4 Isaa Vs Greenpeace

ISAA VS GREENPEACE DIGEST
FACTS:
From 2007 to 2009, the University of the Philippines Los Baños conducted contained tests on
bioengineered eggplants called the BT Talong. BT Talong was genetically engineered to kill certain pests
attacking eggplants. The tests were in partnership with International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAA). After the success of the contained tests, ISAA, in 2010, proceeded with
field tests to be conducted in five provinces - North Cotabato, Pangasinan, Camarines Sur, Davao City,
and Laguna.
In 2012, Greenpeace Southeast Asia Philippines filed before the Supreme Court a Petition for Writ of
Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus with prayer for Temporary Environmental Protection Order
against UPLB and ISAA. Greenpeace sought to enjoin ISAA and UPLB from conducting further field tests
as it argued, among others, that BT Talong, without the tests being peer reviewed, is presumed to be
harmful to human health and the environment.
Further, Greenpeace 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 – this is
in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure on Environmental Cases.
ISAA and UPLB argued that the issue is already moot and academic considering that the tests were
already done.
ISSUE: Whether or not a Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus should be issued.
HELD:
In December 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The SC held that the precautionary
principle applies in this case since the risk of harm from the field trials of BT Talong remains uncertain
and there exists a possibility of serious and irreversible harm. The SC observed that eggplants are a
staple vegetable in the country that is mostly grown by small-scale farmers who are poor and
marginalized; thus, given the country’s rich biodiversity, the consequences of contamination and genetic
pollution would be disastrous and irreversible.
On the issue of mootness, the SC held that it can still pass upon the case on the grounds that (a) the
exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; and (b) the case is
capable of repetition yet evading review.
However, in July 2016, the SC granted the motion for reconsideration filed by ISAA and UPLB on the
ground that the issue indeed became moot and academic. The SC ruled that it erred when it ruled that
this case falls under the Paramount Public Interest Doctrine and the Capable of Repetition Yet Evading
Review Doctrine.
This case does not fall under the paramount public interest exception because the tests were already
done and there is nothing to be enjoined by the writ of kalikasan anymore.
This case case is not one capable of repetition yet evading review. Again, the tests were already done in
2010. The permits for the tests already expired in 2012. No new permits were granted. Greenpeace
failed to prove that the same tests will be conducted again.
However, the SC emphasized that ISAA and UPLB cannot just simply commercially propagate BT Talong
as it appears that there are strict guidelines to be complied with particularly those outlined by a joint
circular by the DOST, DA, and the DENR.
*Paramount Public Interest Doctrine – a principle that there is a perceivable benefit to the public which
demands the Court to proceed with the resolution of otherwise moot questions.
"moot and academic" case to be "one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of
supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value." It goes on to
state that "generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such cases and dismiss it on the ground of
mootness."
Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review Doctrine - (1) the challenged action was in its duration too
short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and (2) there was a reasonable expectation
that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action.
Here, respondents cannot claim that the duration of the subject field tests was too short to be fully
litigated. It must be emphasized that the Biosafety Permits for the subject field tests were issued on
March 16, 2010 and June 28, 2010, and were valid for two (2) years. However, as aptly pointed out by
Justice Leonen, respondents filed their petition for Writ of Kalikasan only on April 26, 2012 - just a few
months before the Biosafety Permits expired and when the field testing activities were already
over.108 Obviously, therefore, the cessation of the subject field tests before the case could be
resolved was due to respondents' own inaction.

4 Isaa Vs Greenpeace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Isaa Vs Greenpeace

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Isaa Vs Greenpeace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISAA VS GREENPEACE DIGEST

You might also like