REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
SPECIAL THIRTEENTH DIVISION
CREENPEACESOUTHEAST
ASIA (PHILIPPINES), ET. AL.,
Petitioners,
- versus-
CA-C.R. SP NO. 00013
ENVIRONMENTAL MANACEMENT
BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, ET. AL.,
Respondents.
x-------- ------------ -------- ---------- ------ ---------------- X
NOTICE OF DECISION
5 i r:
Please take notice that on May 17, 2013, a Decision, copy hereto attached,
was rendered by the Special Thirteenth Division of the Court of Appeals in the
above-entitled case, the original copy of which is on file with this Office.
You are hereby required to inform this court, within five (5) days from
receipt hereof, of the date when you received this notice and a copy of the Decision.
Copy furnished via reg. mail wi rc:
GREEN PEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILS., ET.AL.
Petitioner
No . 30 JGS Building, Sct. Tuason
Brgy. Laging Handa, Quezon City
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU
Department of Environment &: Natural Resources
DENR Compound , Visayas Avenue
Quezon City
ATTY. FILEMON D. NOLASCO
clo UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BANOS FOUNDATION
Lanzones Road, UP Los Banos College
Los Banos, Laguna
RANDY HAUTEA
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI BIOTECH APPLICATIONS SOUTHEAST ASIA CENTER
IRRI , Los Banos, Laguna
clo
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES - MINDANAO FOUNDATION, INC.
Anda cor. Rizal Street, Davao City
ATTY. MARIE DINAH S. TOLENTINO-FUENTES
Counsel for UPMFI
21F Babao Building, San Pedro Street
Davao
ATTY. FLORINIDA BLANCA
clo UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BANOS
Lanzones Road, UP Los Banos College
Los Banos, Laguna
ATTY. iJOVITO BARTE
clo BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY
692 San Andres Street . M"I"tp
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St. , Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City
ATTYS. ZELDANIA DT SORIANO
JOVENCIO H. EVANGELISTA and
VANESSA Q. MAGUIGAD
Counsel for Petitioners
Rooms 301 -302 JGS Building
No. 30 Sct. Tuason , Brgy. Laging Handa
Diliman, Quezon City 1103
ROQUE 8: BUTUYAN LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Petitioners
Antel Corporate Center
1904, 19 th Floor
121 Valero St. , Salcedo Village
1227 Makati City
MaLO SIA VELASCO TUAZON 8: TY LAW OFFICES
Counsel for ISAA
Unit 804 One Corporate Center
Dona Julia Vargas Avenue cor. Meralco Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE AUTHORITY
FPA Building , B.A. 1. Compound
Visayas Avenue, Diliman , Quezon City
CASTILLO LAMAN TAN PANTALEON 8: SAN JOSE
Counsel for Biotechnology Coalition of the Phils. , Inc.
th
th
2,d to 5 and 9 Floors, The Valero Tower
122 Valero St. , Salcedo Village
Makati Ci ty
:' iI
!
,I
I
'j'
F~EP~BLlC
'/
:1,'
!,
::;
OFiTHE PHILIPPINES '
I COUHT OF APPEALS
MANILA
,
I
'ii,
I, I ' :
I'
'III
1
"
I"
\1i
I
I"~
!
,;
~
.
I
I
:Ii!~ ,I~: : ! I
il! : ! 'I
"; ! I 1' 1:
,III, II" I I ,'
11' 1 I 1'1
il. l I ,
ih
I
;
,
'I
", I.
I
II,
1
I I
;
,
,
,I
I
SPECIACTHIR~rEENTH (13th) DIVISION
.'
" ' I '
'i
I
,
,
"
,,' 111'I'I",' 11II ,I II'
I' !
' IIi I I II'
ii, I, I ! i
Ol· I·
I':
,I! j, ! ! /
:
CA-G.R. SP No. 00013
GREENPEACE
SOUTHEAST
ASIA
,(PHILIPPINES),
Members:
MAG5ASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO
SA
PAGPAPAUNLAD
NG ' DICDICAN, Chairperson,
'GARCIA-FERNANDEZ, and
AGRIKULTURA
(MASIPAG),
ANTOt\1I0-VALENZUELA, JJ.
REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR.
BEN IVIALAYANG III,
DR.
ANGELINA
GALANG,
MR.
LEONARDO AVILA , III, MS.
CATHERINE UNTAIlAN, ATTY.
MARIA
PAZ
UJNA"
MR.
~JUANITO
MODINA,
MR.
DAGOHOY
IVIAGAWAY,
DR.
ROMEO QUIJA~JO, DR. WI::NCY
~(IAT, -ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE,
JR.,
FORMER
:SENATOR
ORLANDO MERCADO, ~"OEL
CABANGON, MAYOR EDVVARD
HAGEDORN
' and
EDWIN
MARTHINE LOpiEZ,
Petitioners,
~
versus - ,
I
,
Ii
I
ENVIRONMlENTAL /' I
I
,
, :
'!
~ ~I
11"
I
:
I'
I
II
I
1I: ·1i i i ,
'
liI'll !i 'I'
Ii'
ld
, I '
I,
I
Iii·
I
I
:'
,
,I
,
I,
I
,
!
j
,
,j
j
:,
MANAGEMENT BUREAU
THE
DEPAI:~TMENT
OF
OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESO URCES,
BURIEAU
OF
PLANT INDUSTRY ~ AND THE
FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE
AUTHORITY
OF '
THE
Promulgated:
May "17, 20'13
Z~ ~~
Acting Senior Member vice J. Elbinias per Office Order No, 206-13-ABR dated May 10, 20-13
Page 2
CA-G.R. SP No, 00013
I
Decision
x ------------------.-------:----x
DEPARTMENT
OF
II, ":
i'l' 'III'
' I' ll'
AGRICULTURE
I)P
LOS
BANOS FOU~JDATION, ING., UP
MINDANAO
FOUNDATION,
INC.,
II\lTE~!\IATI()N~L
SERVICE
FO'R ' THE
ACQUISITION
OF,
AGRIBIOTECH
.I\PPLICATIONSSOUTHEAST ASIA GENTER
I'
,
Respondents.
:'
)( --------- ------------.,;.-------~---------------------.----,----------------.~------' -----------X
j
i
,'
I
"
'.!:.I II ; ,III
:II,I; ,,'
I' ;
10
"
'II
.,
1
,! .I II ,
,:'
1!!
! I"
I I,
II I,
i,1
"
"
"~'I I! ,I
I,
"I
I.j,!
I
I'
III
III
III!,:!:
"
,,'
I . '
I
I
'I
III!I, I,
I II I
I, I
' :
,
I
I
DECISION
,
DICDICAN, J.:
I
I
I
'
'!'! '
'Ii,I; I
I
,"
.. , ,
:i1'11
!
I,
I
•
:ll! ,i; j '[ 'j, ,
I I. ' I
'
::,1 1 :
{,il
;,'1
;:' , II,
IlIii' l: i I: '
,I '
I'
I
I'
I
I
As the proverb says: "We do not inherit the earth from our
ancestor-s, we borrow it from our children". In this civilization that is
characterized by se~mingly endless possibilities in the field of
biotechnology, we a~~ i~ a continuous search for the development
and improvem~r\t cifl! our , .11l0~ern in?Llstrial. economy that would
E~ventually provide a ,sustainable quality of life for each and eVE~ry
citizen of the PI~'!ilippines. Our ecology, as much as we wanted to
preserve it, is inevitably tampered in the process and put to risk as we
continue to seareh forI i new methods that are perceived to be more
efficient and beneficial for everyone. The proponents of biotechnology
claim that it is high-time that the beneficial technologies eire
introduced into our society. Those who are against them, on the other
hand, argue that we would soon experience an ecologic crisis shoul d
we allow these developments to influence our way of living.
I
Consequently, in the midst of the so-cal:led benefic.ial
technologies, we are also unavoidably faced with possible resource
depletion and other unintencled side effects which they may bring. Elut
are the risks to the environment and to our health worth them? .As
mere trustees of odr ! children to the use and enjoyment of ou r
~cosystem, coulc! we 'gl uararte~ its preservation and safety until such
time that we turn then;i 'l over to our children?
"'! II'~ ,
If
Ii' I,
"
j.
I
!
I
L
'1
'
I
I
,I
i(: ,
1'1" I
1. , 1
i
,j'
III
I
t
j
,
I
" ili' lII
I'h,
:1' ::I I
I I! ;'I' ; ! ,
It
I
t ti l
I •I :
'
I II
; iii
III",.,
, I, ,I
i
, '!
1,1
' I"" I I'
I
1
,
II'Ii ; I ': ,
t :
I
I
"
II "
"
'
I '
'J"
I
I
,
•
I
I
ttl
.J
I
+l
:; ;;. i
I I, " ,
1['
Ii,
I:
II:,I.
1
:1
t
!II
'
I
,:' ,
11
I,
I
I
'
I' ll
J
II li !i
1!"
il ! i 1
I
I
II
'I'
'
I
ecology.
I
I
1" 1
,'"
I,
I!,' II :
lii 'I: ' .
\I, 1'
i ll';
' I '
I I,
"j
II
it
II"
1'1
,
,I
I
I
I
t
;,
I:
I
• I
, II
I
1"[1 I
I
II I I II I ,I
i
I!
I'
,I
:
, I
i
I; :
,
,
.
I I
I
;1
II
.
,,,
I
'
!
dre~~p~ac~;
II
I
l
,' ):1, 1
I :I
'1
1
;1
,Petitioner
Southeast Asia Philippirles ("petitioner
Greenpeace") is a ~6n-profit ! domestic civil society or~Janization
formed for the purpose of serving as a beacon of public awareness in
environmental protection and sustainable development in the country.
On the other han~' 1 petitioner Magsasaka at Siyentipiko :3a
Pagpapaunlad n!~ Agrikultu ra ("petitioner Masipag") is an other civil
society organizat'ion 0thich is composed of farmers, scientists and
other non-governmental organizations who are all "workin ~1 towards
the sustainable use and management of biodiversity throug h farmers'
control of genetic and biological resources, agricultural production
and associated knowledge'? Meanwhile, the other individual
petitioners were ~;uing as citizens of the Philippines in the exercise of
their respective constitutional , right to a balanced and healthfu l
ecology and on behalf 10f Filipinos and of nenerations of Filipinos yet
unborn.
Ij
Page 3
Before us i ~; a Petition for Writ of Continuingl Mandamus and
Writ of Kalikasa n'l ("'petition") !,with prayE~r for the issuance of a
temporary enviro.nmental protection order (TEPO) filed by herEin
petitioners pursuant to A.M. No. 09-6-B-SC, also known as the Rules
of Procedure for Environmental Cases, praying, among others, that
the public respondents be restrained from conducting the field trials of
bt talong, a genetically-modified organism, on various locations in the
Philippines on the ground that the said field trials violate or threaten
to violate the right of tHe Filipino citizens to a balanced an d healthful
1
Jl
l'i ;, 1" :1
[ II '
I
I'
x -------------------------,---x
I, "
,i
.:
!'
CA-G.R. SP No. 000'13
Decision
't o
i'
I'
I
. I
;i' I:
I
I
,
[ I
"
'I
,I
1.
I
i
,On the part I of ':the respondents, publib respondent
Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of
Environment and ,Natural Resources ("public respondent EMS") is the
fJovernment agency:;, which i grants environmental compliance
certificates (ECCs) Irelative to ' its mandate of protecting t~le
environment. Impleaded as additional public respondents were the
Bureau of Plant Industry ("public respondent BPI") and th e Fertilizer
and Pesticide Authority ("public respondent FPA") of the O,3partment
of Agriculture wh ich are the government a!jencies responsi ble for the
1
2
Rollo, Volume 1, pag'es 2-73.
Ibid, page 5.
,I
'1111I11i:I' '" iIi II
I lk "
:11;' :' / : ',! 'i
WI I
I,
, i
,
iii
I
'I
',
ji
I
,!:
I
I/fll
i'
i ,
!!
<'
I
I
,
I
'
Page 4
CA-GR. SP No . 00013
Decision
X -------------------------:.,. ---x
:
:
,
I
ta/(~ng
!
issuance of bt
fidld trial permit and its possible registration as a
herbicidal produc1: in tHJ future, respectively. ,
: .
t;,''! .:I'I:lj 'i ':
,ill'
' I
'
il l!" , I ' ,
" Ii i ,I
:II'i, I',
'/ III
,'III,' q! I ', ,
ti.
t
\11 I
II,
1Ii'1'
I I
I',:
II'
1
; I
,'1
k
~, I'
ILl I:
(I
i I
II
II:
iii
,,'
,
i'
I
:
I
II
'
':
I
i
111111,i , , 1,:: :1 .
.. . i
Private respondents University of the Philippines Los Banos
("private respond l.3nt UPLB"), an educational institution, University of
the Philippines Los Banos Foundation Inc. ("private respondent
UPLBFI") and Un ivers)'ty of the ~hilippines Mindanao Foundation, Inc.
("priv~te respond(:lnt UPMFI") were likewise impleaded in this petition
as the proponents of /?t talong : field trials. Later, private respondent
UPMFI was cliscl~\ arged as a respondent-party in this suit pursuant to
the manifestation :with motion that was filed by the petitioners in order
to expedite the prbceedings and resolution of the instant petition .
i
,
,
,
I
, I
! I
11
1
:::1' 1' 1"1: i
'
,
L
'I" ' I "" I,
I"
' I Ii'I
1,1,
I" ';1
'
,;1"
lI,!,idI,
I
i,
II
:1
i
'
" I
I'
'I
,:
1'1
I
II
I .!
.
!I,
'1,1, I
i i i
i
II'i ,
I I,
I ' II
I'
i ,
I
,
Ii
I
i il li I i: Iii 'Id l, . ..' .
.:
I
f
·
'Th e IIlstant, controversy' raws rts origin In the M'emoranc um 0
'
.
,
Ii I
I
'
.
.
Undertaklng 3 ("~\J10Un that was entered Into amon!] prlV81te
respondents UPLBFI', ISAAA !, and UPMFI which was aimed at
undertaking
ref;earch and I development programs for the
, development of ' pest~ resistant crops. Specifically, the research
involved the multi-Ioda'tion field trials of bacillus thuringiensis ("bt'')
eggplant ("talong :') , a igenetically engineered eggplant which confE!rs
resistance to frui t and shoot borer C'FSB") that is considered as ol1e
of the several pests that infest an eggplant. The eggplant itself does
not confer resistance but it carries with it a transgene, "cry "1AC", that
is derived from the soil bacterium bt which, in turn, confers r·esistance
to FSB.
i
;1
III ',: , i'! I
Illi, I ,; I
ill Ii, ,i
i!' II
'
I
,
Private resr)ondent International Service for the l Acquisition of
Agri-Biotech Applications Southeast Asia Center ("private rEjspondent
ISAAA") was al,so made a party-respondent herein, being the
international on~aniiation which supported the collaborative
undertaking and I~rovided assistance for the field testing of bt talong.
,
,
:
. i
In the Field Trial : Proposal 4 and Public I nforl~ati on Sheets for
Field Testing 5 that were attached to the aforesaid MOU it was stated
therein that multi-Ioc~tion field Itrials for biosafety ass~ssment of bt
talong would be lSon?I'u,bted by the parties to the MOU in cooperation
, I
,
II I I
Ibid, Exhibit "A", pagf s 82-~4,
Ibid, Exhibit "A-F', p ~ ges 85-94.
Ibid, Exhibit "A-2", pi{l ges 95-121 ,
,
I: !
,!
'
,
I
!i
,..~' L,
!I
IIf, !I
!
,
!~.I' :I'III!. : III! ,:j1 ,!I
"
I
It
:1 ,
1
!1
I!,
'
:,
1
,
I
,
I
I
, I'll , '!
i II:
;i ;,
I I,;1'1
,
CA-G.R. SP No. 000:13
Decision
II :If;
':
,:"
III': 'I'!; " III: :iI
I
1;," 1
I,
IIIII'I
III
!,
i
I'
1i
'f
,
II
,
Itll'
il l l
I
I
J'
j ,
I ''j'
'I
, ,1
1
11
'1
"lllli'' 1 I'
I
I
,I:
II
I
I
I'
I
!
,I
ii ,
'I'il ,
i,
','j 'l
-," ,
I' I
:, I ,I!
I
11,1
I, ,! ,i III
III
ill
I
1
;
,I'
,I
I
~
II
I
,
"
I
,II,
'I
"
1,1'11 ,,1 : 1'
11,1"
II", ': '
11:, 1 I I
I,
i!
11 I
' I: II ,
"
II
I:: II! ; I,
I, ! I :'
I".I Ij I ,I"
'j
1,1
! .I
'i ' ,1,1'I
j'i,l' l .III
I
,I
II," I
'I,
I
i
1
1
I
\
I. '
"
'
,I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I :1
1
I
; i
I
'
I i
Page 5
d'
Ii i
'
,
i
1
.
:
I
,
,
,
Ii I
!
1. ,RAFCI ,- Stc\. Malria, Pangasinan;
2. DA Region n - lI~gan, Isabela;
3. PhilRice -- I\Auno'z ', Nueva Ecija;
4. IPB-UPLl3 -~ Brgy: Paciano Rizal, Bay, Laguna;
5. CSSAC - Pili, Camarines Sur;
6. DA Region II - Iloilo;
7. Visayas Sta'te University - Baybay, Leyte;
8. UP Mindanao -- Bago Oshiro, Davao City; and
9. University of Southern Mindanao - Kabacan, North Cotabato
1.1, I. I
Ii ,1111 I
I"
!
I •
,
'I'
, I I, ,
1,1,
1.1
'
i
with the United States Agency for International I Development
("USAIO"), Cornell University-Agricultural Biotechnology Support:
Project II ("Cornell University") and Maharashtra Hybrid Seed
Company ("MAHYCO") with private respondent UPLB as the lecld
proponent. FurthBr, the proposal indicated that the field tri als would
be conducted for two (2) years with initial target planting in Octob'er
2009 and with th f: end yiew of generating information on tho efficacy,
yield and horticu jtural :p erformance of bt talong . Furthermore, they
provided that the prop:dsed field, testing sites would be approximately
One !housand. (I ,0~lgt ~p ! lq l~wo Thousand Five Hu~dred (2,.500)
square meters In iareq! per site per season at the following locations ,
,
II I
'
I
to wit;
, ,,
;, I, il .J, I ,
, I,
,,
l
,I:
II
Jl.
X ------------------------- ,~ ---x
'I"
,It
I
i
I
i
I
j.
Finding thai! the ,field test 'p roposal had satisfactdrily completE~d
the biosafety risk , assessment for field testing, the public respondent
BPI issued. Bios~'fety ~ ~~rm.its for Field Testi~g6 appr?~ing th j~ conduct
l
of the multi-location fleltl tnals of bt talong with a validity period of two
(2) years from thE~ ti m~ lef th~ir i~suance on March 16, 2010. Pursuant
thereto, the field trials' were coriducted by the private respondents in
various locations throughout t:h~ country.
.
I'
iI
,
'
i
,In view of the fo~egoing 'a ntecedents, the petitioners filed the
instant petition in the ' Supreme ! Court on April 26, 2012 praying that
the said Court issue
continuing mandamus and w rit of kalikasan
against the respondents to stop the conduct of the multi-location field
tl-ials on the ground that the said field trials violate the environmental
right of the Filipino people to a balanced and healthful ecology. Tile
:a
6
Ibid, Exhibits "8 " to "8-6", pages 152- 158.
iI
II
i •
! " ,; ,
:,'I' ,I' 'II'I ''I '
,,;
!,' 'r L
I~., '~, '
I
I
II
.Ii ~
'
I
".
.
I
'I
'
i
;
CA-G.R. SP No, 000,13 I
Decision
,i
I
'i'
1
11"1'
I
';
I
I
I
:, 1
H
'
!L'I li!1" i i ,
11
1:i ." 1' :I 'I 'Ii i
I III
'I:
I'
II;,.
,
i'
i
I
II
i
I I .• . ,I
I
1:,:
,1
i:::
1 1:'1' :
lll.;, I I
:1
I
,I
1, ,I"
,I
, i 11,:1
Ii, " , ,I:
II
I
It
I
.::
'
I '
I"
.
I
I
! ,
I i
, I
Apart from the private respondents· supposed non-compliance
with the PEISS Law, the petitioners alleged that the conduct of the bt
falong field trials ,likewise did not comply with Sections 26 and 27 of
the Local Goverrlment Code (LGC) which mandate the conduct of
prior consultations with affected local communities and require that
the consent of the affected sanggunians be obtained on projects and
programs that m~y cause pollution, loss of crop land, rangeland or
of animal or plant species.
forest cover and E~xtinction
,
:
I,
'II' '
II
II
?l
'
I1 "II', I" I!!
,'II
" ,II ,
f
li' l i
I' "
'
Page 6
sa id. fase was
R. No. 201390. .1 n suppo rt of the
petitioners' prayerl for ~He IsslJailce of a Writ of continuing mandamus,
the petitioners averred that, pursuant to Presidential Decree No,
1586" in relation , to Presidential Decree No, 115'1, the Philippine
Envir6nmental ItTlpad :Stateme~t System (PEISS) was established
which required the submission of an environmental impact ~3tatement
before any proposal or ' project by a government agency or a private
entity that significantly affects the environment may be implemented,
In line with the PEISS, the DENR issued iDepaliment Administrative
Order No. 2003<'>0 ("DAO 2003-30") which requires any project that
poses a potenl~ ial environmental risk to secure from it an
environmental compliance certificate (ECC) which would certify that
the proposed prdject or undertaking wou ld not CaUSfJ a significant
negative impact :on the environment. It is the contention of the
petitioners that the bt ~ talong field trials is an activity that sionifican'dy
affects the enviro,nmeh!t, citing bepartment Administrative Order No,
08-2002 ("DAO O:8-20'o~::)
t,h~ DENR which presumes geneticallymodified organisims 11:as l ha~mrul to and significantly affects the
environment. Cohsequbntly,' the petitioners maintained that the bt
talong field trials did i not comply with the PEISS Law In that the
proponents of th~~ saild, field tripls did not secure an ECC from the
, DENR.
[I I
·
,
"
,II
I
I
j
gOCK~t~d a~ :, ~.
x ------;------------------':---\
,
,
I '
i
, , I
Ii
, i
I'
II'"',' "II' I' 'I
'ii
l .) i
II,I I I; i ,'Ii
,
, I
1,1 " i ' ,
II'
,I.
!'
I" II ,
:
i','"
11:,1
1" ' 1"
1:1;
,I
I
il
i,;,:1 :
"I I I,', II,
'I
I,I, 1'1,11 II
I,
"I, ,I ,I'
II "
1'1
i
I'
I
II
, : I'
~ f!i
Anent the ;petit'ic~ners' p~ayer for the issuanc~ of a writ of
kalikasan, they contellld ed that ~he conduct of multi-location field trials
of , bt l talong Vi~l.c't,es I! ~ ~e'ir c~:)I1' stitutional and environmental right, 3S
well as of the FIilfjlno people, to!a balanced and healthful ecology aile!
it disrega.rds H~e ' pre~autio~ary I principl~ which serves as a g.L~ide in
the exercise of the sa!cI envlron~ental right. Moreover, the petltlonE:rs
as:severated that ,the r~spondelts violated their constitutio nal right to
::
I
I
i :i
. :
1
!
i
,
1:[ !i:I,I;,,','
[I
''': I
I
1
11 ;::1 :
I
'j
'
, i,
Page 7
CA-G.R. SP No. 00013
Decision
'x ---------------------.----"--- X
i'
:!
,I I
, i
be informed on aq mat't ers of public concern, includidg fhe ri t~ht of the
public to paliicipation and consumer protection. In add ition, the
petitioners claimE1d that the respondents violated , the provisions of
Administrative Order No. 8 and the National Biosafety Framework of
the Philippines (Executive Order No. 5'14) in that they failed to
conduct any valid risk !assessment before conclucting the bt talong
field trials. According itl?1them, t0e private respondents, who were the
prop~nents of thEj sa:l~ Ifif3l~ Itrials, should not have relied completely
on , the ' studies of MAHYCO lin India and should have instead
cond~lcted an ind!?pen~~nt and rigid scientific assessment of the risks
of the project in order to be certain that it would not pose any threat to
the environment. i
:i
i
i
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
,
'
'1
,I
:
' I,
:
I
'
.
j
i
i
I
'
.
_
:
In a Resolution ,dated ,May 2, 20-12, the Suprenle Court acted
on the petition by 'issuing
writ of kalikasan against herein
respondents and ,orcle'ring them to make a verified return of the said
writ within a non-extendible period of ten ('10) days from their receipt
of the Notice? fn)m the Supreme Couri. Meanwhile, the Supreme
Court held in abeyance the resolution of the petitioners' prayer for the
issuance of a wri1! of continuing ;mandamus pending the responden~:s'
filing of their verified return.
a
,
,111 1
i
:
iii ,:' ;:I I' il
I iii, ,I. i
Ii
I'
Ii : I
, ' I
" III I
I
1
:,:
I' :", :
111111'
,
1'1' iii I' I
,II'
1
I
illI'llI I' ,II I
1
ii"
:.1
;I
111
I
,
~I
;1
IJ
il
I
1,1, :,:,1"I 1'1
II II
II
jll
I
I:I;, I'll:
'I
I 1:1'1
I
I
I,
I'
!
i
. i .~
Ill.
'
:
, ,
i
I
I
However, by way of affirmative defense, private respondent
I SAAA claimed that the petition should be dismissed outright for
failure of the petitioners to observe the hierarchy of courts and on the
I
,
I
1
In
I I,'I, I' :I I I'
1
I
,
!I
I
!
On May 22;, 20~ 2" private respondent ISAAA filed its Verified
F~etur, n8 ~hereby : it ~~.ritte:d 1 ~~lat it entered into a lVIemorandum of
Unde,r taklllg 9 With p~l lyate: I re~pondents UPLBFI and UPMFI on
September 24, :2010 : Ifor Ithe I purpose of pursuing research and
1
development prograills for the I development of pest-resistant crops
through .fiel? trials. M?r~over, itl stated that the bt talong project was
then 'at Its Implernent~tlon stage already on four (4) field trial sitE;S,
, namely: (1) UPLB; (2)1 Sta. Maria, Pangasinan; (3) CBSUA - Pili,
Camarines Sur; ;3nd (4) University of Southern Mindanao at South
Cotabato.
I ,
,
7
8
9
Ibid, pages 400-401, :
Ibid, pages 437-547. '
Supra, Note No, 3. !
,
,
I"
I,
I'
'
,,
"
I
II I
I~: : ;' ;!, I. II ,i
I
i"
I
I
,
,
:
,
Page 8
CA-G.R. SP No. 000 13
Decision
i
X
:I
""
!
,
',1111
II:
II"
I: III
I
I
"~ I
!:
~
I
~
II
,II ",
II
I
!,;
'
i" Ii ' '
'Ii,:
I'
1",1" , :!
ti l 11'11
I,
·1
1.1' lila, I
'1ii,'1 lill
':
"II' I,:
,i, I .. ,,, Ii
II J ' I i
,
I'!
I'
,I, ! 'I I I
111': II ,'!1 I: Ii
I,
I,
"
.II
,
II'
I'
II
;
"
' ,'I'
jl';
I,
ii
II
,'
'
:
I
,
I
,
I
!
,
1' 1
I
,
i
I
At any rate, ! how~\rer, private respondent ISAAA ~osited that the
precautionary principle is not applicable in this case since the field
testing was only !a part of an ongoing and continuous study which
VIlas conducted ill a controlled , and isolated environment to ensure
that the said field: trials would n6t pose any significant risk on human
health and envimnment. In fact, it averred that the field tdals were
experimental in nature and that they are the very precautionary
measure which the i respondents were undertakinrJ in deciding
whether or not .to rdlease b't talong in the market for human
:
I i" .I 1'.
I
I,':",
ground that the ! alleg!ations therein were mere ! assertions and '
baseless conclus ion.s i~f la~. In: oPP?sing the petitione!s' pr~y~r for
the issuance of a Writ ?f kalll<asqn, private respondent ISAAA Insisted
that the respondents c6mplied with all environmental laws to enSUI"e
that the people's ; right :to a balanced and a healthful ecology was
protected and respected. Moreover, it denied the allegations of the
petitioners that th ~~ public was not given the opportunity to participate
in the decision-making concerning the bt talong field trials and that
the public was neit granted access to information regardin~1 the said
project. On the contrary, it argued that the respondents conducted
extensive public , consultations and awareness-raising activitiE;s
regarding the bt talo'1g field tripls and obtained the consent of the
respective sanguunians where the field trials were conducted.
Further, in oppos ~' ng th~ petitioners' prayer for the issuance of a writ
of continuing mar:lda~'Ljsl privat~ respondent ISAAA submitted that it
was hot an age(lcy 1I 1
6r ;1 1i'ris~:rILi~entality of the government against
whoni a writ of cdntinJihg 'm'a nqamus may be issued. Furthermore, it
insisted that the biosafety framework of the public respondent BPI
which granted the I: j;)iosafety: permits amply safeguarded the
~nvironmental policies, r nd ~Ioals which were being promoted by the
F EISS.
,
!:I ,
:
I
I
,I I"
I II:;
1 1"
:
------.,------------------·;---x
!,
,
" ,
,
,
1' 1
III'
!
i
:I
,I
consumption.
II
I I 1 11' 1,1'11.;
' 1
II 1'1I I
"I ' I
!, ' " "
'
I'
I
I
•
I
~ Lastly, priv(~te r~spondent ISAAA averred th ~t fhe petitione rs'
application for trie issuance of a TEPO should be denied on the
~J rounds that the 'petitioners had no clear legal right to the same alld
that there was no m~tter of e)(treme urgency that would warrant its
issuance. Also, it: stressed that ~the petitioners would not suffer grave
injustice and irreparable
the conduct of the bt talong fie ld
, injury from
,
,
, I
I '
:i: Ii: !
l i' 1
p'' '
" j :
ti 1 L
I' !
I•
,
,
,I
'! (
!i~ li "1 "il '
'j/' If
i 1;1,11
ii'
I,I I"
,;1'1 I
I
I'll ;: ;!
,I
I
I
~
I
"
I
I
II
. I
1
I
'
I
I 'I" I I'['
:i l ,l,L['' ,I ,:::
'
I I
,I i"
!
Ii'I
I
"
,.
,I
Page 9
CA-G,R, SP No. 00013
Decision
11
I
I
I
x -------------------------,;!,---x : '
i
I
;
trials,
i
In their Retdlrn df !the Writ10 public respondents EM B, BPI and
FPA, represented by tl78 Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), denied
the, ~aterial ~"eg.:a~i~n,~ tha~ ~Tre stated by the p~titioners. in their
pe~ltl~n and, III~e pnvrt\ e'l.re~~~~~ent ISAAA, :they raised thEl Is~ue of
the alleged failure of Ithe petitIoners to adhere to the doctnne of
hierarchy of court's. Likewise, the public respondents questioned the
petitioners' legal standing to file the instant petition on the ground th 3t
none ,of the petitioner~ :have' claimed that they sustained damage or
prejuqice by reason of ~h e conduct of the bt talong field trials. Thus,
the public respondents posited that the petitioners were not the
"persons aggrievE~d" who may institute the instant petition under the
Rules of Procedure on Environmental Cases.
,
,
I
!:I',; , ,
'I': ,';1,
II II
'll
!;
Ilu
II
II,
:;:,'
l!
'IiL' Ii !: I 'I
II ,
I
I
, I, ,
Iii iil:;;,;l
I
I II'I''111,1" IIil
;\' I'1. I ''1,1'I
Ii
I:
I
' II
111
Ii
I:
III
1
!', ! ,' I I
"
"t
II
I;
I
I
,:
I'
,I
, ,
i
I
,
I
I
d
•
'I " ,
,Ii,
'I l
I!Ii ,1\:
i':"
'
\
III
!:
I
!'
I
I,
'I
,I·
I
'I
",j
"
I
i"~
",' 1';'1"I, ,'II"II
1'I, 'il
~
l
:,1,
1I, I ,
~,
I
,
I
I I
I I
,· Ii
l '!
II '1 i; I'!
:1
I
"If
. I
J
'
•
I
I
,I
I
,
I
Ii ,
i
.1
'I'
i: I
I';ii
Ii
I
I
:
I
i:lj"
I.
I
~ I ,i
il il ,
'II 'i ll
Ii; Ii
11.I . ;' "
I
I,
~I
I
i
As to the petitioners' prayer for the issuance! of a writ of
continuing mandc~ mus, the public respondents averred that the sa me
must be denied for the petitioners' fail ure to state a cause of action
and for lack of merit. Moreover, they asseverated that the itisues that
were raised by the petitioners involved technical matters which
pertain to the special competence of public respondent BP I which
determination is entitled to great respect and fin ality,
I
011
I
,
Moreover, tHe public respondents alleged that the!remedy of the
writ of kalikasan VIlas unavailing to the petitioners in that there was no
unlawful act or omission that could be considered to be in violation of
the petitioners' rinht to ia balanced and healthful ecology. /\Iso, th E~ y
maintained that .there , was no environmental damage of such
magnitude as to I.~ reju~ice the life, health and property of inhabitants
in two or more cities~dr , provinces, stressing that the precautionary
principle fi'nds no! ap~ :iEatio ~ :i,ri\ the insta nt case , Further, the pub~ ic
respondents reiterate private respondent ISAAA's stance that there
was no violation of erh/ironmental laws, rules and regul ations in the
conduct of the bt ,
talong
field trials
and that the said project was not
I
'
covered by the PEISS Law and Sections 26 and 27 of the Local
/! /
Government Codtr
I'
:tI
1:1
iii I :1'[III" II
I
'
Ii,
I
I
1I'Ii HI
1
I 'i
I
I
:1
I :' [ :
,
- - - - - - -i , Ii
Rollo, Volume II, pages 1 ~16 :)47.
. , I
!
I 1 1:1: I
1
10
I
I'
[,
l
.
I"
\'1
r
I,
I
!
I
1
,
.
.
I
"
:
,
,
"
III! 'I
I
I
,
,
,
'I
'
" CA~G.R. SPNo. 000L3
Decisi6n
,
II
r
i
I
I
,
I
I
,
I'
..
,', 1'1
"
Il,I!;'~I'il,j:1 iI'i .
,!
1,, 1 , !
i ,,1i/ i' .1II
; i i
1
Il l · '
JII .
,
II
I:II,,1,1111
; ,,111
'1'1
' " , ;t't
,
I
iiI.
jl
"1"
I
,
't
l i,i
"I
:,
,
I'
,"
d
'I
I
~:
I
Ii,
I
'
page 10
I
.
::
i
,
I
Private reslPonde'nt UPLBFI, in its Return,11 'admitted the
existence and dUEl e)(~dution of the memorandum of undertaking that
was entered into 'among the private respondents for the conduct of
the bt talong field trials, as well as the existence of the biosafety
permits that wen~ issued by public respondent BPI. However, it
argued that the bt talong field trials wou ld not si~Jnificant:ly affect the
quality of the environment or pose a hazard to human health.
Moreover, it asseVerated that the proponents of the said field trials
had fully and fc~ ithfully complied with existing laws, rules and
regulations prior b;:> and :during the conduct of the project, add ing th at
it was no longer r\ eces~ary to secure an ECC for the project since it
would not significiantly [affect the environment. According to priva:e
re~pordent UPU~FI'f!IIW,,~, ~~ I, ~~~ a "plethora of scientific work s,
literat~re, peer-rEtvie~el dt, '; o,n ,I, t,he safety of bt talong for humcln
consumption". Pr:ivate' respondent UP LBFI's return was later on
adopted by privat:e rekpondent !UPLB in its Answer 12 to th e petition
that was filed by tile latter on August 24, 2012.
:
; ' Ii I
: I
' In a Resolul ion1~ dated July 10,2012, the case was referred by
the Supreme Co urt to ithis Court for the acceptance of the I' eturns of
the writ that were :filed ! by the respondents and "for hearing, reception
of evidence and I rendition of judgment". Thus, on September 12,
2012, this Court held ; a preliminary conference whereby this COLirt
resolved to first thresh' out some procedural issues which were raised
by herein responc!ents in this case, to wit:
I
I
i
J
i
'I'
' I ~i' !
i.l"
!:, ;I I !; [
;
"
,
'I'
11' 1
X --------------------------j---X I':
,
II
,
I
I
i
I
I
I,
,Ii I
I·
!
a. Whether 'or n<?t the petitioners have the legal ~)tan d ing
to file the il1!~tant petition; ,
I
,
I'
I!
,I
I
'I I
•
;
I
1,· 1
.
'
:
b. Whether !or 1~' ~ I ~i h~, i i l')~~l ant petition had been rendered
I academic
by the allegation of the
as
moot ;and
l
,
I
'
I
respondents that ,field trials had already been conclu ded;
and
; II
i' I
'" i "
I
/
i
:i
i
i
; i
:c. Whether or I not the petitioners had presented a
'justiciable cpntroversy.
i
,
I '
- - - - - - -)
I:
II
11
!
j.
i
I
I
I
13
I
i
I
'
Ibid, Volume III, pagEls 2009-2079.
Ibid, pages 2'/20-21 ~13.
Ibid, pages 2WO-21c!1.
1
II
ii
1
!,
'I "", " ,
' 111
I""1.
~
'I"i
tli
"
i II I'!I
I"
I,I , '11,' I,,
]1'1 I
III
' I,
1
I I" P J ' I
I'll II
II,t
III,
11.,
1' , 1
1' 1'1
I
II:' I i
I 'I ;
I'I'I,
:
di
i
~
; , 'I
I
I
,
,
1
,
i
!
'
I
II
Ii I:
II'
I, !
1
'
I
CA-GR. SP No. 000'13
Decision
I
,
I
I
,
1
Page 11
x '- -------------------------i--- x
, i
t(~
If
,
I ',iii : "'Ii iI~Ifi:'' 'i :flI'
II I 1I ~; ~:lI :! I:: , :l 'r
ill
"i
I
"
1
I I!'
I,;
:
! !
I
1111,1.
"I"
I" "
I
11111111' I I
~ I ::; ,! 11 I
I,; i 1 I
I
II, , I Ii '
I"
I " 1j ' I'', '',I
I i, I i
I'
,1
II I
,I',i ,
'I
I
Iii
I
'I';'
,i
i
,11:1 '
i",l
Il'
I
:1
I
i
•
i
;i :
i i lt! iii III1I1
I If
th~ir
In order
sJJport
respective contentions on the
aforementioned issue~f Iboth i Pi3~ies were then directed by this Court
,to I s~bmit l' their j ardJn~~r)~11 !':i,i~ 1 the form : of memoran da. In a
Resolution 14 date:d O:c~obeq 112, 2012, this Court ruled that the
petitioners had th e leg'al stahdi~g to file the instant petition . FurthE'f,
this C,ourt did not share the I re~pondents' view that the mstant ca~,e
must be dismisse,~ on 'Ithe ground of mootness, noting that the issues
which : were raised by !hereil) p~titione rs were "capable of re petition
yet evading review" sihbe the bt talong field trial was just one of the
phases or stage's ofi an overall and bi~Jger study that is being
conducted in relation to the said genetically·-modified organism. In this
reg ard, the said resolution likewise stated that the petitioners hEld
presented justiciable questions which were within the ambit of this
Court to resolve .
I
I:
,ii, ,tI ,1
!
j
i
,
:
I
!
Hearing on i the ,merits of the case then ensue1d. During the
parties ' presentation ~f i evidence on November 20, 2012, this Court
applied the Austrqlian I;'hot-tub" method in which the expert witnesses
of bot,h parties wE::e S~?, ~~ ; i ~\~~d presented, at t~'le ~ame_ time in the
form of a free-fIO\l\{lng l <tlIFCUSSlo~ land cross-examination of each other
as Iw~1I as questidningl! Of th~m by the Court itself. For tile pa rt of the
petitioners, they presdhted the following expert witnesses, to wit: (1)
Dr. Ben lVlalayan~J III ICDr. Malayang"); (2) Dr. Charito Medina ("Dr.
l\JIedina"); and (3) Dr. !iTUShnar IChakraborty ("Dr. Chakraborty"). On
the other
hand, the r~spondents
presented their own experts, as
,
1
I
follows: (1) Dr. RE~ynal,do Ebara fOr. Ebora"); (2) Dr. Saturnina Halos
("Dr. Halos"); (3) Dr. Flerida Carino ("Dr. Carillo"); and (4) Dr. Pe1:t3r
Davies ("Dr. Davies"). , In addition to the aforesaid expert witnesses,
the respondents, on separate dates, presented the testirnonies of
Atty. Carmela Segui : ("Atty. Segui"), Ms. Merle Palacpac ("M s.
Palacpac"), Mr. Mario Navasero ("Ms. Navasero") and Dr. Randy
Hautea ("Dr. Hautea").
t
,
I
,
1
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
!
I
!
Meanwhile, on Ndvember 20, 20'12, the Biotechnology Coalition
of the PhilippineE~, In ~ . 1 (BCPI). ;fi!ed an ~rgent Motion for Le~ve to
Interv1e ne as ResiPonl~li~~;'~, i , ~I~a/I~ lng that It ~acl the legal standing to
. 14
I,
2311-23~4.
I!
I J"
/
Ibid,1pages
1; 1, II I
Ibid,1Volume IV, pagEis 2450-2460, ,
;,
I,, ,,
I
,I
Ij
!
i
,
'I
!
I
I
I,
I,:[!
,t ~
,
I:i
I,
I
I
'
'I
CA-G.R. SP No. 000 ) 3
Decision
:
I' ! i
x --l---~~------------------'--- x : I
,
I
'
I
1'1
t
'
' I
i
f,
I ,
:,
i
,
I
:
i
Page 12
,
I
I
,
!
i
i
" I
intervene in this (~ase.i In the said motion, BCPI alleged that it is a
non-stock, non-profit association aimed at promoting and developing
the safe and respo'lsible use of modern biotechnology in the
Philippines. Accol~ding to BCPI, it stands to suffer a direct injury
should this Court grant the reliefs prayed for in the instant petition as
it would cause the: wheels of biotechnology research in the country to
grind into a halt. Moreover, it averred that its intervention would not
unduly delay or pmjudice the adjudication of the rights of the partiE!s
in this case.
,
,
,
I
II
II
"I
'
"
1
~owever, in a ~WDol,4ti;9 ~.~'1 1 dated January 16, '2013, this Court
de~ied the' urgent motI6k'l intervene that was filed by BCPI for lack
of me~it. Conseql.l'entl~; Ion Febr~lary 1, 2013, I3CPI filed a Motion for
Reconsideration 17 'of tHe January 16, 20'13 resolution of this iCourt but
the s~id motion iwas li ,likewise i denied in this Court's subsequent
Resolution 18 dated FeIJrpary ~ 1, ~013.
I
tq,
,
'1'1'
i
i
ll
I
!
1
After both parties , had filed thei r formal offers of 'evidence and
rested their case, they: simultaneously filed their memoranda on MclY
2, 2013 in support of their respective sides of the case. Pursuant to ,
A.M. No. 09-6-·8-6C, this Court has sixty (60) days from the time
when the petition was submitted to it for decision within which to
mnder a judgment. Thus, we now resolve.
I
,
i
1
I
,
I, I
I I
I
'In this CoLltft's e'a1rlier resolution on October 12, i 201 2, certain
procedural issues: that ~ere raised by the respondents had already
been passed upon, in:cluding , the petitioners' locus standi to file the
instant petition
ard
~ Il lpres'
of a justiciable controversy th at
, , I
,
i
It. 111I
I 'Ie rlte
J
warrapts the intenvent ,on ' of I thi~ Court. As these preliminary matte rs
were : already rE}solv~~ before the parties went on with the
presentation of tl:'eir ~espective pieces of evidence, we shall now
proce~d to the di~;cus~ion of the merits of the instant petition with the
sol,e .issue at ha~~l. Di~ Ithe con~uct of the bt falong field tri als violate
the nght of the Fillplno l people to! a balanced and healthful ecology?
ii
l
I ,
In
addressir~g t~i~
I
.
II,
17
18
I
i I
I
Ibid, pages 2884-28 7'1,
Ibid, pages 2956-29 i 4,
Ibid, pages 3215-321f
I '
!
I
I
'
I
,
!I
iI
!,
I
Issue, we are, In turn, corlfrdnted with the
I, ,'
I I
!
,
CA-G.R. SP No. 000·/3
Decision
,
Page 13
!
, I
X .. -------------------------.:- --X
,
l'
;,
ii'l
,i, " i
ill;, 'IIi:: ,i'l' ,
I II'
"I
I't, :111
11
II
)·1
I'll'
1'1'
,i
I
II
I
!
I
I
' ,I
!,
1
1',,1;,
'II
Ii,I !I"I
I' !' !,jh
l,
I! 11:1 ::
I
I,'
II' ,'I'
!
I'
'I
I
'1 .1 ""
I ' 'I
J
I, ',;I I'"I I',
I, I
I, ,!
,1' II '
'I'"
" I''
I~
I I 1'1'
II,iIII'I, ,illi
,I I I F
1111
1,,,1," , II
Ii"," ,,'"I,' III,I If
,' 'I I I
I I" ,
II ;, i'I.
I'
!
<II
II"
!
I
'
II
'I
I
'I II II'
I
~ I I:
il l"j',"II
" II'
111\'
:
1, 11.1 'if
[ III,I' ,III!:;'
• 1,1
,1
I'II'
I,
j,:
iii
I'
II I
,i
II
II','! ,Id
"otl i' I
II I
1,1 "1"1 1,1
I,' ': I'
,I
I'
i
!
I
I
:I!~: ;i II
II
1111111" 'I'
1
i
:1 :
!
I
'I
II "111, 11'
IIii ~
I,
I" i
;1 : r
I, ,I I, I,t
" I 1,1
I
,I
:",: I': ,I" I il
I '
i'
IIIII I':
I,
'
Ii i
,
"
III"i I,I!
of wheu~e.r
:not :t~,~: 1 gove.rnme~t, had adop~e? suffici~nt
blosafety protocoh~ ' In l ~rle:l co~dl \..lct of field tnals and feaslblll'ty studies
on 'gehetically-rno~ified org' anis~s to safeguard the environment and
the health of the peopl~ f It is ,the: contention of the petitioners that the
government failed in U;lis respect, adding that the country should fimt
establish a test or st~hdard facility to carry out the ' field trials of
'geQeti'cally modifi,,~d o~~anisms. 1 Moreover, they insisted that the bl
lalong field trial i~:; covered by the PEISS Law and that the private
respondents did not ~ecure all ECC from the DENR before they
conducted the aforesaid field trial.
At
,
I
,I,
,
I,
:
For their part , the 'respondents countered that the l confined field
trials of bl falong (~omplied with the biosafety regulatory requirements
of the law anel tha't the said requirements were enough safe!]uards to
ensure that the Sc~id field trials would not pose a significant threat to
the environment or td It he health of the people. They added that,
since the year ~~ oo2 1 public respondent BPI has been granting
biosafety permits for fi~ldl trials , 6f bl lalong, bf corn and bt cotton but
l
I no 'adv erse effect~i ' re~r.
l lilitin'g':,th,e r~from had alle~ledly been reported.
, : l
, 'I
'I' I
I
,ii,LI
II , '
I
!
q~Jestipn
I
i
!
I,
I '
i
i
A perusal o~ the ,/-01/0 or record of the case revea'is that, at this
moment, there is : no ~ihgle law; that governs the study, introduction
,and Jse of genetically:-!modified. organisms in the country. VVhat we
have ! are mere . biosl a~fety regulations that were issued by the
Department of P\gric~lture and the Department of Science and
Technology on olle hand and the PEISS of the public re : ;pondellt
EMB on the other' hand which, when taken together , allegedly govern
and regulate the tield i trials of genetically-modified organisms in the
country. Howeven the fundamental question now arises: Are the~;e
regulations suffic~ ient , so as to guarantee the safety of the
environment and health of the people? In suggesting that the
precaution which : must, be undertaken by the government must be
"under the realm ;of p~blic policy", Dr. IVlalayang, an expert witness,
I
,
I,
,
I'
I'
I
'
II " I I! ! ~
I'
1 i~j l'li~ j,III! ' : i!I'II', " Ii, I, I, ,
I'll
ii,' ~ I,j ~!
'II: "~I i'll'
! " I' '
1, 1 1,'
'I
I'
' 1'1'
it,
I
!I
I!
/I '
I
'I'
r
!
I
,
.1
"
II
1;;",
j,I,", I'"I ~'
11:1 "
11
1I i
til ~ ,
~, 'I I '
II,II !IIII
1,1 " ,I ~
1I' III" ,
I,,, 1.. 1
I,
II
onltl' ~' ~,~tt~; ,in this wise: .
"Ch·'
I"IJIII
I :
alrperson: I' 11/:
I ,1"",
explai,ned his vie\J\;
I
I
I
11I 1,ill,,11I t
II I
t
i
"I,
I
I
'
I , I
I
I
II
II
,
.
I
"Anyw~y, I w~Lld like to ask Dr. Malayang, beca~sJ what you
,are saying is' that 'we should exercise extraordinary care in the
I,,
I
i
I ,I!
I
I' ,
,
:~ li ~ i i
I1, 11 1/1
! 0' , 'Ifi i 'l. I'
,!It ".!,
I II0' .11I 11111
,: liI
".,..
'I,! 'j I '
I II ':I
/
i'! P , I / il ~
I,
I'
I
"i
1':'1"
I
! Il l!
III, ,
11 :
I
;1
I
I
,
:li:':II,::
1:
Ii .'
~ !"
.',. ,'
ill'
'I
Decision
X
I
I
.I
iif'I '
i !il i
II'
,
~
!."l
I
II
,
I,
'I
I
I
'' !
000'13 'I
Page 14
Ii ,
:
·-------------------·-------,---x
I
I ;
.
J"
[II ,:
I
CA-:G.R. SP No.
il : ' 111[ ' I:;
Iii I Iii,
1
"
i
I
i,li
U I'
I" II ' I
i.!I
i
I
I'
11"' 1'"
1'1' ,I ;'
I,
,I" .II! ,Ii! ,
' I, !1"!,1,1~ , I I
I
I!;
:1:
I ~ I; >-
i
I
I,rl'I
. I
!1
,
conduct of thi ~ field itrials of BT Talong, are you sayind that the
vetting protoc(?ls set forth in the Department of Agriculture Order
NO.8 are not sufficient?
11
'
"Dr. Malayang J
j
I
I
"Yes , yc\ ur H6rior, I am saying that it is not suffident because
the vetting Pl'Otoc~1 1 itself ha~ not been properly vett~d aCI?ss
different sectors of ~he country. ! For example, from the pOint of view
pf the scientis:ts,. li l l~e~I~,I" , ~o~ i ~~Iestio~ that t~ey probably. ar~ \I~ ry
f atisfied that thiS:'IPI\olt?'cql !iii},,:pUld give them a good. Ind~catlon
whether or noll the trchnology Ip safe, but what I am saymg IS t hat
I want to rais!e the precautio'n under the realm of science i nto
the realm ot public policy because. in the event that inci:eed
this would turn QUit 't o be bad for, after ai~, the titanic engineers
thought that it will neVf~r sink, there is at least full rruhlic
participation in the acceptance of the risks. ~ think that it is not
enough that we have a vettin'g protocol. The vetting protocol in
a situation like BT ta/ong that has a vl~ry highly anticipi-llted
good impactfor the country must thelrefore by itself be bmad
enough that it becomes, a national concell'n. _So, the vetting
protocol itself must be vetted . I mean, after all, I think we all share
in the same panel · that we need to be very safe , I would like to
presume that :you want to do the test because if it is not safe you
will not want fa introduce it and, therefore, if that be the case, why
can not we all be participatory and open into this beyond the
confines of th (~ Dep'artment of Agriculture. So people ... beyond the
confines of: tile fa~ri1
and of the agric:ultlDlie sector there may. be
, I
other people out there and other sector's of our economy and
:s ocie
who~e IIIves "L ahd i "ii ractices and cultures may be
!e ffected because !c:ertain insects are no longer there to (gl~ve
Ithern the kinld of I'fruits 't hat they hialve wanted for tlheir )wn
nillgious rite:!; or ariythintJ like that. ~ mean I am just: imaglnin9..t
so we need tlO go beyond that. Now, you may say, "No, we do not
have the patiE~ nce to' do that because, as agricultural scientists , we
:are sure of o u;rse lv~~" . Sure! ~ou can always say to that yourselves
and I will neVf!r disr;>ute that you are sure about yourselves because
of the protoc,,?ls of the science, but my personal position to the
Court is, plea~:; e, let us bring this to the realm of public policy."19
I
i
"II
.
,
I
"1' i1'
i,l
I
I"
IIIii ,
fJ di!
'I :
I ",
~
I
~ Iilll::;I'~i
1;1
il 1II,i
j
II
ii, i':,I ,
i I
!j
I I
'I
I!
I
~I~
I :'
III
'I
'
11 11 1 i: II
Iii
I
I
iLl
illilii;
I
I
I II ij II I, I
, I' :: ;
.Ii il Ii i:
'i I:
j;"
II,
'II
1
1
II'
i i
I:
'1'
I:'
1
1,1
II I
'III
i,I",'
I, i,
I
:
I
:' 1"1
I, 111111,1
I L,
Ii I
II
,
'
I
, I '
,
I
This Court lis inclined to concur with the s~Jbrhi ssio n of Dr.
Malayang . In fad, the parties themselves could not even reach
ag reement as to what laws are applicable or not applicable in the
,In
!
I
19
TSN, November 20, .2013, Rages 97- 100,:
,
,I ,II
, II' , Ij
I
,
.1
I
l'li'" .: i I:I'"
i'!I
!.
:,j
!: .
,
I
Ii • '
l:i
I
,
' IIi
!
,
I
, I,
CA-G.R. SP No. 000'/' 3
o ..
~ ~-~I~~~~-I'~-------', ----------r--X
I'll:
I,
''
~,
I
I'
.J
"
,
i'" ;'1 "I
I I'il' :
,~ I j i: ~
i: i,I. II/11
'111 I , I
,
.,
I'
,
I !i.1i. I' ' I'I'
i
:1
~I
1.1
1II
','
.1';' II' ~ ,', I il:
't , '1 /,1," 'I '
'1:1: i!lli :,11 ' II
II' ~
1
'" ,I
1,1, ,i
. 11,
1
I'
' I
II, I I, "
Ii i,
:! Ii
II
1:::'1 1: ;
Iii I' :'
I::;
II,
I: : I •i:f
,JI "
.!!.
'
:: [: 1' :',:
I"
,'~
" "I',
':'''1 '
1
,
: !II,"
:
:
. .
:1
' ..
I
.
I
'I" I!
"
I~
'(
,
I
,
,
I
I
Ii
,
I
I
.
I
Thus, we n()w cdme to the core issue of whetHer or not the
conduct of the bt talonb lfield ,trials has violated the constitutional right
of the people to a ballance9 land healthful ecology. The petitioners
arg' ue~ that the bti talq:~# :fi~ld ~t(~: IS might contaminate the indigenous
genetic resources of , tHe cdUntry and create an imbalance on ou r
ecology. They als(~ av~r~ed that the said field tria ls might contaminate
other ,non-GMOs sinc~ ! the study of bt talong relied merely on the
findings on bt brinjial Which was; the counterpart of bt talong in India.
I\/Ioreover, the pe'tition~lrs pointed out the difterence in a controlled
laboratory conditilon where the ~ tests were conducted vis a vis the
actual and open field environment within which the bt talong would be
eventually introdu ~jed. :
,
I
,
I,
'
,
,,', I'll ;~f :
"It I i\::"!
I t
i
!,
li l i' J!I
I'
conduct of bt talofW fill~ tnals.:, ~erhaps I't IS hlgh-tlm'e fo re-examlnl3
our laws and regl~latio~s with t~e end in view of adopting a set of
standards that wo uld dovern : ou ~ studies and research of geneticallymodified organisrns, b~aring , in 'mind that this task is a puhlic affair
'that would affect rnore l!~ectors o'f our society than we could imagine .
True, l there are : bios~!ety reglu lations that we follow. However,
considering the irr,e versible effects that the field trials and, eventually,
the introduction nf bt talong to the market could possibly bring, we
could not take cha'nces. No less than the 1987 Philippine Constitution
guarantees our ri~Jht to a healthy environment. 20 This Court perforce
is mandated to uphold the aforesaid right if the same is threatened or
is put to risk such as in the case at bench.
I.
,
Page '/5
I
,
!
For their part, the !r espondents countered that the 'bt falong fie ~ d
trials were safe and do not cause harm to the environmen t. In fact,
they claimed that international organizations, such as the VVorl'd
Health Organizal;ion Iand the ' European Union, conclu ded that
genetically-modifiE~d organisms do not pose risks to the environment
and that they wE;~re jlu~t the ,same as crops which are grown in
, ~o~v~~tio~al m~trodfi.:1 fi9~henHi lt, hey asseverated tha,t the confined
flel,d trials complle,d JI~~I , thl e I,bl~safety regulatory requirements which
were enough safe'g uarld1s to ens~re that they would not cause harm to
or threaten the environ,ment. ~he respondents then qcldecl that the
field trials were done Ip'recisely 'to generate data and information on
i
21l
Section 16, Article II. :
I
Ii I
Ii i
i
I :
i '
f1,IIl' I'II'~lln
d 1111l
" ;IiIII,:\'1
I
~
I
,111'1
'1
\:'1' '[1':
[.
t lli. j , " 1 .1
III
11 : !
~ II
i''
t
"I" I'
I,
"
"
I
I .
I
i 11;1111 1 I 'I; "
I ''I"' IIII,!l',: !':,.,: I'f
,
ij:1 Ii', , I
::
I I .~ I ' II I i
IiiI :1 : ~ I' II '
Ii' ,1 1' 11 '1
I!
h'I I""
!I II
,i' I
I
1\ il
.1,. 1.
'1:,: Ii i' :Ii
1to.,
II; II, II"
,
I ,
CA-G.R. SP No. 000 -1 3
Decision
,
I
1
Iii
d.
i
Ii .
I.
x -·-------------------------,.--X I :
I.'
i
J
I
,
I
i,
I
the product's effect to the environment but this ! process of
information-gathering . was nonetheless reg ulated by certain
safeguards to ensure that the field trials would not pose any threat to
,
I
Page -16
I .
the pe;~~ ::::Ift:rW~:~:fUI: and judicious scrutinylof the whole
I
oj
I! i
l'
il·
'111
"
matter and the re~~ped+te ;arg~flI1ents of the parties, fin ds the instant
petitioh to . be imr~re~~~d l \~vith l~'rerit and the issuance of a writ of
kalika1an in order, : con~i~dering t~e foregoin~, premises in this case.
1' 1
The writ of ~aljk~kan, :as :defined by the Rulers
Court, is a
·remedy available to a ,'l.rlatural o ~ juridical person, entity authorized by
law, people's org.anizat'ion, po~-governmental organization, or any
public interest group accredited by or registered with any government
agency, on behalf:of persons whose co nstitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology ;is violated , or threatened with violati on by an
unlawful act or ornissibn of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity, : involving environmental damage of such
magnitude as to p'rejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in
two or more cities or . provinces" .21 Being an extraordinary remedy
under our laws, the unlderlying emphasis in the writ of kalikasan is of
great magnitude as it deals with damage that transcends polltical and
2
territorial boundari:eS.
,i I '1,:",,11
I
i:
I iI . i,
f . .
Ii !:1 1·ill!: . i 1:1; ~I l
I
'.
I f\slde from Ii)eln~ Ian e~traprdlnary remedy underl our laws, the
Rules l of Procedure fOri Environmental Cases (A.M. No. O~J -6-8 -S C)
had likewise adopted ~n important concept in evidence which serves
,as ith~ court's gui(~e inll ~esolving, environmental cases before it: Rule
20 I oL A.M. No. 09-6 ~8-SC ,sets forth the so-called "precautlonarv
principle" which states i~s follow~:
I
I
I
I
,
.r
,
:1
I II
'
I
of
/
.
1I
:
i
I
"SECTlb N 11. :Applicability- When there is a III a6k of 'full
scientific ct~'rtainty in establishing a causal link between
human activity and enviYtCmmental effect, the court shall am:!!Y
the preciliUltio.nary principle in resolving the case before it.
Ii
,
I
I
,
21
I,
I
I
21
I
. •1
I '
Ii'
'I'
I'!I ; il l'l
~.: Ii
1
r. ,• III1
II , 1\
1
I . ~-~I ' .1
'1
I
! ",.1
JI1 1 1.1,,'1'1 III
'III : III :.,
' I'; h"
: II
I:
f
l.
I
:
i
Min Res. , GR. No. 202493, :Casino et al. VS. OENR, July 3 1, 2012 anti GR. lVo. 202511,
Agham Party List VS. OENR,' July 31,2012.
Annotation to the Rull~S of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Secretariat of the Subcommittee on A. M. NC!. 09-61 8~ SC.
I
I
I, II I'l;:lIil': I ,I~I !I
I
!l.
,
I'
11
1
I
,i
i.'
I . ,
11:11
: I
II
,.-,
I
.
i
,
I
CA.-G.R.
l3',
I' "
,
'.. I SP No
I . OOO'fI
DeCISIon
I'
I
. 1:
X
' l'1'1
i1
i
!
i
I i ;
! . '
!"
I !
I
~1
• r
------- .,. ------------------ ,~--x
I
: ., '
I II
I"~,I:::' III":~.
I' I
I.
I~'
I
I'
I
Page 17
)'
I
!r 1~: .
' ,
J
•
I
:
I
The cor Stitull<Dnal right i of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecolOgy sha,ll be gived the benefit of the doubt.
I
I
I
i
,
I
,I I,
,
,
i
I iii
I I
I''loil'
:~ ~,I
i ~ Ii·
.
,
'll1il ' ; , 11
'1"
11 1
I ~ I il
It"
'II"
I"",
,
,',1 "
,I
,;, I , ' I,l I
'I"
.
I
'
I
i,
"I
"I
,II
"
1 ~r
I,h,
I
I
I
I,
Ii
'I
I I';
'
I
,i
i'i'
I
1
,1. 1 I II
lid, :',1 I I
i
I!I
'I
I
I'
I
,
l!l i ~li; U
I'l l, 111!!·11
Ii~ IIIII III' "I
i
,
"i' I
,I
I I I,
I
I II
Ii'
il II
:::1,:' II:
I:' PII'
I
11'
I"
,
I
,
II : :1
. I
'i I
"'
~EC.
: II I
"
! I
I
..
:
I .
2 .. ~tancJarcJs for. appflcat/On.-In applYing the
precautionary 'principle, the follOWing factons, among others, may
be considered : (1) threats to h'l IMan li'fe or hetCllth; (2) inequit'l to
present or future gemm:itions; or (:3) prejudice to the
environment without legail consideration of the environmEm~:ai
rights of thos.e affected."
i
The precau1~ionary principle especially finds rel~vance in the
case at bench 'in that the' present controversy deals with a
genetically-modified organism that would be introduced into our
ecosystem and eventwailY to 1 the Philippine market for human
consumption. As E~arli~lr stated, there is no single law that specifically
1 'd:! '
I, ~ 1 f t '
II
d'f' d
.
,
eg,uI Ites t h, e stu dLr a~'.ti
~~~lefW::f ! o ~ene lea ,Y-mo I Ie o.rganlsms In
t
l
the t cquntry, ' save for t~e "adflllnistrative orders that were Issued by a
few government agenci~s dealinb with programs or project that would
have a perceived sighificant negative impact on the environment.
While ! it may be argu'~cl by the ! respondents that the bt (along field
trials 0ere conducted ~tecis~ly to determine the efficacy of bt falong
and to generate dflta arld informbtion on the same, it mwst be equally
,
.
" .
I
stressed that the c)ver-,all safety guarantee of the bt (along remains to
be still unknown, One of the indicators wh ich stresses the product's
uncertainty is the fact that the consumption of the said product is
prohibited pendin~.1 its "full safety assessment", Thus:
r 1
I '
"Chairperson:
I
i
i
i
I
"So act(lally ~hlere is no full scientific certainty that
to health?
cause any har',m pel-t~ining
I
,"Dr, Carino:
Jj
':
II
!I
Ii
i , 'I' ,
I' i, ,' :'I I,II.I!'I i 1 1I""
1I).!ill'
I
!
1
! 'I I
I
i~ does
not
:
I'~' !:
" "BT Tal ~ ng Pie ' S8 has' not been fully valuated yet Hlat is why
it is undergoing tri 9ls, If reporting of the BT toxin in BT Talong is
Cry1 Ac, then~ are I numerous studies that had been actually
'published on , relati~~ safety of Cry'IAc protein and it is actually
'considered as: an a8ditional protein and the various reviews can be
'seen in the dEC 0 I:Oigest ' of r:isks assessments on Cry1 A protein.
Alternativniy,' if yolu are looking at thf~ possibility of harm
coming from the introduced protein aIS yet, we have not dcme at
II
'!" I I11' ,1I i,I
I ',
t .J" "I"
'. Il ,I
f
!
I
I
j: 11 ~ I';: I ' :" , I
.1
'II!
'
t
,I ~
I, '-1','
1
I,
II
I
II
I
f(:1: :11 ; :!
:
'I
I"
II'
L :111
1:1 I'H I
H
~,
ii'II!:
I
ij
! ,
~
"
!
!\
1
I'
!
P age 18
CA-GR. SP No. 000'13
i
Decision
I
I
!
X ·.. -------------------------:---x
,
:
I
as
,
I
Illll!I'
1
i
I
!
I
~afe
Ilil:ld li
I,
'!
I
;
~
1";1;'
I
':
:
'
i
1'1'1;'
~ II,
I i Ii I ~ 11! 'I!i III'
Ii, It!
I
I
11'
,!
I
'I :
1'1
I,
,111'11,'1
:1:1:
II
1
I
I
I
II,
1,1
lid
Ii"
I,:
I:i,
I'
l
! I,:!l'
I
I"
i I,
r
I
I
:, ,I
"'I
I I
1
I
I
!II
•
I
,'
I,
11 " 1
1"11
1"11
I,
I
,I
"iiiII' Ii ,
,I!I' I! ~ ,
I
I'l l
I' I
I
:
I
!
,
III
'
II
:
'
II
:
.
i
1 ! .
:
"Right riow it l i~ not meant to be consum ed by hLrm'a n at this
point. Let m(~ just clarify one point. When any GM material is
supposed to be introduced for food and for feed and before it
actually utilize 'for life' skill produ ction, it goes through several st(~ PS,
the first step is actually th e "lab", laboratory work and it is actually
tested in this *clean-houses, rolled-out confined limited field test
and then it ~J oes to butyl abyss of fiel d tests wh ere it is like
generating mclre and more information, we are still early on in this
pathway, so we are only in Ithe confined fiel d test and at the
moment the thing ~Mat it is still being tested the focus is on its
efficacy after I dOi ~~I ' a , , p ~eli ~ inary assessment of the possible
pathological ahd ~:9p.lhgifal ~ffeb, and that is !the pathway that has
peen ; recomm;end~r by isq I ~ ~ ny academics as well as scientific
and
that has been a tract followed by almost all
institutions as :well
I
I
the genetically modified crops th at is being introduced in the market
today, but at the mdment BT Ta/ong is not yet a commodity, it is not
yet being eval 0ated ias a commodity. 23
"
~ I ~ ,jl'l
t
:
,I:
I':
!
,
I
ll
,
"80 in effect wb can :not ;really say that BT Ta/ong i~ perfectly
for humar) co~~umptio.n?
"Dr. Carino:
.,
i
full blow n as~essm~nt of it
of the moment but we IdOl< at the
protein sequence and with a comparison of its se quence with other
sequences in i he d~ta basis to· see if it is similar to this amino acid
sequence of other kn'awn toxins and so far I have actually ". in my
affidavit, I havt~ act II~IIIY. se.en,p. ~rsOnaIlY that it is not closely rel ated
'0 any, of the krow~1 ' I~ ' XiIlS " 1I hISlt!l ~re found into its system .
I'
I
:1 1" I:' . , 'r": I
,"
i
,II" 1
I'j
,
1','Chairperson: ! I' I ' , , ' I ,
,
I
I!ll!'il!.
" :1"
,
I
I
I
I
"Chairperson : :
,
:
"
:I
II
I
I xxx
'
I ,
'
I:
:
"80 what is tile absolute certainty that it is safe for human
consumption?
,
"Dr. Ebora:
I
I
i
i
,
"You r ~~onoJ! ~e am q~ite certain that the prddubt is tlide
but not at th is It ime because the [llmduct is still under
,:23
,
r
i
I"l
SN:, Nove,m ber 20, ~012,
I
I
~
1
I
'
~ 'Iil es: ~4136,:'i
!
!
I
I
;
!I
i
!
1 1,l
I
I
II.,i"
I
•
!
I
;,!
I'! +
1
I
I
I
. j
,
,
i,
!
f:tI
;
f "
:!\
1
I II
\
[ III' I'\ l li1
I
\
' I,:
, '\
1,1:I Ill ,i
1\
':'
,I.
Ii
I ..
lil ill ~
t
1:;,
1,1
I~
r
III
lil'l
I, II
I
. i ;"
I','
I
!
.;,
:
'II'
I,r
'I
t··
'I,
Ii;
•
:CA-G,R, SP No,
ooo,b
I',1 1":,,1"' ,
IiI ';I : !ldil
,I l: .,1'1 "I
," /Iii I
,
I
I,
j
Ii
I
,
..
Page '19
,~
'ji
government, it' is no supposed to be eaten at this time.
I,
I
I
"Chairperson: ,
I
'I
!
I
t
I
",I "i
"1
;1 1 1 11
i"
,
'
-----------------------------x
I Ii
I
I
i
:
,. i
,
" evaluation an'd we !Slre following the rules and regulations of the
I!
I::, !:L I:
il
,
I 1.1 ,·,
'I
II ",
,
X
I :,'
I
I
Decision
I
II
,
I
. I ' "
I I:;
i! : .
lj I; !
!I
\
I, I
;\ Ii
1
I'
\';' 'i " i ~:
:i
I'
:.:
'I
I,
•
lil !:i ~," I: i
,I!i"·i' ,I'
,i "'1 , I\ IIiJ
.1"
I
I \ "' I t '
1j: ,11
Ii
II'"
I
;
r·:
!
i
I
, ,I
.
i
,
,
,
,
I
,
I
"But theire is nb absolute certainty that it is safe . THere.is no
full scientific c€: rta inty that it is safe?
" ,'
!
"Dr. Carino:
!
:
'
I
"Your Honor; {he safety assessment is generally! donet by
the time we have it finishled product, art ~lhe moment: we do l1Jot
have a finisht~d proCluct that is why it os undlergoinqJield t~i a l,
we are still looking [~r that; one line or two lines or three lines that
l
e wish to de~elo ~I " ' lltol' ~, frl li "'rel al variety.
"
r
I:.
'iii
,
'
III
I'
I'I
! '
I
I'
j
II
r
I';' II
:I
":Chairperson : ,
:
'II
' ,
j'IJ
' I ,! I
I
II
t
j
,I
I
'
t
l::t It
'
"But it i~ not ~h~t the ,respondents, respondent UP Lbs Banos
~ad already fi t~ ishea Ithe field trials? What are the results? What
I
I
are the findings? I,I!'
I
I
;
:
I
,
I
I
I
oj
I,
I
, !I ,
I' ;" I,
I,l, ill ,1;, ,
I'
!
"I
III,
I I '~ II ' j',I
II I'I I
,'r iI'!' I'
111 11! ii1'1I
I, ,1,1,','
' I " .,,1
I
I
'I
"
I,.,
"
I
1
,
I
: I 1,;'
~"I:'
,I
1,,:1
"
' " II' ,,'
I
I"~j'l ;'1
:, ' fI
II
'I' ' I"
~
II
I,
1'1
II ,I ~ I
jill 'I ' !I I, If
I,I"~ .".
I,.' FI Ir
t' I it
, :\ II!
!
I
'I
• i
:1
I I l .iI
I I' ill:
I "
I
I
,
::
' I
'
,
I
'
:1,.
I "
1.. "
-!
i'
"
, Ii .
From the fo:regoi~g te~;timonial pieces of evid1enbe, it is clear
Ithat tnere is no fLlIl sdJntific certainty yet as to the effects of the LJt
talong field trials to th~ environment and health of the peopl e, This is
where the precautionary principle sets In which states that, when
human activities may' lead to threats of serious and irreversible
ii' r il
, ill
I: I
I
"The fiil, dings l for the f ield trial is for efficacY, i't is not a
safety assessment as yet because [pari: of the thing that they
will do when they harvest thl:! gene is; to have the product
analyzed, we 'have not finished with the data collection of that.
I have not seen for example let's face it if you are dealing with
eggplant it belongs ! to the family "solanaceae." Solanacea f~ is
known to havt~ glyco'alkaloids and so for example the modification
of the protein ((auld Ih~ve , I am not saying it did, but it could have for
example change the level of this toxicant and so it would have to be
~nalyzed not Ito b'e~1 ~o.' mp~red
to the conventional variety and so
" llII '
th
' not done
'
1,\' ie I,I,an
"li d ll,so
,
r at IS
, that .IS why the
regulatory system
pctually prohil?its cpr's'umption 'of this product until the full safety
assessment h ~ s actually been done."24
"
I,
I'
I!
"Dr. Carino:
,
------- ,
24
I,
TSN, November 20, ~j,012, pages
42-43.
,
,I
, I
'I,
i
I,
I
,
, I,
Page 20
CA-G.R. SP No. 000i3
Decision
x --------------------------';., --x
I
i
I I
,J, II' III.~;II "J 1,I 1
!i:II : :!t '!II
I'
illi:::
, 11111
Ii !
"I
,~
Ii
'I
II
I
,
I
I
I
.
I
)'
I·,
ill'l
11111;
Jrl jJjl; i;; 11.."ill'. I:I:
' 1Iiil',1
I ' ~ ,i , : II 1'1" 'I
, I III ~ W
111 1'1: II
III
, 1"1 '
I ' " .' ,
,"
,..
,, !
I
.j l
,I
II
.,
I,
.'
'
I
I
r.
'
, 'I
,"
I
I
II
li d ,!: '
II
'II' '1I'I I'f;
II!,
Ii :, ! III'
I
II , !I I I
'1,1, ii ' I
i,1 I:, I
"Ii il: I
1I" 1:1'
II '
I
I
I'
II,I '
·11
'l
I!
I
, I
i
I
ii'
'I,
lll:ill
iH '
111,,1111 Ii
I
I
;.
',Iiil i. ;
" II!I'II.'
i
; II
exercise of ca:ution I in the face of risk and uncertainty. While the
principle can be applied in any setting in which risk and uncertainty
are found, it hi3S
evolved predominantly in and today remains most
I
closely associated I with the environmental arena . The Rules
acknowledge I the I peculiar
circumstances
surrounding
environmental : cases in that "scientific evidence is usually
insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific
evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern"
that there are: potentially dangerous effects on the environment,
human, anima" or planet health. For this reason, principle requires
those who have the Imeans, knowledge, power, and resources to
take action to preve'hf or mitigate the harm to the environment or to
ct w~~n conc!lusi~,~I~~~,C ,~na.i~~d Llnder~tan~ing by science is. not
yet available. In effed, thle ?u1antum of eVidence to prove potentially
hazardous eff~cts 'dhlthe enviro'nment is relaxed and the burden is
, •
1'1
"
shifted to pror-lonents of an activity that may caLIse damage to the
environment." i
i
,
I " I
I
i
" In .Its~ssel')ce, th e' precau t'lonary pnnclp
. . Ie ca
i II si f or th e
II
"
,i,
,
II
I
I
I'
:I
I.
'
damage to the ie nvifdnment that is scientifically plausible but
uncertain actions sha~11 1 be taken to avoid or diminish that threat. ~c5
~fter ~II, th:'l best ~debp!i',i~.~1" 1\lb:~ best technology do not translate to
abSol~te safety. Ooroll rYI ~the~eto, In Its AnnotatIOn to the Rules at
Prdceaure for EdvirdrifnentJr'I Cases, the Secretariat of the Subcommittee on th 'e s~fd : Rules explained the relevance of thl3
preca~ltionary prinl~iplein relation to environmental cases as follows:
,
,
I' i
I
I,
"
I
I
'1\ is in this licjht thdt thisl Court finds that the issdanice of a writ of
kalikasan is warr~rted ! Jnder' the circumstances, bearing in mind that
the fundamental raw of, this land, no less than the 1987 Philippine
Constitution, expljcitlY i declares as a state policy to "protect and
advance the right opf the 'people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature".26 In expressing the
n/:3ed to protect our country's ecology and biodiversity, Dr. I\/Ialayang
emphasized that, While he recognizes that changes and revo lutionary
processes happerj all ~h'e time, we must be extra careful for changes
may be irreversibl\~. Thill's:
I
,
I
::
i';
II
!
25
26
,
'IDr. Malayang
ji'
II
I
11
I
I
I
'I II';:111'I"111 I' III
Ii
'I,lil
I
II
', 1' 1' I ,"
t !
I'l"
I
r
I
:I
I
i
I
,I: II
1
I
Section 4 (f) of Rule 11of the lfules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. I
Section 16, Article II, ,t 987 Rhilippine Constitution.
'
1' 1
I
1 .. 1
I, ,
.
'1;-'
'
,
I
I,
;,
i
,
:
.
!
'!
'I
I ,
I
'
,I
'
f~_~~~~~f
I
,
I
,
I
I
I,
it :
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,,
"
11
I
II
I
I
I
1'1, I"
I
1
1,1
I
i
~
,
I
,I
I ,I, I ;I I'I
I11111:Id,l l' ~ Jill, ! I i'jH·III
I!JI'
l
'IIII ' ~I I~ ii'II ,Jli
li:r 'I I
: I Ii !:I, ,[ II
'i!
II'
I
I
I! I .1
I I,
'I"i I'li
\
til
I
I
"~
, ,II
'
"
'
,!ill '"[
I
1,1' I, .. I
I
'!
I
I
I
'I
I
.I
I
i'
II
1I1 I :1 1
'" II ~ i'
I
II, illi'l
'1 1:~ 'i""
"
:i
II:,' :'1 iii'1'II'1:
I , : Ii
I,
I
I i
III I,!
iU !
I
!
:1; I
,
I
I
, I
,I
iii
I'
",
I'
I ·j
I
,!~
!
1,:;\
I"
1
jll:! ! : 1 il,,::li, ,'Ii 'I' '
i,'
I'
, I ~ ', uij l' ,I'1ii '11''1'M
,1 1:1
"'I I II III
,
II
I
I
II
W
'
I',
1
:i'l , Illil: i,
II
IP ,
,Ii :
I
I
1111 1:
'
,I U II
II, II, ! I
II i i ,
r:1::1 ; :j
I' "
I
I':
I I
I'
,II ,
I'li
d
Ii'
'
,
: I
I
I
I,
I
:1
'
Page 21
______-----______L; -x " I:I:
-
IiI
I
I
I'
~
I
i i
l
"xxx Myl second point to tile Honorable Court IS tl1at I am
also concerne ~ with ,the fragility of the Philippine environment as
the place and conte~t of the introduction of BT crops like BT talong.
My concern if; undiminished even if there is increasingly higher
policy toleran ce for I these crops in the country. I submit to t his
Court t hat tt!~ Phili ppines is among th(~ world's biologic~Uy
rich countries. We have so many plants and animals, and
many kinds (l,f other living th ings, them any other countries or
regions in thei w orl d. So many of OUII ill1sects are not evell fUJlUy
know n. We do not know how they all behave to influ~mce the
t ransfer of geneticllmate rials from larlts to othek" lants. We do
hot fully Ikntlw II ' 'Hat :"we l'l de; not know about the intric;ate
Interactions between I plants l and between insects and other
iiving th inM.,' t hat l: define t he universe of our health'flLil and
balanced ecoiQgy. i The universe of au\!" healthful and balan,c::ed
ecology cernl inly
bey,ond specific cw'ops. I am concemed
that, absent of a full (as against partial) understanding of .the
intricate w eb of genetic flows and ill1teractions amQIDLQla ~lIts .
animals and ' other livinq th ings in our wet and tlrop~cal
ecosystems. it w ill 'I'eguilre extraordinary care to tamper with
anyone element of t his swirl of interrelationships. This; is
notwithstandfi ng t he seeming preponderance of evidence of
safety in ot h,er count ries and env ironment that are certainly
not the sam\~ as ou rs. I can grant that we could do some
changes in our crops for after all changes and evolutionary
processes har)pen all the time. But I submit to this Cou rt that we
must be extrcl careful because the effects might be irreversible .
Introducing a ~ genetitally modified plant in our intricate world of
Philippine plants " k nd ecosystems , "Philippine plants and
rcosystems", ~ould 19ause 'a ,string of changes across many plants
l
that, I,ike the rl reemlil , II~e:VQI~tip;n,1 br in the cas~ of medicine and the
two other ca~~es .9!tF.d I ,:a~o~el t could turn out to .be harmfu l to
humans and t,he er;]vlroment more than they were Intended to be
'I
useful. xxx
I
'1,1
'Iii
,I
!!
,
I
'1: 1
III
I
I
:, i
go
~ ~ 1:'1 ,
'Iil i
!
1!
CA-~_.FT' SP No. 000113
I,
-
counthe~
I
"Vetting! protddols and results from other
may be
looked at but I~ot to l ~e relied upon enti rely because the ir ecological
conditions and bios~fety tolerance levels are likely to be most
different from ours./ ~nd I believe that this is the reason why you
want to do as much tests as possible. I would hope that the tests
that we will be doing is a test process that is acceptable to all of us
rather than merely ! concocted or designed by just a few people.
And , because ,: of it~ high public sensitivity and potential risk to our
fragile biodive rsity, this protocol must be a product of wider citizens'
;
'" ,:,I'I!I!II I
II• I!'
111,: 1 " I
l Of, I II ' II
:1
'
'I" ~ I, II
,:
i ,:
ii
ii
,
I
I
i I
I
I
I
,
I
: ! ,I
1
,
I
'
!II
!
t
I ;
I :
,
1
II
,
I
,,'
, I,
'
I
,I
I
: , I
,
'1
it l
j
t,
III :;~ij H ' :'011 Iii, i,I;~,1
,
' ,ii
i 11
1,1
1I1
'I
'I'
:i i
1
ill
lII
, 'i
, II
1/'
111
:" 1'1:,Iii
I,
Ih
I'
I
,'·t
1
II
I,
I
II
~ I
0
I
I
II
': ,
, 1II 0111 I '
Il i'l
I
I
II' ,I
t
11 1: 11%, ' : 1
ii, ,1,' I
1
,' ,
;
"
1"11 1' 1
I I 11 '
III,I:, 'Ii
:i
11 11
II
,
I
II
II
! :,:1
II
" i' l I I ~
11
It'
0
',
fill
:1
I:
~articipation
I
ii~¥I~¢tl: I'l bbth' !I;:~bentific
~raditionall I<~OWledge
ahd
an d
I
.~ . ~I I d' f 'l, ,1,,, 1,,1 ~Ii I
I I ' . t'h NBF ft
II th
~nd c01tural s1 ns1t,\ I~I ' l e ll: ,blu ~l t 8eop e. t IS In . e
a er a, e
~~tional ~iosafety I: I~ ~ame~ork~ t I~ must be subjected to a. f~ee and
prior publiC aCGeptance of Its estimated error level before It IS to be
used to asses~5 the ~atety of GM Talong in the particular ecological
t ircumstances : of Mlr country. This protocol does indeed req uire
going beyond ~cien ~~'. My lview us that introducinq BT Talonq in
I
the Phililmines nillst be! decided on 1lliLgrounds of bnth
science and public policy. Public policy, in this case" must
involve f ull public disclosure and lParti~ation nn acce(!!:ing
both the potential gains and possible p-ains of BT Ta/ong. The
stakes, both positive and negative, 31'e so high that ~ beli ~;!ve
BT Ta/oV1fJ' VI/ould require more pllJblh: scrutiny and widei'
democratic decision maJdng beyond the ke n of science. A
0
1"1 " I I II
::
Page 22
I, :I
x --------------------------L
,--x
o
I: 1
j,
11.1
CA-G.R. SP No . 0001 3
Decision
0
safety vetting protocol can be designed th at is first deemed
acceptable to : a wide ran!~e of sectors ... I therefore submit my
humble view h? this ' Court that, for the sake of our country and our
rich biodiversi,y of lrltricately interralated living things, aT Ta/rmg
requires ma:x~mll~ precaution and most !prudence. if it werH to
liIHI'
1'111
1',1'
,I
:I
H.\
be adopted t:or its I highly !significant !possible gond for our
people. PrlUd~nce~ ~~, luir~sl ~Hat maximum efforts be exerted to
ensure its safetyll b 'yond the l parameters o'f science ,a nd into
the sphere of pub lid pOlidy for to fail in d()ing so what might!: !be
highly anticip-ated ~ to be beneficial may, in some twi!~t of fail!!re
or preca u~iol1 and ! prudence to establish the safe~ BT
Ta/ong beyor1d reasonable doubt; the BT Ta/ong may tu m out
to be hal/'fnfu ~ after lall. This we certainly do not want to do. I
submit these views
to the Court. "27
iI
It bears stre~sing that our Constitutional right to' a balanced and
I
I
I '
;,1
I
!I
, I II
'I11 ":
:
healthful ecology I,S a ~ompound right which consists of: (1) the right
to one's health which should not be put to risk by a willfu l disturbance
of the ecological balance, and (2) the right to live in an environment
of balanced ecological relations . The former speaks of threats to
human health which, in l the case of bt talong field trials, had not YE~t
been assessed ahd cal egorically declared as safe for humans. On
the other hand, the latter concerns the people's right to a alancecl
ecology which presup'~I:~ls~s th, at lall living things, as they are naturally
ordai~ed, ;are equall~11 h'ecels ls'c~try to maintain the aforementioned
i bal~n~e. In ' the in;sta0 b~'~el: I th~ field trials 'of bf falong involve the
willful land deliberate a teration of the genetic traits of a living element
;
27
I
I!
TSN; November 20, 2012, pages 60-64.
o
i I
I
I ,
l'
,
,
i
.
,
,
,,
I,
I
"
,I'
,; Ii
,
,
Page 23
:1
I
I'
I
c~nd
,I'
,j.
of the ecosystem
th6 relationship of living organismk that depend
on each other fori their survival. Consequently, the field trials of bt
talong could not be declared by this Court as safe to human health
and to our ecology, with full scientific certainty, being an alteration of
an otherwise natur:al state of affairs in our ecology,
I
I
I
I
,
,I
i
At this
I
il',!11i;;:
, ilit
:11:,
I'
I, ,I
II
'I
,
,
I
I
I
Court is reminded of the casE! of Oposa v.
Fa~to.~a~28 I! ~h~re i th~f ll~~~r~IT ,~'1 Court reco~ nized and upheld th e
;co~stl~utlo~al nghtl of N~i rr~1p,I,:~ ! t to a balanced ~ncl hea~thful ~c~logy.
The Supreme
Court, ' speaking
through erstwhile Justice Hllano C.
I
i ,
,
Oavide, Jr., declal'ed trat the aforesaid constitutional right concerns
nothing less th(~ n "$elf-preservation and self-perpetuation the
advancement of v~) hich ll may even be said to predate all governments
and c6nstitutions, to Wif l
:
I
i'
,
I:
, i
i
II
'I
I'
pOint~ thil
,
i
I ;,
Ii!·
,
III
II
I
,
"
,
-------- 1
I, II
II!
''
I' :,:
<
I,,1
;
I
'i,I,
j
I
I
I
I
,
28
l,i: ,li i lIIU!I , ,I i: II., I'
i
,I"
I
GR No , 101083, Juh~
-, 30, 1993.
I
, i,
'
:
,
i
I
i
WHEREFOftE , i~ : view of the foregoing premise ~, judgment is
hereby rendered by us' GRAt~T I NG the petition filed in this case. The
respondents are r:~IRIECTED to:
I
I
I
"While the righ't to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be
found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not
under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important
than any of the civil : and political rights enumerated in the latter.
Such a right b(~ longs to a different category of rig hts altogether for it
concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation
- aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners - the advancement
of which ma)( even be said to predate all governments an d
constitutions . As a inktter of fact, these basic rights need not even
be written in the Co r ~titution for they are assumed to exist from the
i',ncePtion of hl:lman~~' i~1 d. If they, are now explicitly mentioned in the
~undamental c,hartr Ii! i tll i~ ,; p~ta~lse of the well-founded fear of its
~ramers that urless t e'l rig~t~: to a balanced and healthful ecology
and to health iare ' mandated ' as state policies by the Constitution
itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and impo~~;ing
upon the state' a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect
I
"
I
and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else
would be lost I~ ot o~IY for the present generation, but also for those
to come -- ge: nerat)~ns which stand to inherit nothing but parched
earth incapab"~ of sustaining life."
i ,
I
,I
II
:1
"
ilJ :,i" J liL:l:
i'
I
'
:
CA-G.R. SP No . 000 -1, 3
I,
I
Decision
",
i'l
'f
~
,
'
~ ---'I---1L-----L----------~; -x I! I: II;I IIII I/"'~ 11 II1
I II'
,
,
I
I'
I
Page 24
'
"
II
','
I
'I 1,1
1' 1":
j
i
I ,
'I
"
'(a) Perman ~ntlyl cease land desist from further t otlduc1ing
bt talong field trialls; and
I
I
' III
:
..
: i
(b) Protect: prfperve, rehabilitate and rest0re the
~nvironment: in accordance with the foregoing judgment of
this Court. '
I
No costs.
I
SO ORDER~'=D .
I :
I,
:I
f1'7l rf~~ -Tr'l /\ 1{ 1~ F~ ;r {~!.T~J~·~~}r.~
ISAIAS P. DICDICAN
Associate Justice
I
Ii:
I' .
I,
I
I
I
,WE cbNCUR:
I I
',
':"
I
i
, I
Ii
i
n »:UCTf.:,::j\Y: :0:; H,i rm::,n
MYRJ\ v. GARCIA~FERNANDEZ
I
i
, Associate Justice
,
,I
I i 'I
"
,
:
,
Ii"
i Ioi ~ ,j
I'
II
I 'I'
I
!
,I", "
I,
,
'II' ",I '
Ii, ' I' !"'I l1'1' I'I 1'I,1' I!<I ~ 1,1 '
' J'. :11 II,~, ,I
'I
j'
I'
! II1 I
1;
III' I 'I, 'I ,'ilil' ! 'II '1,111
II", 'Ill' 'l't Ii,!t'
I
,:,',
I
,
'I'
i ",1:" :I1'!' I'I' ' II';
", l'" 'I '
I
1
I'
,ii:', j,' !': il I :
:1 : :; :i: It I:;
Iii: I'~, llI: I' ;;l
,I"
II
:::1;, 11:1
! 1: :
I
I
I:I,:
II
:11
:': Ii,II\ I : ~:'
I'
,
','I
II
I
I
~ I"
II I' , I"
~'I' I, I
I
I
I"
,
i
I ,:
i
' I
I'
'I,
Ii
Ii
:li'l"llll l',j
11 11 II
,' II
iIi,'(Hi
1:1I " I 'I It
t :,1
I"
t
!.
Ii '
II
,I;;i? ~ : ,; I",i 1" '1',I I~' :
Ii! pli I ;
1'1 J.: , I I :,,:t
!I
,
II
Ii: : I ~
I'" iI[
1.1 1li: , i,
:;'1;;:' 11:
!
I
:I
:
I:
I
I
'
;1::
", I,I
I
I
,
I
I
CERTIFICATION
',1,I,\
III
:1 ,
i i,l!
I
,!'J ~!
II "
"
I
I I;
Pursuant to .ArticlJ VIII, Section '13 of the Constitution, it iEi
hereby certified th!at t~~ conclusions in the above decision werE~
reached in consultcitiori '1lefore the case was assigned to the writer of
the 6pihion ~f the dou~' I' Ii:III!!::: 1'111,11
I
'
,i
I
I
"
r
I'I
I
'I
I
i'
i
III ,
I
I I , I '
I
t
Ini?l)'frl'f~~'
' ' t~7 .:"'i.~ ' f:' ~
t:.
r
!
!,
I
'
1
",
~UI
i
:J.;:'l' :: " , \ ;"
:
I!
i
I
; I
!
I"
I i I
1
I'
Ii
! ,'
:I
,
I
!I
,
,I
I
!
I
I, '
'""
1:'
1
,i
!,
t I II
J II II! ,"
i ' I il :i11;'iltIii::\, ,: If''i H!~ :,
, I , I'
r I I
'1' 1
I
'1
1i : ,I
1II I t, Ij~!I
i 1'" i
,"
. ,,'
I
i, ,1,
'I
I,,'
i 'il l ~ I , 1'1 , ' ,q, ', II
I, i
[1.
I
I, .~
[
;'
Ii
ii!
J!!
t I ' I I r; ~
if '1111 1!il,l;
t
. Ii il;:i'
I
',:
I
I:
i
I
I
Ii
I
I
I'll,,'
1
'
I I , . r
" J I
' I!' 11, \ I'ii: 'I
1
,1:1
r
II
'
H
:1
i
1
'li'i
1I' j I;"
Ii i I, l I ,
1
1"
:'1
j. , :1111 1I I
'l,i 'I , I I
!
i
"
l I: i:!, :':1
11 11H
i' ! I,
i,h
:'II ;:'
Hi Ii!
! ,I
!;!
i
'I
Y I
I
,
II
,
,
I'
I ; ':
i I
I
I
' I II
il
'.,
i: J
f.~; ;f~1·,\:.'L(r.·~ra'· li
:, j ~..~ }'":. l't );' ~-!.~~.jJ
ISAIAS P. DICDICAN
: ' II Associate Justice
Chairperson, Special Thirteenth Division
I
,
",1
'I
I
I
!
I'
I:
x, - --------------------- -----~I -x
I
I,,
I'
,
"
Page 25
Decision
•
,
'
CJA-G,R, SP No, 00013
'I
I
I
i
,,I,
'I !I I!1 'II
:" ;I 'lf
"II,
I"
I' 'i'
'
, I ' ,
,
,I
i
I; :,, ' I'
I,
i
'
I
I
i!Il :"
'I' ~
,,'
I; ~ )i"
!I
'I
I
'II
, "Ii
'I
Ii,
Ii
,
;li
il!
i.
,I :
I,
~,
" \: ;
1
, !
'1 li,l i ili: I'I"lil
I :,,':' 1 H
:,, I \
I'
I
' I' I,'
r
,
'!