International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAAA), et al vs.

Greenpeace
Southeast Asia et al.
GR No. 209271 | December 8, 2015 | Villarama, Jr., J.

FACTS: A Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) was executed between University of the Philippines Los
Banos Foundation, Inc. (UPLBFI), ISAAA 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 on September 24, 2010. The pest-resistant crop subject of the field trial was described as a
"bioengineered eggplant." The crystal toxin genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) were
incorporated into the eggplant (talong) genome to produce the protein CrylAc which is toxic to the target
insect pests. The National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) thus issued a Certificate of
Completion of Contained Experiment stating that "During the conduct of the experiment, all the biosafety
measures have been complied with and no untoward incident has occurred." The Bureau of Plant Industry
(BPI) issued Biosafety Permits to UPLB on March 16, 2010 and June 28, 2010. 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 a Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO). They alleged that the Bt talong field trials violate their constitutional right to health and a
balanced ecology considering that (1) the required environmental compliance certificate under
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1151 was not secured prior to the project implementation (2) Bt talong is
presumed harmful to human health and the environment, and there is no independent, peer-reviewed
study on the safety of Bt talong for human consumption and the environment (3) a study conducted
showed an adverse effects on rats who were fed Bt corn, while local scientists also attested to the harmful
effects of GMOs to human and animal health (4) the built-in pesticides of Bt crops will lead to Bt resistant
pests, thus increasing the use of pesticides contrary to the claims by GMO manufacturers and (5) Bt talong
field test project did not comply with the required public consultation under Sections 26 & 27 of the Local
Government Code.
The respondents contentions are; (i) all environmental laws were complied with, including public
consultations in the affected communities; (ii) the Bt talong project is not covered by the Philippine
Environmental Impact Statement Law; (iii) there is a plethora of scientific works and literature, peer-
reviewed, on the safety of Bt talong for human consumption; (iv) Allegations regarding the safety of Bt
talong are irrelevant in the field trial stage as none of the eggplants will be consumed by humans or
animals (v) there is a non-observance of the rule on hierarchy of courts - Greenpeace, et.al. have no legal
standing as they do not stand to suffer any direct injury as a result of the Bt talong field tests (vi) The
precautionary principle does not apply since the field testing is only a part of a continuing study to ensure
that the field trials have no significant and negative impact on the environment.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the said petition had been rendered moot and academic by the alleged termination of the Bt
talong field testing.
2. Whether the precautionary principle applies.
HELD:

ISSUE 1: No. An action is considered 'moot' when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because
the issues involved have become academic or dead, or when the matter in dispute has already been
resolved and hence, one is not entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again
between the parties. 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.

ISSUE 2: Yes. The precautionary principle expresses the normative idea that governments are obligated to
"foresee and forestall" harm to the environment. The Rules incorporated the principle in Part V, Rule 20,
which states:
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.
When the features of uncertainty, possibility of irreversible harm, and possibility of serious harm coincide,
the case for the precautionary principle is strongest. The Supreme Court found all three (3) conditions
present.
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.
Alongside the aforesaid uncertainties, the non-implementation of the National Biosafety
Framework (NBF) in the crucial stages of risk assessment and public consultation, including the
determination of the applicability of the EIS requirements to the GMO field testing, are compelling reasons
for the application of the precautionary principle.
Adopting the precautionary approach, the Supreme Court ruled 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.
Further, the precautionary approach entailed inputs from stakeholders, including marginalized
famers, not just the scientific community. This proceeds from the realization that acceptance of
uncertainty is not only a scientific issue, but is related to public policy and involves an ethical dimension.