53.

International Service vs Greenpeach Southeast Asia

Facts:

On the procedural aspect, ISAAA sought the dismissal of the petition for writ of kalikasan for non-
observance of the rule on hierarchy of courts and the allegations therein being mere assertions and
baseless conclusions of law. EMB, BPI and FPA questioned the legal standing of Greenpeace, et al. in
filing the petition for writ of kalikasan as they do not stand to suffer any direct injury as a result of the Bt
talong field tests. They likewise prayed for the denial of the petition for continuing mandamus for failure to
state a cause of action and for utter lack of merit.

Issue:

Whether or not there is a proper jurisdiction in filing a PETITION FOR WRIT OF CONTINUING
MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF KALIKASAN

Held:

Primary Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

In Republic v. Lacap, the Court explained the related doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of
administrative remedies, as follows:

The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the
means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which administrative agencies are authorized
to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such
administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.

Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that
is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of
the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the
question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,
experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.

Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible
rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as:
a. where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
b. where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
c. where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
complainant;
d. where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive;
e. where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts
of justice;
f. where judicial intervention is urgent;
g. when its application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts
violate due process;
h. when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;
i. when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
j. when strong public interest is involved; and, (1) in quo warranto proceedings. x x x (Emphasis
supplied)

Clearly, 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."  We
MENDOZA, ETHEL JOI M
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.

MENDOZA, ETHEL JOI M