Supreme Court
Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines); Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG), et al.
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); The BPI and the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) of the DA, et al.
In 2012, Greenpeace and others petitioned for a writ of continuing mandamus, a writ of Kalikasan (an extraordinary writ intended for widespread harms to the environment and the R2HE), and the issuance of a temporary environmental protection order against the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) and others. The Petitioners alleged that the field trials for ‘Bt talong’ (bioengineered eggplant) violated their constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology, on the grounds that: (a) the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) as required by presidential decree was not secured prior to the field trials; (b) the required public consultations under the Local Government Code (LGC) were not complied with; and (c) as a regulated article, ‘Bt talong’ was presumed harmful to human health and the environment, and there existed no independent, peer-reviewed study overcoming that presumption by demonstrating its safety. The Petitioners also contended that the scientific evidence as to the bioengineered eggplant’s safety remained insufficient and/or uncertain, mandating application of the precautionary principle and enjoinment of the field trials.
The Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan against most of the defendants and ordered the production of certain materials. The defendants asserted that all environmental laws had been complied with, including the required public consultations; that there was sufficient scientific evidence on the safety of Bt talong; and that the precautionary principle could not be applied, since the field testing was only a part of a continuing study to ensure that such trials have no significant and negative impact on the environment. The Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals, which in 2013 ruled in favor of Greenpeace and directed the defendants to permanently cease the field trials. The Court dismissed claims of mootness and held that the precautionary principle was relevant given the Philippines’ rich biodiversity, the reliance of small and often impoverished farmers on the widespread health of the eggplant crop and the uncertainty of the evidence on the question of Bt talong’s safety. The Court also noted the possible irreversible effects of the field trials and the introduction of Bt talong to the market, and found the existing regulations issued by the DA and the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) insufficient to guarantee the safety of the environment and the health of the people. After the defendants moved for reconsideration, the Court remarked that introducing genetically modified plants into the ecosystem is an ecologically imbalancing act.
The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motions for reconsideration given that the Petitioners’ Writ of Kalikasan had been mooted by the expiration of the BioSafety Permits and the completion of the field tests. The Court clarified that completion of the field tests did not mean that the defendants were therefore able to commercially propagate the genetically modified crops, because there were several independent stages of review that needed to be satisfied before clearance was given to engage in commercial propagation. Because the original matter never proceeded beyond the field testing phase, none of those additional stages were pursued, and there were thus no guaranteed after-effects from the field trials that demanded adjudication from a public interest perspective.