International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. vs.

Greenpeace

GR No 209271 Villarama Jr., J July 26, 2016

Petitioner: NTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE Respondent: GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA

ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO
APPLICATIONS, INC. SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA
(MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASIÑO, ET. AL.

Topic: Module 1: Introduction - The Philippine Talong

Doctrine: Precautionary principle – applicable 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.

Exceptions to moot and academic principle – 1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; 2) the
exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest involved; 3) when the
constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and
the public; and 4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. In addition, there are two (2)
factors to consider before a case is deemed one capable of repetition – 1) the challenged action was in
its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and 2) there was a
reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action.

Facts: From 2007 to 2009, the University of the Philippines Los Baños conducted contained tests on
bioengineered eggplants called the BT Talong. BT Talong was genetically engineered to kill certain
pests attacking eggplants. The tests were in partnership with International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAA). After the success of the contained tests, ISAA, in 2010,
proceeded with field tests to be conducted in five provinces.

In 2012, Greenpeace Southeast Asia Philippines filed before the Supreme Court a Petition for Writ of
Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus with prayer for Temporary Environmental Protection Order
against UPLB and ISAA. Greenpeace sought to enjoin ISAA and UPLB from conducting further field
tests as it argued, among others, that BT Talong, without the tests being peer reviewed, is presumed to
be harmful to human health and the environment. Further, Greenpeace contended that since the
scientific evidence as to the safety of BT Talong remained insufficient or uncertain, and that preliminary
scientific evaluation shows reasonable grounds for concern, the precautionary principle should be
applied and, thereby, the field trials be enjoined – this is in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of
Procedure on Environmental Cases.

ISAA and UPLB argued that the issue is already moot and academic considering that the tests were
already done.

Issue/s: Whether a Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus should be issued (i.e., is the
issue already moot and academic)

Ruling: NO.

Ratio Decidendi: In the December 2015 decision, the SC affirmed with modification the decision of the
Court of Appeals. It held that the precautionary principle applies in this case since the risk of harm from
the field trials of BT Talong remains uncertain and there exists a possibility of serious and irreversible
harm. The SC observed that eggplants are a staple vegetable in the country that is mostly grown by
small-scale farmers who are poor and marginalized; thus, given the country’s rich biodiversity, the
consequences of contamination and genetic pollution would be disastrous and irreversible.

On the issue of mootness, the SC held that it can still pass upon the case on the grounds that (a) the
exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; and (b) the case is
capable of repetition yet evading review.

However, in July 2016, SC granted the motion for reconsideration filed by ISAAA and UPLB. The SC
ruled that the case does not fall under the paramount public interest exception because the tests were
already done and there is nothing to be enjoined by the Writ of Kalikasan anymore.

This case case is not one capable of repetition yet evading review. Again, the tests were already done
in 2010. The permits for the tests already expired in 2012. No new permits were granted. Greenpeace
failed to prove that the same tests will be conducted again.

However, the SC emphasized that ISAA and UPLB cannot just simply commercially propagate BT
Talong as it appears that there are strict guidelines to be complied with particularly those outlined by a
joint circular by the DOST, DA, and the DENR.