International Service For The Acquisition Of Agri-Biotech Applications v. (Philippines)
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAAA) v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et al., G.R. No. 209271, December 08, 2015
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- Political Law
- writ of kalikasan
- continuing mandamus
- precautionary principle
- national biosafety framework
- genetically modified organisms
- Bt talong (genetically modified eggplant)
- risk assessment
- public participation
- environmental impact assessment system
- standing of non-traditional plaintiffs
- mootness and exceptions
- academic freedom
I. Facts of the Case
ISAAA and related petitioners sought to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision that permanently enjoined the conduct of field trials for Bt talong (genetically modified eggplant) and ordered environmental protection measures, in petitions consolidated with proceedings involving the Philippine national biosafety regulatory system. Greenpeace, MASIPAG, and individual respondents filed a petition for writ of kalikasan and continuing mandamus, alleging that the field trials were conducted without the required environmental and biosafety compliance, including proper application of the National Biosafety Framework (NBF) and precautionary/risk-assessment requirements.
1979
President Ferdinand Marcos approved and funded the establishment of the National Institute for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (BIOTECH) at UPLB as a premier R&D institution applying biotechnologies.
1990
President Corazon C. Aquino signed Executive Order (EO) No. 430 creating the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP).
1991
NCBP formulated Philippine Biosafety Guidelines governing the regulation of the importation/introduction, movement, and field release of potentially hazardous biological materials, including containment and safety procedures.
1998
The “Guidelines on Planned Release of Genetically Manipulated Organisms (GMOs) and Potentially Harmful Exotic Species (PHES)” were issued.
December 29, 1993
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) came into force, recognizing modern biotechnology’s potential if developed and used with adequate safety measures for the environment and human health.
January 2000
An agreement was reached on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety focusing on safe transfer, handling, use of living modified organisms, and transboundary movements.
May 24, 2000
The Philippines signed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which entered into force on September 11, 2003.
July 16, 2001
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued a policy statement reiterating the government’s policy promoting safe and responsible use of modern biotechnology and its products.
April 2002
The Department of Agriculture issued DA-Administrative Order (AO) No. 08 providing rules for the importation and release into the environment of plants and plant products derived from modern biotechnology.
March 17, 2006
EO No. 514 was issued establishing the National Biosafety Framework (NBF), strengthening the biosafety regulatory system and prescribing guidelines for implementation.
September 24, 2010
A Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) was executed between UPLBFI, ISAAA, and UP Mindanao Foundation, Inc. (UPMFI) for a collaborative R&D project on eggplants resistant to the fruit and shoot borer (Bt talong).
2007
Under NCBP supervision, a contained experiment on Bt eggplant was started in 2007 and completed on March 3, 2009, with NCBP issuing a Certificate of Completion of Contained Experiment stating all biosafety measures were complied with and no untoward incident occurred.
March 16, 2010
BPI issued biosafety permits to UPLB for Bt talong.
June 28, 2010
BPI issued additional biosafety permits to UPLB for Bt talong.
April 26, 2012
Greenpeace, MASIPAG, and individual respondents filed a petition for writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus with prayer for a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO), alleging among others lack of required environmental compliance certificate, violations relating to DAO 08-2002 and risk assessment, insufficient public consultation, and invoking the precautionary principle.
May 2, 2012
The Court issued the writ of kalikasan ordering ISAAA, EMB/BPI/FPA, and UPLB to make a verified return within ten (10) days; the parties filed verified returns.
July 10, 2012
Resolution referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for acceptance of the return of the writ and for hearing, reception of evidence, and rendition of judgment.
September 12, 2012
At preliminary conference, the parties submitted procedural issues including legal standing, mootness, and existence of justiciable controversy.
October 12, 2012
CA ruled that respondents had legal standing, the case was not moot because it could be capable of repetition yet evading review, and the alleged non-compliance with environmental and local government laws presented justiciable controversies.
May 17, 2013
CA decision granted the petition and permanently directed respondents to cease and desist from further conducting Bt talong field trials and to protect, preserve, rehabilitate and restore the environment, applying the precautionary principle. The CA also explained that the writ did not stop Bt talong research, only the field trials as a procedure pending appropriate legislative and safety/risk assurance.
September 20, 2013
CA resolution denied motions for reconsideration, reiterating that the writ issued did not stop research but only field trials pending proper legal and biosafety determinations.
December 08, 2015
The Supreme Court consolidated petitions and denied them, upholding the CA’s permanent injunction and related reliefs, holding that DAO 08-2002 failed to operationalize the NBF and that the NBF principles must be operationalized before allowing release of Bt talong into the open environment.
II. Issues
Whether or not Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines) and other respondents had the requisite legal standing to file the petition for writ of kalikasan.
Whether or not the petition for writ of kalikasan was rendered moot and academic by the alleged termination of the Bt talong field testing.
Whether or not the alleged non-compliance with environmental and local government laws in relation to the Bt talong field trials presented a justiciable controversy for resolution by the court.
Whether or not the CA erred in applying the precautionary principle and granting the writ of kalikasan and continuing mandamus to permanently cease and desist Bt talong field trials.
Whether DAO 08-2002 should be declared invalid for failing to accommodate and operationalize the principles and mandates under EO 514 (National Biosafety Framework).
Whether EO 514 mandates concerned government agencies (DENR-EMB, BPI, and FPA) to determine whether the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) system should apply to releases of GMOs into the environment and to issue joint guidelines.
III. Ruling
Whether or not Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines) and other respondents had the requisite legal standing to file the petition for writ of kalikasan.
The respondents had standing to sue through the petition for writ of kalikasan and continuing mandamus to protect environmental rights.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court reiterated the liberal policy on standing in environmental cases to allow citizens and civic organizations to prosecute actions questioning the validity of laws, acts, rulings, or orders of government agencies.
- It recognized that environmental cases often involve public rights and that standing should not be limited to parties who can show traditional forms of legal injury.
- Thus, respondents’ civic and environmental interest in the protection of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology was sufficient to confer standing.
- The Court treated this as consistent with the objectives of the writ of kalikasan under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
“There is therefore no dispute on the standing of respondents to file before this Court their petition for writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus.”
Rule applied
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (including liberal policy on standing for non-traditional plaintiffs); jurisprudential adoption of liberal standing in environmental cases
Whether or not the petition for writ of kalikasan was rendered moot and academic by the alleged termination of the Bt talong field testing.
The case was not dismissed as moot and academic despite the alleged termination/expiration of Bt talong field trials because recognized exceptions applied.
How the Court reasoned
- The CA and the Supreme Court found that the issues were capable of repetition yet evading review, so mootness did not bar judicial review.
- The Court recognized that the controversy involved genetically modified crops and the public’s right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which continued to generate uncertainty and regulatory gaps.
- The Court considered the presence of exceptions as justifying continued adjudication even after termination of the specific field trials.
“We find that the presence of the second and fourth exceptions justified the CA in not dismissing the case despite the termination of Bt talong field trials.”
Rule applied
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases and recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine (e.g., capable of repetition yet evading review; issues of transcendental importance)
Whether or not the alleged non-compliance with environmental and local government laws in relation to the Bt talong field trials presented a justiciable controversy for resolution by the court.
The alleged non-compliance with environmental and local government laws in connection with Bt talong field trials constituted a justiciable controversy proper for judicial determination.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court (and the CA it affirmed) treated allegations of regulatory non-compliance affecting environmental protection as raising questions suitable for judicial resolution.
- The Court focused on whether there was a threat or violation of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, rather than requiring proof of actual injury alone.
Rule applied
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (writ of kalikasan framework) and principles on justiciability in environmental rights cases
Whether or not the CA erred in applying the precautionary principle and granting the writ of kalikasan and continuing mandamus to permanently cease and desist Bt talong field trials.
The CA did not err in applying the precautionary principle and in permanently enjoining Bt talong field trials and related activities under the writ of kalikasan and continuing mandamus.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court adopted a precautionary approach because of uncertainty and the possibility of serious or irreversible harm to the environment and human health in the face of incomplete operationalization of the NBF.
- It held that the NBF principles must be operationalized first by coordinated actions of the concerned departments and agencies before allowing release into the open environment of genetically modified eggplant.
- It considered that the CA’s writ stopped the particular field trial procedure pending compliance with required biosafety framework mandates, and did not amount to an absolute ban on research.
“The more prudent course is to immediately enjoin the _Bt talong_ field trials and approval for its propagation or commercialization until the said government offices shall have performed their respective mandates to implement the NBF.”
Rule applied
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (precautionary approach under the Rules); EO 514 (NBF) and Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 15; Cartagena Protocol biosafety decision-making framework
Whether DAO 08-2002 should be declared invalid for failing to accommodate and operationalize the principles and mandates under EO 514 (National Biosafety Framework).
DAO 08-2002 was declared invalid for failing to operationalize the principles and mandates of the National Biosafety Framework under EO 514.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court found that compliance with DAO 08-2002 procedures, by itself, was insufficient because it did not operationalize NBF requirements.
- It emphasized EO 514’s requirement that biosafety decisions take into account precaution and broader framework mandates, including transparency and public participation.
- Because DAO 08-2002 did not align with or implement those NBF requirements for open-environment release, it could not be sustained.
“For these reasons, the DAO 08-2002 should be declared invalid.”
Rule applied
EO 514 (National Biosafety Framework) and its mandates on precaution, public participation, and risk assessment; related biosafety principles under international instruments
Whether EO 514 mandates concerned government agencies (DENR-EMB, BPI, and FPA) to determine whether the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) system should apply to releases of GMOs into the environment and to issue joint guidelines.
EO 514 required DENR-EMB, BPI, and FPA to determine whether the EIS system should apply to GMO releases and to issue joint guidelines, as a prerequisite to allowing release into the environment.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court read EO 514 as requiring concerned agencies—most particularly DENR-EMB, BPI, and FPA—to determine whether the EIS system should apply to releases of GMOs into the environment.
- It held that EO 514 also mandated the issuance of joint guidelines on the matter, as part of coordination required by the NBF.
- Because these mandates were not shown to have been performed, the Court found it more prudent to enjoin Bt talong field trials and related approvals until compliance.
“Significantly, while petitioners repeatedly argued that the subject field trials are not covered by the EIS law, EO 514 clearly mandates that concerned departments and agencies, most particularly petitioners DENR-EMB, BPI and FPA, make a determination whether the EIS system should apply to the release of GMOs into the environment and issue joint guidelines on the matter.”
Rule applied
EO 514 (National Biosafety Framework), including the mandate of DENR-EMB and the requirement to issue joint guidelines; precautionary approach under biosafety decision-making
Doctrines
In environmental cases, the Supreme Court adopts a liberal policy on standing, allowing ordinary citizens and civic organizations to sue to protect environmental rights and question the validity of government actions affecting ecology.
Mootness does not bar judicial review in environmental controversies when recognized exceptions apply, such as when the issues are capable of repetition yet evading review and involve matters of continuing importance to the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Under EO 514’s National Biosafety Framework, compliance with DAO 08-2002 procedures alone is insufficient if the NBF principles—particularly precaution and operational risk assessment/public participation requirements—are not implemented in a coordinated manner before any release into the open environment of genetically modified organisms.
Applying the precautionary approach, courts may enjoin GMO field trials and related approvals when there is uncertainty and potential for serious or irreversible harm, pending performance by concerned agencies of their NBF mandates and required determinations (including coordination with the EIS system where mandated).
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED.
Notes
The consolidated cases involved G.R. No. 209276 (EMB/BPI/FPA v. CA; Greenpeace et al.), G.R. No. 209301 (UPLB Foundation v. Greenpeace et al.), and G.R. No. 209430 (UP v. Greenpeace et al.), but the Supreme Court decision on December 8, 2015 resolved the consolidated petitions seeking reversal of the CA’s permanent injunction against Bt talong field trials.