The Supreme Court of the Philippines reversed its earlier decision, holding that the case regarding field trials of genetically modified (Bt) eggplant was moot. This means the Court will not rule on the safety or legality of the trials. This decision highlights the importance of timely legal challenges and the impact of regulatory changes on environmental litigation. As the field trials concluded and the regulatory framework evolved, the Court determined that the case no longer presented a live controversy, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in settling only actual disputes.
GMOs on Trial: Did Court Jump the Gun on Environmental Concerns?
This case revolves around the field trials of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) eggplant, a bioengineered crop designed to resist insect pests. These trials, conducted by the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) and other institutions, sparked significant controversy, leading to a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan filed by Greenpeace Southeast Asia and other concerned parties. The petitioners argued that the field trials violated their constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology, citing concerns over environmental compliance, public consultations, and the safety of Bt eggplant for human consumption. At the heart of the legal battle was the question of whether the precautionary principle should be applied to halt the field trials, given the perceived uncertainties surrounding the safety of Bt eggplant.
The Court of Appeals (CA) initially ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering a permanent halt to the Bt eggplant field trials. The CA emphasized the precautionary principle and the potential irreversible effects of introducing genetically modified plants into the ecosystem. However, the Supreme Court, in its initial decision, affirmed the CA’s ruling with modifications, declaring the Department of Agriculture’s (DA) Administrative Order No. 8, series of 2002 (DAO 08-2002), null and void for failing to consider the National Biosafety Framework (NBF) and temporarily enjoining any further activities related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This decision was based on the premise that the risks associated with the field trials remained uncertain, and the consequences of contamination and genetic pollution could be disastrous.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, arguing that the case had become moot due to the completion of the field trials and the expiration of the Biosafety Permits. They also contended that the Court should not have ruled on the validity of DAO 08-2002, as it was not directly raised as an issue in the petition. The Supreme Court, upon re-evaluation, granted the motions for reconsideration, reversing its earlier decision and dismissing the petition for Writ of Kalikasan on the ground of mootness. This reversal hinged on the Court’s assessment that the exceptions to the mootness principle—paramount public interest and capability of repetition yet evading review—were not applicable in this case.
The Court emphasized that it can only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies as stated in Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which stipulates that judicial power includes the duty of courts to settle actual controversies. When a case becomes moot, it no longer presents a justiciable controversy, making judicial intervention unwarranted. An action is considered moot when the issues have become academic or when the matter in dispute has already been resolved. However, the Court acknowledged exceptions to this rule, including cases involving grave violations of the Constitution, exceptional public interest, the need to formulate controlling principles, and situations capable of repetition yet evading review.
In examining the paramount public interest exception, the Court found that no perceivable benefit to the public could be gained by resolving the petition on its merits. The completion and termination of the Bt eggplant field trials, coupled with the expiration of the Biosafety Permits, negated the necessity for the reliefs sought by the respondents. Critically, the Court noted that the completion of the field tests did not automatically pave the way for the commercial propagation of Bt eggplant. DAO 08-2002 outlines three distinct stages before GMOs can be commercially available: contained use, field testing, and propagation, each requiring separate clearances and compliance.
“[S]ubsequent stages can only proceed if the prior stage/s [is/]are completed and clearance is given to engage in the next regulatory stage.”
As the matter never went beyond the field testing phase, the requirements for propagation were never pursued. Therefore, the Court concluded that any future threat to the public’s right to a healthful and balanced ecology was more imagined than real. Moreover, the Court highlighted that staying a verdict on the safety of Bt eggplant—or GMOs in general—would be more beneficial to the public until an actual and justiciable case presents itself. The findings from the field trials could provide valuable data for future studies and analyses, and resolving the petition would unnecessarily hinder scientific advancement on the subject matter.
Furthermore, the Court determined that the case was not one capable of repetition yet evading review. The petition specifically raised issues against the field testing of Bt eggplant under the premises of DAO 08-2002, alleging failures to fully inform the public and conduct valid risk assessments. With the supersession of DAO 08-2002 by Joint Department Circular No. 1, series of 2016 (JDC 01-2016), a new regulatory framework now governs the conduct of field testing, preventing the case from being one capable of repetition. This new framework introduces substantial changes, including the adoption of CODEX Alimentarius Guidelines for risk assessment and the participation of various government agencies in the biosafety decision-making process. The differing parameters under JDC 01-2016 prompted the Court to reconsider its earlier ruling.
For instance, JDC 01-2016 ensures greater compliance with international biosafety protocols, transparency, and public participation, addressing the concerns that led the Court to invalidate DAO 08-2002. The Joint Circular also provides for more comprehensive public involvement. In addition, it requires applications for permits and issued permits to be made public through online postings. The membership of the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) now includes an elected local official, offering additional qualifications for members of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP). These qualifications include technical expertise in various scientific fields and a requirement that members not be employed by entities with pending permit applications.
In summary, the Supreme Court pointed out that JDC 01-2016 brought fundamental revisions to the regulatory framework for GMOs and, because of this, these changes made a case that could not be repeated. Therefore, the Court decided it should not rule on the merits of a controversy whose parameters were not only related to the particular type of Bt eggplant at issue, but were also obsolete because of the change in regulatory approach on GMO field testing.
The Court also observed that it should not have delved into the constitutionality of DAO 08-2002, as it was merely collaterally challenged by the respondents. The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of the political departments are valid, absent a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary, in deference to the doctrine of separation of powers. With the petition for Writ of Kalikasan already mooted and none of the exceptions to the mootness principle properly attending, the Court granted the motions for reconsideration and dismissed the petition.
FAQs
| What was the central issue in this case? | The central issue was whether the field trials of Bt eggplant violated the constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology, and whether the precautionary principle should be applied to halt the trials. |
| Why did the Supreme Court reverse its initial decision? | The Supreme Court reversed its decision because it determined that the case had become moot due to the completion of the field trials and the expiration of the Biosafety Permits. It also found that the exceptions to the mootness principle were not applicable. |
| What is the precautionary principle, and how did it relate to this case? | The precautionary principle is a legal concept that suggests caution should be exercised when there is a lack of full scientific certainty about the potential harm of an activity. In this case, it was argued that the precautionary principle should be applied to halt the Bt eggplant field trials due to uncertainties about their safety. |
| What is DAO 08-2002, and why was it initially declared null and void? | DAO 08-2002 is the Department of Agriculture’s Administrative Order outlining the rules and regulations for the importation and release into the environment of plants and plant products derived from modern biotechnology. It was initially declared null and void because it failed to consider the provisions of the National Biosafety Framework. |
| What is JDC 01-2016, and how does it differ from DAO 08-2002? | JDC 01-2016 is Joint Department Circular No. 1, series of 2016, which superseded DAO 08-2002 and provides a new regulatory framework for the research, development, handling, and release of genetically modified plants. It differs from DAO 08-2002 by adopting CODEX Alimentarius Guidelines for risk assessment and involving various government agencies in biosafety decision-making. |
| What does it mean for a case to be considered “moot”? | A case is considered moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or the matter in dispute has already been resolved. In such cases, judicial intervention is generally not warranted. |
| What are the exceptions to the mootness principle? | The exceptions to the mootness principle include cases involving grave violations of the Constitution, exceptional public interest, the need to formulate controlling principles, and situations capable of repetition yet evading review. |
| Why did the Supreme Court find that the exceptions to the mootness principle did not apply in this case? | The Supreme Court found that the paramount public interest exception did not apply because no perceivable benefit to the public could be gained by resolving the petition on its merits. It also found that the case was not capable of repetition yet evading review due to the supersession of DAO 08-2002 by JDC 01-2016. |
| What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision for future GMO-related cases? | The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of timely legal challenges and the impact of regulatory changes on environmental litigation. It also clarifies the judiciary’s role in settling only actual, ongoing controversies. |
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the petition on the ground of mootness underscores the significance of adhering to procedural rules and the importance of addressing legal challenges promptly. The evolving regulatory landscape and the specific circumstances of the case ultimately led the Court to refrain from making a substantive ruling on the safety and legality of Bt eggplant field trials.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS, INC. VS. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), G.R. NO. 209271, July 26, 2016