(G.R. No. 209271, December 08, 2015)
Facts
Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG), and individual respondents filed a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus to permanently stop the field trials of genetically modified eggplant, known as Bt talong. Bt talong was engineered to resist the fruit and shoot borer (FSB) by incorporating crystal toxin genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).
Petitioners, including the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAAA), the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB), and government agencies (EMB, BPI, FPA), argued that they complied with all existing regulations, including Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 08 (DAO 08-2002). Respondents alleged that the field trials violated the constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology due to uncertain risks (e.g., contamination, toxicity to non-target species) and non-compliance with environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements and meaningful public consultation mandated by the National Biosafety Framework (NBF, EO 514). The Court of Appeals applied the precautionary principle and permanently enjoined the trials.
Issues
The main legal questions resolved by the Supreme Court were:
- Whether the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System (PEISS) applied to projects involving the introduction and propagation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
- Whether the public respondent agencies committed neglect or unlawful omission in processing and evaluating the applications for Bt talong field testing.
- Whether the Precautionary Principle was applicable to the case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled:
“WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The Decision dated May 17, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00013 is hereby MODIFIED, as follows: 1. The conduct of the assailed field testing for Bt talong is hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED; 2. Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 08, series of 2002 is declared NULL AND VOID; and 3. Consequently, any application for contained use, field testing, propagation and commercialization, and importation of genetically modified organisms is TEMPORARILY ENJOINED until a new administrative order is promulgated in accordance with law.”
Essential Elements of Jurisprudence
- Precautionary Principle (Controlling Doctrine): The precautionary principle is applied when there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and environmental effect. The principle is justified when three conditions coincide: (a) uncertainty; (b) the possibility of irreversible harm; and (c) the possibility of serious harm. When in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. In effect, the principle shifts the burden of evidence of harm away from those likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to change the status quo. The Court found all three conditions present regarding Bt talong.
- Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework (NBF): The existing regulations (DAO 08-2002) were insufficient because they failed to operationalize the principles of the NBF (EO 514). EO 514 mandates transparency, accountability, and meaningful public participation (Section 7) in biosafety decisions. The failure of DAO 08-2002 to accommodate the NBF meant the Department of Agriculture lacked mechanisms to comply with international biosafety protocols.
- Applicability of the Environmental Impact Statement System (PEISS): GMO field testing, given the overwhelming scientific attention worldwide on its potential hazards, falls under the category of “Environmentally Critical Projects” (ECP) or “Unclassified Projects” (Group V) under existing EMB regulations. Government agencies (DENR-EMB, BPI, and FPA) failed to fulfill their mandate under EO 514 to determine the applicability of the EIS system to GMO field testing and issue joint guidelines on the matter.
- Standing: The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases liberalize standing, allowing a citizen suit by any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including future generations, to enforce environmental rights (per the principle of intergenerational responsibility established in Oposa v. Factoran).
Sample Q&A
Question: The Department of Agriculture (DA), through the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI), granted a permit for the multi-location field testing of a new genetically modified (GM) rice strain, relying solely on compliance with the requirements set forth in DA-Administrative Order No. 08 (DAO 08-2002). Environmental groups oppose the project, arguing that the BPI failed to conduct a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and that the public consultation conducted (limited to posting notices) was insufficient under the National Biosafety Framework (NBF). Assuming scientific uncertainty persists regarding the long-term ecological and health effects of the new GM rice strain, should the permit stand?
Answer: No, the permit should not stand. The Supreme Court, in International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. vs. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (G.R. No. 209271), declared DAO 08-2002 NULL AND VOID. The Court held that relying solely on DAO 08-2002 was insufficient because it failed to comply with the mandate of Executive Order No. 514 (NBF).
The BPI’s action constitutes neglect or unlawful omission because:
- Precautionary Principle: Given the scientific uncertainty and the possibility of irreversible harm (serious threat to ecosystems and public health), the Precautionary Principle (Rule 20, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases) must be applied, shifting the burden of proof onto the proponents.
- Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): The concerned agencies, including the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR-EMB), failed to perform their mandate under EO 514 to determine the applicability of the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System (PEISS, PD 1586) to GMO field testing, which generally falls under “Environmentally Critical Projects”.
- Public Participation: The NBF (EO 514, Section 7) mandates meaningful, transparent, and accountable public participation, requiring more than simple posting of notices and demanding the consideration of public concerns in the decision-making process.
Consequently, all applications for field testing of GMOs are TEMPORARILY ENJOINED until a new administrative order is promulgated in accordance with law.
#PrecautionaryPrinciple #WritOfKalikasan #EnvironmentalLawPH #ISAvsGreenpeace #BtTalongCase #RightToABalancedEcology #GR209271 #NationalBiosafetyFramework #GMOLaw #JurisprudencePH #PhilippineLaw #LawPH #SCdecisionsPH #AdminLawPH #ConstitutionalLawPH #LawStudentPH #FilipinoLawyer #PhilippineJurisprudence #LegalPH #CaseDigestPH #LegalInsights #KnowYourRightsPH #EnvironmentalJustice #Biotechnology #ScienceAndLaw #AdvocacyPH #SustainabilityPH #GreenpeacePH #LawyerLifePH #Philippines
Leave a Reply