Case Digest

` Environmental & Natural Resources Law
CASE DIGEST
Prepared by Emmanuel P Batingan January 21, 2019
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech

Applications, Inc (ISAAAI)
VS
Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines)
ISSUES
- W/N Greenpeace has a legal standing;
- W/N the case is moot and academic;
- W/N there is a violation of the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of

administrative remedies; and
- W/N the Precautionary Principle applies

RULES OR REGULATIONS
- Writ of Kalikasan
is a legal remedy under Philippine law that provides protection of one's Constitutional right to a
healthy environment, as outlined in Section 16, Article II of the Philippine Constitution, which
says the "state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature."[1] "Kalikasan" is a Filipino word for
"nature"
- E.O 514
Establishing The National Biosafety Framework, Prescribing Guidelines For Its

Implementation, Strengthening The National Committee On Biosafety Of The Philippines
and for other purposes.
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND ARGUMENTS
FACTS
On September 24 2010, a Memorandum of Undertaking was executed between International

Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAAA), University of the Philippines
Los Baños Foundation, Inc. (UPLBFI) and UP Mindanao Foundation, Inc. (UPMFI), in pursuance of
a collaborative research and development project on eggplants that are resistant to the fruit and
shoot borer. Other partner agencies involved were UPLB through its Institute of Plant Breeding,
Maharastra Hybrid Seed Company (MAHYCO) of India, Cornell University and the Agricultural
Biotechnology Support Project II (ABSPII) of USAID.
The UPLB Field Trial Proposal states that the pest-resistant crop subject of the field trial was
described as a “bio-engineered eggplant.” The crystal toxin genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) were incorporated into the eggplant genome to produce the protein CrylAc which
is toxic to target insect pests. The latter is said to be highly specific to lepidopteran larvae such as
fruit and shoot borer (FSB), the most destructive insect pest of eggplant.
NCBP issued a Certificate of Completion of Contained Experiment which was conducted from 2007
to 3 March 2009 stating that during the conduct of experiment, all the biosafety measures have
been complied with and no untoward incident has occurred.
On March 16, 2010 and June 28, 2010, the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) issued biosafety permits
to UPLB. Field testing commenced on various dates in the following approved trial sites: Kabacan,
North Cotabato; Sta. Maria, Pangasinan; Pili, Camarines Sur; Bago Oshiro, Davao City; and Bay,
Laguna.
On April 26, 2012, Greenpeace, MASIPAG and individual respondents (Greenpeace, et.al.) filed a
petition for writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus with prayer for the issuance of
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) alleging that the Bt talong field trials violate
their constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology considering that:
-There is no independent, peer-reviewed study on the safety of Bt talong for human consumption
and the environment;
-Bt crops can be directly toxic to non-target species; and
-There is a failure to comply with the required public consultation under Sections 26 and 27 of the
Local Government Code.
On 2 May 2012, the SC issued the writ of kalikasan against ISAAA, EMB, BPI, FPA and UPLB,
ordering them to file a verified return.
The contentions of the respondents are as follows:
- All environmental laws were complied with, including public consultations in the affected
communities;
- There is a plethora of scientific works and literature, peer-reviewed, on the safety of Bt talong for
human consumption
SC, in a Resolution dated July 10, 2012, referred the case to the Court of Appeals.
On May 17, 2013, CA rendered a decision in favor of the Greenpeace, et.al. finding that the
precautionary principle set forth in Section 1, Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases (the Rules) finds relevance in the case.
CA further justified its ruling by expounding on the theory that introducing a genetically modified
plant into our ecosystem is an “ecologically imbalancing act.”
CONCLUSION
W/N Greenpeace has a legal standing;
Yes. The liberalized rule on standing is now enshrined in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases. The provision on citizen suits
in the Rules “collapses the tradional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that
humans are stewards of nature,” and aims to “further encourage the protection of the environment.”
W/N the case is moot and academic;
No. The case falls under the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the
mootness principle, the human and environmental health hazards posed by the introduction of a
genetically modified plant which is a very popular staple vegetable among Filipinos is an issue of
paramount public interest
CONCLUSION
W/N there is a violation of the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of
administrative remedies;
Yes. The liberalized rule on standing is now enshrined in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases. The provision on citizen suits
in the Rules “collapses the tradional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that
humans are stewards of nature,” and aims to “further encourage the protection of the environment.”
W/N the Precautionary Principle applies;
Yes. The precautionary principle originated in Germany in the 1960s, expressing the normative
idea that governments are obliged to “foresee and forestall” harm to the environment.
When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity
and environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case
before it.
CONCLUSION
While the goal of increasing crop yields to raise farm incomes is laudable, independent
scientific studies revealed uncertainties due to unfulfilled economic benefits from Bt crops and
plants, adverse effects on the environment associated with the use of GE technology in agriculture,
and serious health hazards from consumption of GM foods. For a biodiversity-rich country like the
Philippines, the natural and unforeseen consequences of contamination and genetic pollution would
be disastrous and irreversible.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
- The conduct of Bt talong field testing is prohibit; and
- Any application for contained use, field testing, propagation and commercialization, and
importation of GMOs is temporarily prohibited until a new administrative order is promulgated in
accordance with law.
END OF PRESENTATION

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

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

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

` Environmental & Natural Resources Law

Prepared by Emmanuel P Batingan January 21, 2019

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech

- W/N Greenpeace has a legal standing;

- W/N the case is moot and academic;

- W/N there is a violation of the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of

- W/N the Precautionary Principle applies

Establishing The National Biosafety Framework, Prescribing Guidelines For Its

On September 24 2010, a Memorandum of Undertaking was executed between International

-Bt crops can be directly toxic to non-target species; and

The contentions of the respondents are as follows:

W/N Greenpeace has a legal standing;

W/N the case is moot and academic;

W/N the Precautionary Principle applies;

- The conduct of Bt talong field testing is prohibit; and

You might also like