MARLON M.

ECHAVEZ 2006-0371
G.R. No. 209271, July 26, 2016

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS,

INC., Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SI
YENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASI
NO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERI
NE UNTALAN, ATTY, MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR.
ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE, JR., FORMER
SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AN
D EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS. CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner
-In-Intervention.

G.R. NO. 209276

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

AND NATURAL RESOURCES, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY AND THE FERTILIZER A
ND PESTICIDE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Petitioners, v. C
OURT OF APPEALS, GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA A
T SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO C
ASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR, ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA HI, CATH
ERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY,
DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE, JR., FOR
MER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN
, AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS. CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petiti
oner-In-Intervention.

G.R. NO. 209301

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAOS FOUNDATION, INC.,. Petitioner, v. GREE

NPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES) MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAP
AUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYAN
G III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MA
RIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR.
WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO ME
RCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND EDWIN MARTHINE
LOPEZ, Respondents.

G.R. NO. 209430

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAOS, Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEA

ST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRI
KULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELIN
A GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JU
ANITO MODINA, DAGOROY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT,
JR., ATTY. H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CAB
ANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND PROMULGATED: EDWIN MARTHINE L
OPEZ, Respondent.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.

EN BANC.

TOPIC BACKGROUND:

Q: What does BT mean?

A: BT means Bacillus Thuringiensis. A spore forming bacterium that produces crystals prote
in (cry proteins), which are toxic to many species of insects. - University of California San Die
go,http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/what_is_bt.html

Q: Where is BT Found?

A: BT can be found almost anywhere in the world. Surveys have indicated that BT is distribut
ed in the soil sparsely but frequently worldwide. BT has been found in all types of terrain, incl
uding, desert, and tundra habitats. *ibid

Q: Can it harmful to humans?

A: BT belongs to the family of bacteria, which includes Bacillus Cerus (B cerus) which are st
rains that produce toxins that cause gastroenteritis (food poisoning) in humans and Bacillus
Anthracis, the causative agent of anthrax. Bacillus Thuringiensis, on the otherhand are toxic
to many species of insects, - Genome Differences That Distinguish Bacillus anthracis from Ba
cillus Cereus and Bacillus Thuringuensis, http://aem.asm.org/content/69/5/2755.full#ref-10.

LOCUS STANDI

Right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question. It refers to a partys personal an

d substantial interest in a case where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result
of the act being challenged, and calls for more than just generalized grievance. However, the
rule on Stading is a matter of procedure which can be relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like o
rdinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as a mat
ter of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount publ
ic interest.

Environmental Law
Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr. Signaled a more liberalized policy on Locus Standi in public suits. P
ublic right of citizens to a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation
s constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. We held that he such
right need not be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of tra
nscendental importance with intergenerational implications. Such right carries with it the correl
ative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.

Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases.

The liberalized rule on standing is now enshrined in the Rules of Procedure in Environmental
Cases, as such, allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases, thereby collapses th
e traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of
nature, and aims to further encourage the protection of the environment. Thus, there is ther
efore no dispute in the standing of the respondents to file before this court their petition for wri
t of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus.

MOOT and ACADEMIC

When it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have becom
e academic and dead, or when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, o
ne is not entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between t
he parties.

EXCEPTION TO THE MOOT AND ACADEMIC RULE

Courts will decide on case already moot and academic if first, there is grave violation of the C
onstitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public
interest is involved; third, when the constitution issue raised requires formulation of controlli
ng principles to guide the bench the bar and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of r
epetition yet evading review. The existence of the 2nd and 4th exceptions justified the CA in
not dismissing the case despite the termination of Bt talong field trials.

GMO Genetically Modified Organism

Recombitant DNA (rDNA) Technology is often referred to as genetic engineering. It allows s

cientists to transfer genes from one (1) organism to any other circumventing the sexual proce
ss. In other to transfer certain traits from animals and plants species, for its own benefit, you c
an now transfer genes from an animal specie to a plant specie and vice versa with this geneti
c engineering. An organism created by genetic engineering is called a Genetically Modified
Organism (GMO).
(GM) Foods refers to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest
molecular biology techniques. These plants are modified in the laboratory to enhance desired
traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. In this proce
ss, DNA acts as a carrier of plant traits which will be beneficial in the said plant.

This application of Biotechnology in agricultural production promises to overcome the major c

onstraints being faced in farming such as insect pest infestation and diseases which lead to s
ubstantial losses. Pest resistant crops could substantially improve yields in developing countri
es where pest damage is rampant and reduce the use of chemical pesticides. Said crops h
ave been genetically engineered to withstand the application of powerful herbicides using gen
es from soil bacteria eliminates the time-consuming and not cost-effective physical removal of
weeds by tilling. These herbicides being broad spectrum weed killers can now be sprayed in t
he entire filed, killing all plants apart from the GM Crop which are tolerant of said ingredient. A
lso, another important benefit is that herbicides breaks down quickly in the soil, eliminating re
sidue carryover problems and reducing adverse environmental impacts.

On the other hand, the usage of a foreign element in a local environment has also bad effects
. GM Crops affect the environment in more ways than one such as contaminating non-GMO p
lants, creating super weeds and super pests, harming non-target species, changing soil mi
crobial and biochemical properties, and threatening biodiversity.

No study has made any accurate predictions about the long-term effects of GMOs on human
beings and the environment, thus, there is genetic instability. Continued testing is either ver
y expensive or impractical, and there is still a great deal about the process that scientists do n
ot understand.

Sustainable traditional farming

The aim of the project was to address food security. GM critics say that the real problem is not
on the scarcity but on the lack of access to food. The poor lack money to buy food and lack th
e land on which to grow them. This system supports corporate control and impedes common
persons access to adequate food. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) found little evidence to support a conclus
ion that a modern biotechnologies are well-suited to meeting the needs of small-scale and su
bsistence farmers, particularly under the increasingly unpredictable environmental and econo
mic conditions that they face.

A study conducted by the IAASTD called the Agricultural Knowledge, science and technology
(AKST) in relation to meeting development and sustainability goals of (1) reducing hunger an
d poverty (2) improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods; and (3) facilitating social and en
vironmental sustainability had a conclusion that a radical transformation of the worlds food su
pply farming systems - especially the policies and institutions that affect them - is necessary o
f we are to overcome converting economic and environmental crises and feed the world susta
inably. Also, it held that high-yielding crop varieties, agrochemicals and mechanization have p
rimarily benefited the better-resourced groups in society and transnational corporations, rathe
r than the most vulnerable ones.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 514

E0 No. 514 established the National Biosafety Framework (NBF) which shall apply to the d
evelopment, adaptation and implementation of all biosafety policies, measures and guidelines
and in making biosafety decisions concerning the research, development handling and use, tr
ansboundary movement, release into the environment and management of regulated articles.
The objective of the NBF is to enhance the decision-making system on the application of prod
ucts of modern biotechnology to make it more efficient, predictable, effective, balanced, cultur
ally appropriate, ethical, transparent and participatory. NBF also mandates that the decisions i
ssued by it are arrived at a participatory manner by all the relevant stakeholders and organiza
tion who shall have appropriate access to information and the opportunity to participate respo
nsibly and in an accountable manner in biosafety decision-making process. The NBF has gen
eral principles and minimum guidelines that the concerned agencies are expected to follow an
d which their respective rules and regulations must conform with, but in cases of conflict in ap
plying principles the principle of protecting the public interest and welfare shall always prevail,
and no provision of the NBF shall be construed as to limit the legal authority and mandate of
heads of departments and agencies to consider the national interest and public welfare in ma
king biosafety decisions.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)

All government agencies as well as private corporations who wishes to undetake activities or
projects which will affect the quality of the environment are required to prepare a detailed Envi
ronmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to such development activity. The Environmental Man
agement Bureau (EMB) regard this project concerning the usage of GMO in the country as to
poses potential hazards to human health and the environment, therefore is considered by suc
h agency as an Environmental Critical Project (ECP). ECP is likely to have significant adverse
impact that may be sensitive, irreversible and diverse and which may include activities that ha
ve significant environmental consequences.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

The Precautionary Principle originated from Germany in the 1960s. It expresses the idea that
governments are obligated to foresee and forestall harm to the environment. This principle ha
s been the norm of many national governments as guidelines for policy making in their countri
es in the decades that came after. One significant effect of its application is the United Nation
s Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It held the res
ponsibilities of human beings to safeguard the common environment. It says the economic pr
ogress is only ensured if it is linked with the protection of the environment. Principle 15 says t
hat in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by
States where there are threats of serious irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certa
inty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent e
nvironmental degradation. This principle bridges the gap in cases where scientific certainty i
n factual findings cannot be achieved. In applying the said principle, the court may construe a
set of facts as warranting either judicial action or inaction, with the goal of preserving and prot
ecting the environment. It finds direct application in the evaluation of evidence in cases before
the courts. It creates a bias in favor of the constitutional right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology (Article II, Sec. 16, 1987 Philippine Constitution), thereby shifts the burden o
f evidence of harm away from those likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to change th
e status quo.

PHILIPPINES, A BIODIVERSITY-RICH COUNTRY

Although the goal of increasing crop yields to raise farms incomes is laudable, scientific studie
s revealed uncertainties due to unfulfilled economic benefits from Bt Crops and plants, advers
e effects on the environment associated with use of GE Technology in agriculture and serious
health hazards from consumption of GM Foods. Thus, the unforeseen consequences of conta
mination and genetic pollution would be disastrous and irreversible.