE GRANTED. 2013 RESOLUTION OF CA WAS SET ASIDE.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF KALIKASAN WITH PRAYER FOR ISSUANCE
OF A TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ORDER WAS DISMISSED.
CONCURRING OPINION: Justice Leonen
I reserve opinion on whether the “exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest” can be a ground for
ruling on a case despite it becoming moot and academic. In my view, a more becoming appreciation of the judiciary’s role in
the entire constitutional order should always give pause to go beyond the issues crystallized by an actual case with a real,
present controversy. Going beyond the parameters of a live case may be an invitation to participate in the crafting of policies
properly addressed to the other departments and organs of government. I am of the belief that the judiciary should take an
attitude of principled restraint.

Notes:

 National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP)

o created under Executive Order No. (EO) 430 as the regulatory body tasked to: (a) "identify and evaluate
potential hazards involved in initiating genetic engineering experiments or the introduction of new species
and genetically engineered organisms and recommend measures to minimize risks"; and (b) ''formulate and
review national policies and guidelines on biosafety, such as the safe conduct of work on genetic engineering,
pests and their genetic materials for the protection of public health, environment[,] and personnel[,] and
supervise the implementation thereof"

 Department of Agriculture's Administrative Order No. 8, series of 2002 (DAO 08-2002)

o provides for the rules and regulations for the importation and release into the environment of plants and plant
products derived from the use of modern biotechnology