International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-bio Tech Applications, Inc. vs.
Administrative exhaustion
Greenpeace Southeast Asia, et. al.,
1. Legal Standing Issue for writ of kalikasan
Since the Oposa ruling, ordinary citizens not only have legal standing to sue for the
enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own and
future generations. Thus:
Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as
generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for
themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding
generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the
succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded,
considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created
world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter
alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and
conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife,
off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration,
development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well
as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a
responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the
minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the
same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of
that right for the generations to come.
2. Mootness
Nonetheless, courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic if: first,
there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional
character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved;
third, when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling
principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; and fourth, the case is
capable of repetition yet evading review.48 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.
While it may be that the project proponents of Bt talong have terminated the
subject field trials, it is not certain if they have actually completed the field
trial stage for the purpose of data gathering. At any rate, it is on record that
the proponents expect to proceed to the next phase of the project, the
preparation for commercial propagation of the Bt eggplants. Biosafety
permits will still be issued by the BPI for Bt talong or other GM crops.
Hence, not only does this case fall 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, a very popular staple vegetable among Filipinos, is an issue
of paramount public interest.
3.
the provisions of DAO 08-2002 do not provide a speedy, or adequate
remedy for the respondents "to determine the questions of unique national
and local importance raised here that pertain to laws and rules for
environmental protection, thus [they were] justified in coming to this Court." 50
We take judicial notice of the fact that genetically modified food is an
intensely debated global issue, and despite the entry of GMO crops (Bt
corn) into the Philippines in the last decade, it is only now that such
controversy involving alleged damage or threat to human health and the
environment from GMOs has reached the courts.
4. Precautionary principle
5. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
6.
SEC. 1. Applicability. - 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.
The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology shall be given the benefit of the doubt.
SEC. 2. Standards for application. - In applying the precautionary
principle, the following factors, among others, may be considered:
(1) threats to human life or health; (2) inequity to present or future
generations; or (3) prejudice to the environment without legal
consideration of the environmental rights of those affected.
7. Under this Rule, the precautionary principle finds direct application in the
evaluation of evidence in cases before the courts. The precautionary
principle bridges the gap in cases where scientific certainty in factual
findings cannot be achieved. By applying the precautionary principle, the
court may construe a set of facts as warranting either judicial action or
inaction, with the goal of preserving and protecting the environment. This
may be further evinced from the second paragraph where bias is created in
favor of the constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology. In effect, the precautionary principle shifts the burden of evidence
of harm away from those likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to
change the status quo. An application of the precautionary principle to the
rules on evidence will enable courts to tackle future environmental problems
before ironclad scientific consensus emerges.146
For purposes of evidence, the precautionary principle should be treated as a
principle of last resort, where application of the regular Rules of Evidence
would cause in an inequitable result for the environmental plaintiff
(a) settings in which the risks of harm are uncertain; (b) settings in which
harm might be irreversible and what is lost is irreplaceable; and (c) settings
in which the harm that might result would be serious. When these features
 uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility
of serious harm coincide, the case for the precautionary principle is
strongest. When in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Parenthetically,
judicial adjudication is one of the strongest fora in which the precautionary
principle may find applicability.147
Assessing the evidence on record, as well as the current state of GMO
research worldwide, the Court finds all the three conditions present in this
case - uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm and the possibility of
serious harm.
Eggplants (talong) are a staple vegetable in the country and grown by
small-scale farmers, majority of whom are poor and marginalized. 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 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.
Alongside the aforesaid uncertainties, the non-implementation of the NBF in
the crucial stages of risk assessment and public consultation, including the
determination of the applicability of the EIS requirements to GMO field
testing, are compelling reasons for the application of the precautionary
principle. There exists a preponderance of evidence that the release of
GMOs into the environment threatens to damage our ecosystems and not
just the field trial sites, and eventually the health of our people once the Bt
eggplants are consumed as food. Adopting the precautionary approach, the
Court rules that the principles of the NBF need to be operationalized first by
the coordinated actions of the concerned departments and agencies before
allowing the release into the environment of genetically modified eggplant.
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.
2. Most Reverend Pedro D. Arigo, et. al., vs. Scott H. Swift, et. Al
1. Legal Standing
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,13 we recognized the "public right" of
citizens to "a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our
constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law." We declared
that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the
Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and polittcal rights guaranteed in the Bill
of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental
importance with intergenerational implications.1wphi1 Such right carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.14
On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this
Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the
enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own and
future generations.
2. Immunity Immune siyaayaayayaya
While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it
is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly
performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment
against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy
the same,. such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages
awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it
has not been formally impleaded. [Garcia v. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120] In such a
situation, the state may move to dismiss the comp.taint on the ground that it has been
filed without its consent.
In the same case we also mentioned that in the case of diplomatic immunity, the
privilege is not an immunity from the observance of the law of the territorial sovereign
or from ensuing legal liability; it is, rather, an immunity from the exercise of territorial
jurisdiction
3. Contention under VFA is wrong
The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops and
personnel visiting the Philippines to promote "common security interests" between the
US and the Philippines in the region. It provides for the guidelines to govern such
visits of military personnel, and further defines the rights of the United States and the
Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and
aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and supplies.36 The
invocation of US federal tort laws and even common law is thus improper considering
that it is the VF A which governs disputes involving US military ships and crew
navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the objectives of the agreement.
As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VF A pertains only to criminal
jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of
a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules that
a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an environmental law is to
be filed separately:
SEC. 17. Institution of separate actions.-The filing of a petition for the issuance of the
writ of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or administrative
actions.
In any case, it is our considered view that a ruling on the application or non-application
of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VF A to US personnel who may be found
responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature and beyond
the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan. We also find it unnecessary at this
point to determine whether such waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. In the
same vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted from the violation of
environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of damages, including the
collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that
deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the same violation of an
environmental law.37
4. Moot pero amy relief ap din
We agree with respondents (Philippine officials) in asserting that this petition has
become moot in the sense that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or
restrained had already been accomplished when petitioners sought recourse from this
Court. But insofar as the directives to Philippine respondents to protect and
rehabilitate the coral reef stn icture and marine habitat adversely affected by the
grounding incident are concerned, petitioners are entitled to these reliefs
notwithstanding the completion of the removal of the USS Guardian from the coral
reef. However, we are mindful of the fact that the US and Philippine governments both
expressed readiness to negotiate and discuss the matter of compensation for the
damage caused by the USS Guardian. The US Embassy has also declared it is
closely coordinating with local scientists and experts in assessing the extent of the
damage and appropriate methods of rehabilitation.
5. Basis ng relief
SECTION 1. Reliefs in a citizen suit.-If warranted, the court may grant to the plaintiff
proper reliefs which shall include the protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the
environment and the payment of attorney's fees, costs of suit and other litigation
expenses. It may also require the violator to submit a program of rehabilitation or
restoration of the environment, the costs of which shall be borne by the violator, or to
contribute to a special trust fund for that purpose subject to the control of the
court.1wphi1
3. Marine
1. May legal standing
Procedural Issues
Locus Standi of Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards
The Resident Marine Mammals, through the Stewards, "claim" that they have the legal
standing to file this action since they stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment
in this suit.40 Citing Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,41 they also assert their right to sue for the
faithful performance of international and municipal environmental laws created in their
favor and for their benefit. In this regard, they propound that they have the right to
demand that they be accorded the benefits granted to them in multilateral international
instruments that the Philippine Government had signed, under the concept of
stipulation pour autrui.42
For their part, the Stewards contend that there should be no question of their right to
represent the Resident Marine Mammals as they have stakes in the case as
forerunners of a campaign to build awareness among the affected residents of Taon
Strait and as stewards of the environment since the primary steward, the Government,
had failed in its duty to protect the environment pursuant to the public trust doctrine. 43
Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards also aver that this Court may
lower the benchmark in locus standi as an exercise of epistolary jurisdiction.44
In opposition, public respondents argue that the Resident Marine Mammals have no
standing because Section 1, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court requires parties to an action
to be either natural or juridical persons, viz.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. - Only natural or juridical
persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. The term
"plaintiff may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or
the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff. The term "defendant" may refer to the original
defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third
(fourth, etc.)-party defendant.
The public respondents also contest the applicability of Oposa, pointing out that the
petitioners therein were all natural persons, albeit some of them were still unborn.45
As regards the Stewards, the public respondents likewise challenge their claim of
legal standing on the ground that they are representing animals, which cannot be
parties to an action. Moreover, the public respondents argue that the Stewards are not
the real parties-in-interest for their failure to show how they stand to be benefited or
injured by the decision in this case.46
Invoking the alter ego principle in political law, the public respondents claim that
absent any proof that former President Arroyo had disapproved of their acts in
entering into and implementing SC-46, such acts remain to be her own.47
The public respondents contend that since petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and
Stewards' petition was not brought in the name of a real party-in-interest, it should be
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.48
The issue of whether or not animals or even inanimate objects should be given legal
standing in actions before courts of law is not new in the field of animal rights and
environmental law. Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards cited the
1972 United States case Sierra Club v. Rogers C.B. Morton,49 wherein Justice William
O. Douglas, dissenting to the conventional thought on legal standing,
opined:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if
we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before
federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be
despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the
subject of public outrage, x x x.
Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a
fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole - a creature of
ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases.
The ordinary corporation is a "person" for purposes of the adjudicatory processes,
whether it represents proprietary, spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes.
So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries,
beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive
pressures of modern technology and modem life. The river, for example, is the living
symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishesfish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter,
fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or
who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the
ecological unit of life that is part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to
that body of waterwhether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger
must be able to speak for the values which the river represents and which are
threatened with destruction.50 (Citations omitted.)
The primary reason animal rights advocates and environmentalists seek to give
animals and inanimate objects standing is due to the need to comply with the strict
requirements in bringing a suit to court. Our own 1997 Rules of Court demand that
parties to a suit be either natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law. It
further necessitates the action to be brought in the name of the real party-in-interest,
even if filed by a representative, viz.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Rule 3
Parties to Civil Actions
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. - Only natural or juridical
persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. The term
"plaintiff may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or
the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff. The term "defendant" may refer to the original
defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third
(fourth, etc.)-party defendant.
Sec. 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or
defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the
beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real
party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an
executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting
in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued
without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the
principal.
It had been suggested by animal rights advocates and environmentalists that not only
natural and juridical persons should be given legal standing because of the difficulty
for persons, who cannot show that they by themselves are real parties-in-interests, to
bring actions in representation of these animals or inanimate objects. For this reason,
many environmental cases have been dismissed for failure of the petitioner to show
that he/she would be directly injured or affected by the outcome of the case. However,
in our jurisdiction, locus standi in environmental cases has been given a more
liberalized approach. While developments in Philippine legal theory and jurisprudence
have not progressed as far as Justice Douglas's paradigm of legal standing for
inanimate objects, the current trend moves towards simplification of procedures and
facilitating court access in environmental cases.
Recently, the Court passed the landmark Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases,51 which allow for a "citizen suit," and permit any Filipino citizen to file an action
before our courts for violations of our environmental laws:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SEC. 5. Citizen suit. - Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including
minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or
obligations under environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the court
shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of the cause of action and
the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to
intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may
publish the order once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or
furnish all affected barangays copies of said order.
2. Rationale fr granting legal standing
Citizen suit. To further encourage the protection of the environment, the Rules enable
litigants enforcing environmental rights to file their cases as citizen suits. This
provision liberalizes standing for all cases filed enforcing environmental laws and
collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that
humans are stewards of nature. The terminology of the text reflects the doctrine first
enunciated in Oposa v. Factoran, insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet
unborn.53 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted.)
3. Mali ung s unwilling part ung aky Gloriaa
Section 10, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. - If the consent of any party who should be joined as
plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor
shall be stated in the complaint.
Under the foregoing rule, when the consent of a party who should be joined as a
plaintiff cannot be obtained, he or she may be made a party defendant to the case.
This will put the unwilling party under the jurisdiction of the Court, which can properly
implead him or her through its processes. The unwilling party's name cannot be simply
included in a petition, without his or her knowledge and consent, as such would be a
denial of due process.
4. walang batas
SC-46 was not executed for the mere purpose of gathering information on the
possible energy resources in the Taon Strait as it also provides for the parties' rights
and obligations relating to extraction and petroleum production should oil in
commercial quantities be found to exist in the area. While Presidential Decree No. relation to LAMIs construction of a port facility. Agham only
87 may serve as the general law upon which a service contract for petroleum alleged in
exploration and extraction may be authorized, the exploitation and utilization of very general terms that LAMI was
this energy resource in the present case may be allowed only through a law destroying the environment and
passed by Congress, since the Taon Strait is a NIPAS area.106Since there is no leveling
such law specifically allowing oil exploration and/or extraction in the Taon a mountain without conducting any scientific studies or submitt
Strait, no energy resource exploitation and utilization may be done in said ing expert
testimonies that would corroborate such allegations
protected seascape.

4. 5. Contents of petition of writ of kalikasan what needs to be proved

he Rules are clear that in a Writ of Kalikasan petitioner has
Requisites for writ of kalikasan the
burden to prove the (1) environmental law, rule or regulation
The following requisites must be present to avail of this remed violated or
y: threatened to be violated; (2) a
(1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitut ct or omission complained of; a
ional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; ( nd (3) the
2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life
official or employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the actual or threatened , health or
violation involves or property of inhabitants in two
will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, or more cities or provinces.
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
6. condition sine qua non
2. DI NAVIOLATE FORESTRY CODE Even the Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
LAMI was given a Tree Cutting Permit by the CENRO dated 17 April 2012. In the Cases states that the magnitude of environmental damage is a co
permit, LAMI was allowed to cut 37 trees with a total volume of 7.64 cubic meters ndition
within the port site, subject to sine
the condition that the trees cut shall be replaced with a ratio of 1-30 fruit and non- qua non
bearing fruit trees. in a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and must
be
3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF MINING CODE contained in the v
Section 57. Expenditure for Community Development and Science erified petition.
and Mining Technology A contractor shall assist in the development of
its mining community, the promotion of the general welfare of its Agham, in accusing that LAMI allegedly flattened a
inhabitants, and the development of science and mining technology. mountain, did not cite any law allegedly violated by LAMI in re
Section 69. Environmental Protection Every contractor shall lation to this
undertake an environmental protection and enhancement program claim. Agham did not present any proof to demonstrate that the
covering the period of the mineral agreement or permit. Such local
environmental program shall be incorporated in the work program which residents in Zambales, and even the nearby towns of Pangasinan,
the contractor or permittee shall submit as an accompanying document to complained of any great danger or harm on the alleged leveling
the application for a mineral agreement or permit. of the land
formation which may affect their lives, health or properties.
4. walang navioalte Neither was
Clearly, Agham did not give proper justifications for citing Se there any evidence showing of a grave and real environmental da
ctions mage to the
57 and 69 of the Philippine Mining Act. Agham did not even pre barangay
sent any and the surrounding vicinity.
evidence that LAMI violated the mining law or any mining undert
akings in