PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Before the Court are nine (9) Motions for Reconsideration[1] assailing the
Decision[2] dated December 8, 2015 of the Court (December 8, 2015
Decision), which upheld with modification the Decision[3] dated May 17, 2013
and the Resolution[4] dated September 20, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. SP No. 00013.
The Facts

The instant case arose from the conduct of field trials for "bioengineered
eggplants," known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) eggplant (Bt
talong), administered pursuant to the Memorandum of Undertaking[5] (MOU)
entered into by herein petitioners University of the Philippines Los Banos
Foundation, Inc. (UPLBFI) and International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAAA), and the University of the Philippines
Mindanao Foundation, Inc. (UPMFI), among others. Bt talong contains the
crystal toxin genes from the soil bacterium Bt, which produces
the Cry1Ac protein that is toxic to target insect pests. The Cry1Ac protein is
said to be highly specific to lepidopteran larvae such as the fruit and shoot
borer, the most destructive insect pest to eggplants.[6]

From 2007 to 2009, petitioner University of the Philippines Los Baiios

(UPLB), the implementing institution of the field trials, conducted a
contained experiment on Bt talong under the supervision of the National
Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP).[7] The NCBP, created
under Executive Order No. (EO) 430,[8] is the regulatory body tasked to: (a)
"identify and evaluate potential hazards involved in initiating genetic
engineering experiments or the introduction of new species and genetically
engineered organisms and recommend measures to minimize risks"; and (b)
"formulate and review national policies and guidelines on biosafety, such as
the safe conduct of work on genetic engineering, pests and their genetic
materials for the protection of public health, environment[,] and personnel^]
and supervise the implementation thereof."[9] Upon the completion of the
contained experiment, the NCBP issued a Certificate[10] therefor stating that
all biosafety measures were complied with, and no untoward incident had
occurred.[11]

On March 16, 2010 and June 28, 2010, the Bureau of Plant Industries (BPI)
issued two (2)-year Biosafety Permits[12] for field testing of Bt talong[13] after
UPLB's field test proposal satisfactorily completed biosafety risk assessment
for field testing pursuant to the Department of Agriculture's (DA)
Administrative Order No. 8, series of 2002[14] (DAO 08-2002),[15] which
provides for the rules and regulations for the importation and release into
the environment of plants and plant products derived from the use of
modern biotechnology.[16] Consequently, field testing proceeded in approved
trial sites in North Cotabato, Pangasinan, Camarines Sur, Davao City, and
Laguna.[17]

On April 26, 2012, respondents Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines)

(Greenpeace), Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura
(MASIPAG), and others (respondents) filed before the Court a Petition for Writ
of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for the Issuance
of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO)[18] (petition for Writ
of Kalikasan) against herein petitioners the 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,
UPLBFI, and ISAAA, and UPMFI, alleging that the Bt talong field trials
violated their constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology
considering, among others, that: (a) the Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC), as required by Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1151, [19] was
not secured prior to the field trials;[20] (b) the required public consultations
under the Local Government Code (LGC) were not complied with;[21] and (c)
as a regulated article under DAO 08-2002, Bt talong is presumed harmful to
human health and the environment, and that there is no independent, peer-
reviewed study showing its safety for human consumption and the
environment.[22] Further, they contended that since the scientific evidence as
to the safety of Bt talong remained insufficient or uncertain, and that
preliminary scientific evaluation shows reasonable grounds for concern, the
precautionary principle should be applied and, thereby, the field trials be
enjoined.[23]

On May 2, 2012, the Court issued[24] a Writ of Kalikasan against petitioners

(except UPLB[25]) and UPMFI, ordering them to make a verified return within
a non-extendible period often (10) days, as provided for in Section 8, Rule 7
of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.[26] Thus, in compliance
therewith, ISAAA, EMB/BPI/FPA, UPLBFI, and UPMFI[27] filed their
respective verified returns,[28] and therein maintained that: (a) all
environmental laws were complied with, including the required public
consultations in the affected communities; (b) an ECC was not required for
the field trials as it will not significantly affect the environment nor pose a
hazard to human health; (c) there is a plethora of scientific works and
literature, peer-reviewed, on the safety of Bt talong for human consumption;
(d) at any rate, the safety of Bt talong for human consumption is irrelevant
because none of the eggplants will be consumed by humans or animals and
all materials not used for analyses will be chopped, boiled, and buried
following the conditions of the Biosafety Permits; and (e) the precautionary
principle could not be applied as 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.[29]

On July 10, 2012, the Court issued a Resolution[30] referring the case to the
Court of Appeals for acceptance of the return of the writ and for hearing,
reception of evidence, and rendition of judgment.[31] In a hearing before the
CA on August 14, 2012, UPLB was impleaded as a party to the case and was
furnished by respondents a copy of their petition. Consequently the CA
directed UPLB to file its comment to the petition[32] and, on August 24, 2012,
UPLB filed its Answer[33] adopting the arguments and allegations in the
verified return filed by UPLBFI. On the other hand, in a Resolution[34] dated
February 13, 2013, the CA discharged UPMFI as a party to the case
pursuant to the Manifestation and Motion filed by respondents in order to
expedite the proceedings and resolution of the latter's petition.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision[35] dated May 17, 2013, the CA ruled in favor of respondents

and directed petitioners to permanently cease and desist from conducting
the Bt talong field trials.[36] At the outset, it did not find merit in petitioners'
contention that the case should be dismissed on the ground of mootness,
noting that the issues raised by the latter were "capable of repetition yet
evading review" since the Bt talong field trial was just one of the phases or
stages of an overall and bigger study that is being conducted in relation to
the said genetically-modified organism[37] It then held that the precautionary
principle set forth under Section I,[38] Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases[39] is relevant, considering the Philippines' rich
biodiversity and uncertainty surrounding the safety of Bt talong. It 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.[40]

Aggrieved, petitioners separately moved for reconsideration.[41] However, in a

Resolution[42] dated September 20, 2013, the CA denied the same and
remarked that introducing genetically modified plant into the ecosystem is
an ecologically imbalancing act.[43] Anent UPLB's argument that the Writ
of Kalikasan violated its right to academic freedom, the CA emphasized that
the writ did not stop the research on Bt talong but only the procedure
employed in conducting the field trials, and only at this time when there is
yet no law ensuring its safety when introduced to the environment.[44]

Dissatisfied, petitioners filed their respective petitions for review

on certiorari before this Court.

The Proceedings Before the Court

In a Decision[45] dated December 8, 2015, the Court denied the petitions and
accordingly, affirmed with modification the ruling of the CA.[46] Agreeing with
the CA, the Court held that the precautionary principle applies in this case
since the risk of harm from the field trials of Bt talong remains uncertain
and there exists a possibility of serious and irreversible harm. The Court
observed that eggplants are a staple vegetable in the country that is mostly
grown by small-scale farmers who are poor and marginalized; thus, given the
country's rich biodiversity, the consequences of contamination and genetic
pollution would be disastrous and irreversible.[47]

The Court likewise agreed with the CA in not dismissing the case for being
moot and academic despite the completion and tennination of the Bt
talong field trials, on account of the following exceptions to the mootness
principle: (a) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount
public interest is involved; and (b) the case is capable of repetition yet
evading review.[48]

Further, the Court noted that while the provisions of DAO 08-2002 were
observed, the National Biosafety Framework (NBF) established under EO
514, series of 2006[49] which requires public participation in all stages-of
biosafety decision-making, pursuant to the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety[50] which was acceded to by the Philippines in 2000 and became
effective locally in 2003, was not complied with.[51] Moreover, the field testing
should have been subjected to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA),
considering that it involved new technologies with uncertain results.[52]

Thus, the Court permanently enjoined the field testing of Bt talong. In

addition, it declared DAO 08-2002 null and void for failure to consider the
provisions of the NBF. The Court also temporarily enjoined any application
for contained use, field testing, propagation, commercialization, and
importation of genetically modified organisms until a new administrative
order is promulgated in accordance with law.[53]

The Issues Presented in the Motions for Reconsideration

Undaunted, petitioners moved for reconsideration,[54] arguing, among others,

that: (a) the case should have been dismissed for mootness in view of the
completion and termination of the Bt talong field trials and the expiration of
the Biosafety Permits;[55] (b) the Court should not have ruled on the validity
of DAO 08-2002 as it was not raised as an issue;[56] and (c) the Court erred
in relying on the studies cited in the December 8, 2015 Decision which were
not offered in evidence and involved Bt corn, not Bt talong.[57]

In their Consolidated Comments,[58] respondents maintain, in essence, that:

(a) the case is not mooted by the completion of the field trials since field
testing is part of the process of commercialization and will eventually lead to
propagation, commercialization, and consumption of Bt talong as a
consumer product;[59] (b) the validity of DAO 08-2002 was raised by
respondents when they argued in their petition for Writ of Kalikasan that
such administrative issuance is not enough to adequately protect the
Constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology;[60] and
(c) the Court correctly took judicial notice of the scientific studies showing
the negative effects of Bt technology and applied the precautionaiy principle.
[61]

The Court's Ruling

The Court grants the motions for reconsideration on the ground of mootness.

As a rule, the Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies.

[62]
The requirement of the existence of a "case" or an "actual controversy" for
the proper exercise of the power of judicial review proceeds from Section 1,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to

settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. (Emphasis supplied)
Accordingly, the Court is not empowered to decide moot questions or
abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot
affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it. In other words,
when a case is moot, it becomes non-justiciable.[63]

An action is considered "moot" when it no longer presents a justiciable

controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead or
when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, one is not
entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again
between the parties. There is nothing for the court to resolve as the
determination thereof has been overtaken by subsequent events.[64]

Nevertheless, case law states that the Court will decide cases, otherwise
moot, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the
exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest are
involved; third, when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public;
and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.[65] Thus,
jurisprudence recognizes these four instances as exceptions to the mootness
principle.

In the December 8, 2015 Decision of the Court, it was held that (a) the
present case is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is
involved, and (b) it is likewise capable of repetition yet evading review.
Hence, it was excepted from the mootness principle.[66] However, upon a
closer scrutiny of the parties' arguments, the Court reconsiders its ruling
and now finds merit in petitioners' assertion that the case should have been
dismissed for being moot and academic, and that the aforesaid exceptions to
the said rule should not have been applied.

I. On the paramount public interest exception.

Jurisprudence in this jurisdiction has set no hard-and-fast rule in

determining whether a case involves paramount public interest in relation to
the mootness principle. However, a survey of cases would show that, as a
common guidepost for application, there should be some perceivable benefit
to the public which demands the Court to proceed with the resolution of
otherwise moot questions.

In Gonzales v. Commission on Elections,[67] an action for declaratory

judgment assailing the validity of Republic Act No. (RA) 4880,[68] which
prohibits the early nomination of candidates for elective offices and early
election campaigns or partisan political activities became moot by reason of
the holding of the 1967 elections before the case could be decided.
Nonetheless, the Court treated the petition as one for prohibition and
rendered judgment in view of the paramount public interest and the
undeniable necessity for a ruling, the national elections [of 1969] being
barely six months away."[69]

In De Castro v. Commission on Elections,[70] the Court proceeded to resolve

the election protest subject of that case notwithstanding the supervening
death of one of the contestants. According to the Court, in an election
contest, there is a paramount need to dispel the uncertainty that beclouds
the real choice of the electorate.[71]

In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,[72] the Court ruled on the constitutionality of

Presidential Proclamation No. 1017, s. 2006,[73] which declared a state of
National Emergency, even though the same was lifted before a decision could
be rendered. The Court explained that the case was one of exceptional
character and involved paramount public interest, because the people's
basic rights to expression, assembly, and of the press were at issue.[74]

In Constantino v. Sandiganbayan[75] both of the accused were found guilty of

graft and corrupt practices under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.[76] One of the
accused appealed the conviction, while the other filed a petition
for certiorari before the Court. While the appellant died during the pendency
of his appeal, the Court still ruled on the merits thereof considering the
exceptional character of the appeals in relation to each other, i.e., the two
petitions were so intertwined that the absolution of the deceased was
determinative of the absolution of the other accused.[77]

More recently, in Funa v. Manila Economic and Cultural Office (MECO), [78] the
petitioner prayed that the Commission on Audit (COA) be ordered to audit
the MECO which is based in Taiwan, on the premise that it is a government-
owned and controlled corporation.[79] The COA argued that the case is
already moot and should be dismissed, since it had already directed a team
of auditors to proceed to Taiwan to audit the accounts of MECO.[80] Ruling on
the merits, the Court explained that the case was of paramount public
interest because it involved the COA's performance of its constitutional duty
and because the case concerns the legal status of MECO, i.e., whether it
may be considered as a government agency or not, which has a direct
bearing on the country's commitment to the One China Policy of the People's
Republic of China.[81]

In contrast to the foregoing cases, no perceivable benefit to the public -

whether rational or practical - may be gained by resolving respondents'
petition for Writ of Kalikasan on the merits.

To recount, these cases, which stemmed from herein respondents petition

for Writ of Kalikasan, were mooted by the undisputed expiration of the
Biosafety Permits issued by the BPI and the completion and tennination of
the Bt talong field trials subject of the same.[82] These incidents effectively
negated the necessity for the reliefs sought by respondents in their petition
for Writ of Kalikasan as there was no longer any field test to enjoin. Hence,
at the time the CA rendered its Decision dated May 17, 2013, the reliefs
petitioner sought and granted by the CA were no longer capable of execution.

At this juncture, it is important to understand that the completion and

termination of the field tests do not mean that herein petitioners may
inevitably proceed to commercially propagate Bt talong [83] There are three (3)
stages before genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) may become
commercially available under DAO 08-2002[84] and each stage is distinct,
such that "[subsequent stages can only proceed if the prior stage/s [is/]are
completed and clearance is given to engage in the next regulatory
stage."[85] Specifically, before a genetically modified organism is allowed to be
propagated under DAO 08-2002: (a) a permit for propagation must be
secured from the BPI; (b) it can be shown that based on the field testing
conducted in the Philippines, the regulated article will not pose any
significant risks to the environment; (c) food and/or feed safety studies show
that the regulated article will not pose any significant risks to human and
animal health; and (d) if the regulated article is a pest-protected plant, its
transformation event has been duly registered with the FPA.[86]

As the matter never went beyond the field testing phase, none of the
foregoing tasks related to propagation were pursued or the requirements
therefor complied with. Thus, there are no guaranteed after-effects to the
already concluded Bt talong field trials that demand an adjudication from
which the public may perceivably benefit. Any future threat to the right of
herein respondents or the public in general to a healthful and balanced
ecology is therefore more imagined than real.

In fact, it would appear to be more beneficial to the public to stay a verdict

on the safeness of Bt talong - or GMOs, for that matter - until an actual and
justiciable case properly presents itself before the Court. In his Concurring
Opinion[87] on the main, Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Justice
Leonen) had aptly pointed out that "the findings [resulting from the Bt
talong field trials] should be the material to provide more rigorous scientific
analysis of the various claims made in relation to Bt talong"[88] True enough,
the concluded field tests - like those in these cases - would yield data that
may prove useful for future studies and analyses. If at all, resolving the
petition for Writ of Kalikasan would unnecessarily arrest the results of
further research and testing on Bt talong, and even GMOs in general, and
hence, tend to hinder scientific advancement on the subject matter.

More significantly, it is clear that no benefit would be derived by the public

in assessing the merits of field trials whose parameters are not only unique
to the specific type of Bt talong tested, but are now, in fact, rendered
obsolete by the supervening change in the regulatory framework applied to
GMO field testing. To be sure, DAO 08-2002 has already been superseded by
Joint Department Circular No. 1, series of 2016[89] (JDC 01-2016), issued by
the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), the DA, the DENR, the
Department of Health (DOH), and the Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG), which provides a substantially different regulatory
framework from that under DAO 08-2002 as will be detailed below. Thus, to
resolve respondents' petition for Writ of Kalikasan on its merits, would be
tantamount to an unnecessary scholarly exercise for the Court to assess
alleged violations of health and environmental rights that arose from a past
test case whose bearings do not find any - if not minimal - relevance to cases
operating under today's regulatory framework.

Therefore, the paramount public interest exception to the mootness rule

should not have been applied.

II. The case is not one capable of repetition vet evading review.

Likewise, contrary to the Court's earlier ruling,[90] these cases do not fall
under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception.

The Court notes that the petition for Writ of Kalikasan specifically raised
issues only against the field testing of Bt talong under the premises of DAO
08-2002,[91] i.e., that herein petitioners failed to: (a) fully inform the people
regarding the health, environment, and other hazards involved;[92] and (b)
conduct any valid risk assessment before conducting the field trial.[93] As
further pointed out by Justice Leonen, the reliefs sought did not extend far
enough to enjoin the use of the results of the field trials that have been
completed. Hence, the petition's specificity prevented it from falling under
the above exception to the mootness rule.[94]

More obviously, the supersession of DAO 08-2002 by JDC 01-2016 clearly

prevents this case from being one capable of repetition so as to warrant
review despite its mootness. To contextualize, JDC 01-2016 states that:
 Section 1. Applicability. This Joint Department Circular shall
apply to the research, development, handling and use,
transboundary movement, release into the environment, and
management of genetically-modified plant and plant products
derived from the use of modern technology, included under
"regulated articles."
As earlier adverted to, with the issuance of JDC 01-2016, a new regulatory
framework in the conduct of field testing now applies.

Notably, the new framework under JDC 01-2016 is substantially different

from that under DAO 08-2002. In fact, the new parameters in JDC 01-2016
pertain to provisions which prompted the Court to invalidate DAO 08-2002.
In the December 8, 2015 Decision of the Court, it was observed that: (a) DAO
08-2002 has no mechanism to mandate compliance with international
biosafety protocols;[95] (b) DAO 08-2002 does not comply with the
transparency and public participation requirements under the NBF;[96] and
(c) risk assessment is conducted by an informal group, called the Biosafety
Advisory Team of the DA, composed of representatives from the BPI, Bureau
of Animal Industry, FPA, DENR, DQH, and DOST.[97]

Under DAO 08-2002, no specific guidelines were used in the conduct of risk
assessment, and the DA was allowed to consider the expert advice of, and
guidelines developed by, relevant international organizations and regulatory
authorities of countries with significant experience in the regulatory
supervision of the regulated article.[98] However, under JDC 01-2016, the
CODEX Alimentarius Guidelines was adopted to govern the risk assessment
of activities involving the research, development, handling and use,
transboundary movement, release into the environment, and management of
genetically modified plant and plant products derived from the use of
modern biotechnology.[99] Also, whereas DAO 08-2002 was limited to the
DA's authority in regulating the importation and release into the
environment of plants and plant products derived from the use of modern
biotechnology,[100] under JDC 01-2016, various relevant government agencies
such as the DOST, DOH, DENR, and the DILG now participate in all stages
of the biosafety decision-making process, with the DOST being the central
and lead agency.[101]

JDC 01-2016 also provides for a more comprehensive avenue for public
participation in cases involving field trials and requires applications for
permits and permits already issued to be made public by posting them
online in the websites of the NCBP and the BPI.[102] The composition of the
Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) has also been modified to include an
elected local official in the locality where the field testing will be conducted
as one of the community representatives.[103] Previously, under DAO 08-
2002, the only requirement for the community representatives is that they
shall not be affiliated with the applicant and shall be in a position to
represent the interests of the communities where the field testing is to be
conducted.[104]

JDC 01-2016 also prescribes additional qualifications for the members of the
Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP), the pool of scientists that
evaluates the risk assessment submitted by the applicant for field trial,
commercial propagation, or direct use of regulated articles. Aside from not
being an official, staff or employee of the DA or any of its attached agencies,
JDC 01-2016 requires that members of the STRP: (a) must not be directly or
indirectly employed or engaged by a company or institution with pending
applications for permits under JDC 01-2016; (b) must possess technical
expertise in food and nutrition, toxicology, ecology, crop protection,
environmental science, molecular biology and biotechnology, genetics, plant
breeding, or animal nutrition; and (c) must be well-respected in the scientific
community.[105]

Below is a tabular presentation of the differences between the relevant

portions of DAO 08-2002 and JDC 01-2016:

DAO 08-2002 JDC 01-2016

As to coverage and government
1.
participation
WHEREAS, under Title IV, Chapter 4, ARTICLE I. GENERAL
Section 19 of the Administrative Code PROVISIONS
of 1987, the Department of
Agriculture, through the Bureau of
Plant Industry, is responsible for the
production of improved planting
materials and protection of
agricultural crops from pests and
diseases; and
Section 1. Applicability. This Joint
Department Circular shall apply to
the research, development, handling
and use, transboundary movement,
release into the environment, and
management of genetically-modified
plant and plant products derived from
the use of modern biotechnology,
included under "regulated articles."
xxxx
xxxx
PART I
GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE III. ADMINISTRATIVE
FRAMEWORK
xxxx
Section 4. Role of National
Government Agencies Consistent
with the NBF and the laws granting
their powers and functions, national
government agencies shall have the
following roles:
Section 2
Coverage

A. Scope - This Order covers theA. [DA]. As the principal agency of

importation or release into the the Philippine Government
environment of: 1. Any plant responsible for the promotion of
which has been altered or agricultural and rural growth and
produced through the use of development so as to ensure food
modern biotechnology if the donor security and to contribute to
organism, host organism, or poverty alleviation, the DA shall
 vector or vector agent belongs to take the lead in addressing
any of the genera or taxa biosafety issues related to the
classified by BPI as meeting the country's agricultural
definition of plant pest or is a productivity and food security, x
medium for the introduction of x x.
noxious weeds; or 2. Any plant or
plant product altered or produced
through the use of modern
biotechnology which may pose
significant risks to human health
and the environment based on
available scientific and technical
information.
B. B. [DOST]. As the premier science
and technology body in the
Exceptions. - This Order shall not country, the DOST shall take the
apply to the contained use of a lead in ensuring that the best
regulated article, which is within available science is utilized and
the regulatory supervision of applied in adopting biosafety
NCBP. policies, measures and
guidelines, and in making
biosafety decision, xxx.
C. [DENRJ. As the primary
government agency responsible
for the conservation,
management, development and
proper use of the country's
environment and natural
resources, the DENR shall ensure
that environmental assessments
are done and impacts identified
in biosafety decisions, x x x.

D. [DOH]. The DOH, as the principal

authority on health, shall
formulate guidelines in assessing
the health impacts posed by
modern biotechnology and its
applications, x x x.
E. [DILG]. The DILG shall coordinate
with the DA, DOST, DENR and
DOH in overseeing the
implementation of this Circular
in relation to the activities that
are to be implemented in specific
LGUs, particularly in relation to
the conduct of public
consultations as required under
the Local Government Code. xxx.

2. As to guidelines in risk
assessment
PART I ARTICLE II. BIOSAFETY
 DECISIONS

GENERAL PROVISIONS

xxxx Section 3. Guidelines in Making

Biosafety Decisions
The principles under the NBF shall
guide concerned agencies in making
biosafety decisions, including:
Section 3
Risk Assessment

A. Principles of Risk Assessment - Noxxxx

regulated article shall be allowed
to be imported or released into the
environment without the conduct
of a risk assessment performed in
accordance with this Order. The
following principles shall be
followed when performing a risk
assessment to determine whether
a regulated article poses
significant risks to human health
and the environment:
B. Risk Assessment. Risk
assessment shall be mandatory
and central in making biosafety
decisions, consistent with policies
and standards on risk
assessment issued by the NCBP;
and guided by Annex III of the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Pursuant to the NBF, the
following principles shall be
followed when performing a risk
assessment to determine whether
a regulated article poses
significant risks to human health
and the environment.
1. The risk assessment shall be1. The risk assessment shall be
carried out in a scientifically carried out in a scientifically
sound and transparent manner sound and transparent manner
based on available scientific and based on available scientific and
technical information. The expert technical information. The expert
advice of, and guidelines advice of and guidelines
developed by, relevant developed by, relevant
international organizations and international organizations,
regulatory authorities of countries including intergovernmental
with significant experience in the bodies, and regulatory authorities
regulatory supervision of the of countries with significant
regulated article shall be taken experience in the regulatory
into account in the conduct of risk supervision of the regulated
assessment. article shall be taken into
 account. In the conduct of risk
assessment, CODEX
Alimentarius Guidelines on the
Food Safety Assessment of Foods
Derived from the Recombinant-
DNA Plants shall be adopted as
well as other internationally
accepted consensus documents.

xxx
xxxx (Underscoring supplied)

3. As to public participation

PART III ARTICLE V. FIELD TRIAL OF

APPROVAL PROCESS FOR REGULATED ARTICLES
FIELD TESTING OF
REGULATED
ARTICLES
Section 12. Public Participation
for Field Trial
A. The BPI shall make public all
applications and Biosafety
Permits for Field Trial through
posting on the NCBP and BPI
xxxx
websites, and in the offices of the
DA and DOST in the province,
city, or municipality where the
field trial will be conducted.
Section 8
Requirements for Field Testing xxxx

xxxx

G. Public Consultation. - The

applicant, acting through its IBC,
shall notify and invite comments
on the field testing proposal from
the barangays and city/municipal
governments with jurisdiction over
the field test sites. The IBC shall
post for three (3) consecutive
weeks copies of the Public
Information Sheet for Field Testing
approved by the BPI in at least
three (3) conspicuous places in
each of the concerned barangay
and city/municipal halls.
The Public Information Sheet for
Field Testing shall, among others,
invite interested parties to send
their comments on the proposed
field testing to BPI within a period
of thirty (30) days from the date of
 posting. It shall be in a language
understood in the community.
During the comment period, any
interested person may submit to
BPI written comments regarding
the application. The applicant
shall submit proof of posting in
the form of certifications from the
concerned barangay captains and
city/municipal mayors or an
affidavit stating the dates and
places of posting duly executed by
the responsible officer or his duly
authorized representative,

4. As to membership in the Institutional Biosafety Committee

PART I ARTICLE III.
ADMINISTRATIVE
GENERAL PROVISIONS
FRAMEWORK

Section 1
Definition of Terms xxxx
xxxx

L. "IBC" means the Institutional Section 6. Institutional

Biosafety Committee established Biosafety Committee The
by an applicant in preparation for company or institution applying
the field testing of a regulated for and granted permits under
article and whose membership this Circular shall constitute an
has been approved by BPI. The IBC prior to the contained use,
IBC shall be responsible for the confined test, or field trial of a
initial evaluation of the risk regulated article. The
assessment and risk management membership of the IBC shall be
strategies of the applicant for field approved by the DOST-BC for
testing. It shall be composed of at contained use or confined test, or
least five (5) members, three (3) of by the DA-BC for field trial. The
whom shall be designated as IBC is responsible for the
"scientist-members" who shall conduct of the risk assessment
possess scientific and and preparation of risk
technological knowledge and management strategies of the
expertise sufficient to enable them applicant for contained use,
to evaluate and monitor properly confined test, or field trial. It
any work of the applicant relating shall make sure that the
to the field testing of a regulated environment and human health
article. The other members, who are safeguarded in the conduct of
shall be designated as any activity involving regulated
"community representatives", articles. The IBC shall be
shall not be affiliated with the composed of at least five (5)
applicant apart from being members, three (3) of whom shall
members of its IBC and shall be in be designated as scientist-
a position to represent the members and two (2) members
interests of the communities shall be community
where the field testing is to be representatives, All scientist-
conducted. For the avoidance of members must possess scientific
 or technological knowledge and
doubt, NCBP shall be responsible expertise sufficient to enable
for approving the membership of them to property evaluate and
the IBC for contained use of a monitor any work involving
regulated article. regulated articles conducted by
the applicant.

The community representative

must not be affiliated with the
applicant, and must be in a
position to represent the interests
of the communities where the
activities are to be conducted.
One of the community
representatives shall be an
elected official of the LGU. The
other community representative
x x x x (Underscoring supplied) shall be selected from the
residents who are members of the
Civil Society Organizations
represented in the Local Poverty
Reduction Action Team, pursuant
to DILG Memorandum Circular
No. 2015-45. For multi-location
trials, community representatives
of the IBC shall be designated per
site, x x x. (Underscoring
supplied)

5. As to the composition and qualifications of the members of the

Scientific and Technical Review Panel

PART I ARTICLE III. ADMINISTRATIVE

GENERAL PROVISIONS FRAMEWORK

Section 1 xxxx
Definition of Terms

Section 7. Scientific and

Technical Review Panel
(STRP) The DA shall create a
Scientific and Technical Review
Panel composed of a pool of non-
DA scientists with expertise in
the evaluation of the potential
risks of regulated articles to the
environment and health, x x x
xxxx

EE. "STRP" means the Scientific xxxx

and Technical Review Panel
created by BPI as an advisory
body, composed of at least three
(3) reputable and independent
 scientists who shall not be
employees of the Department and
who have the relevant professional
background necessary to evaluate
the potential risks of the proposed
activity to human health and the
environment based on available
scientific and technical
information.
The DA shall select
scientists/experts in the STRP,
who shall meet the following
qualifications:
A. Must not be an official, staff or
x x x x (Underscoring supplied) employee of the DA or any of its
attached agencies;
B. Must not be directly or indirectly
employed or engaged by a
company or institution with
pending applications for permits
covered by this Circular;
C. Possess technical expertise in at
least one of the following fields:
food and nutrition; toxicology,
ecology, crop protection,
environmental science, molecular
biology and biotechnology,
genetics, plant breeding, animal
nutrition; and
D. Well-respected in the scientific
community as evidenced by
positions held in science-based
organizations, awards and
recognitions, publications in local
and international peer- reviewed
scientific journals.

x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that the regulatory framework now
applicable in conducting risk assessment in matters involving the research,
development, handling, movement, and release into the environment of
genetically modified plant and plant products derived from the use of
modern biotechnology is substantially different from that which was applied
to the subject field trials. In this regard, it cannot be said that the present
case is one capable of repetition yet evading review.

The essence of cases capable of repetition yet evading review was succinctly
explained by the Court in Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr.,[106] where the
constitutionality of the Executive Department's lump-sum, discretionary
funds under the 2013 General Appropriations Act, known as the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), was assailed. In that case, the Court
rejected the view that the issues related thereto had been rendered moot and
academic by the reforms undertaken by the Executive Department and
former President Benigno Simeon S. Aquino Ill's declaration that he had
already "abolished the PDAF." Citing the historical evolution of the
ubiquitous Pork Barrel System, which was the source of the PDAF, and the
fact that it has always been incorporated in the national budget which is
enacted annually, the Court ruled that it is one capable of repetition yet
evading review, thus:
Finally, the application of the fourth exception [to the rule on
mootness] is called for by the recognition that the
preparation and passage of the national budget is, by
constitutional imprimatur, an affair of annual
occurrence. The relevance of the issues before the Court does
not cease with the passage of a "PDAF-free budget for
2014." The evolution of the "Pork Barrel System," by its
multifarious iterations throughout the course of history,
lends a semblance of truth to petitioners' claim that "the
same dog will just resurface wearing a different
collar." In Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, the government had
already backtracked on a previous course of action yet the
Court used the "capable of repetition but evading review"
exception in order "[t]o prevent similar questions from re-
emerging." The situation similarly holds true to these cases.
Indeed, the myriad of issues underlying the manner in which
certain public funds are spent, if not resolved at this most
opportune time, are capable of repetition and hence, must not
evade judicial review.[107] (Emphases supplied)
Evidently, the "frequent" and "routinary" nature of the Pork Barrel Funds
and the PDAF are wanting herein. To reiterate, the issues in these cases
involve factual considerations which are peculiar only to the controversy at
hand since the petition for Writ of Kalikasan is specific to the field testing
of Bt talong and does not involve other GMOs.

At this point, the Court discerns that there are two (2) factors to be
considered before a case is deemed one capable of repetition yet evading
review: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully
litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and (2) there was a reasonable
expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same
action.

Here, respondents cannot claim that the duration of the subject field tests
was too short to be fully litigated. It must be emphasized that the Biosafety
Permits for the subject field tests were issued on March 16, 2010 and June
28, 2010, and were valid for two (2) years. However, as aptly pointed out by
Justice Leonen, respondents filed their petition for Writ of Kalikasan only on
April 26, 2012 -just a few months before the Biosafety Permits expired and
when the field testing activities were already over.[108] Obviously, therefore,
the cessation of the subject field tests before the case could be resolved was
due to respondents' own inaction.

Moreover, the situation respondents complain of is not susceptible to

repetition. As discussed above, DAO 08-2002 has already been superseded
by JDC 01-2016. Hence, future applications for field testing will be governed
by JDC 01-2016 which, as illustrated, adopts a regulatory framework that is
substantially different from that of DAO 08-2002.

Therefore, it was improper for the Court to resolve the merits of the case
which had become moot in view of the absence of any valid exceptions to the
rule on mootness, and to thereupon rule on the objections against the
validity and consequently nullify DAO 08-2002 under the premises of the
precautionary principle.

In fact, in relation to the latter, it is observed that the Court should not have
even delved into the constitutionality of DAO 08-2002 as it was
merely collaterally challenged by respondents, based on the constitutional
precepts of the people's rights to information on matters of public concern,
to public participation, to a balanced and healthful ecology, and to health.
[109]
A cursory perusal of the petition for Writ of Kalikasan filed by
respondents on April 26, 2012 before the Court shows that they essentially
assail herein petitioners' failure to: (a) fully inform the people regarding the
health, environment, and other hazards involved;[110] and (b) conduct any
valid risk assessment before conducting the field trial.[111] However, while the
provisions of DAO 08-2002 were averred to be inadequate to protect (a) the
constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology since
"said regulation failed, among others, to anticipate 'the public implications
caused by the importation of GMOs in the Philippines"';[112] and (b) "the people
from the potential harm these genetically modified plants and genetically
modified organisms may cause human health and the environment, [and]
thus, x x x fall short of Constitutional compliance,"[113] respondents merely
prayed for its amendment, as well as that of the NBF, to define or
incorporate "an independent, transparent, and comprehensive scientific and
socio-economic risk assessment, public information, consultation, and
participation, and providing for their effective implementation, in accord with
international safety standards[.]"[114] This attempt to assail the
constitutionality of the public information and consultation requirements
under DAO 08-2002 and the NBF constitutes a collateral attack on the said
provisions of law that runs afoul of the well-settled rule that the
constitutionality of a statute cannot be collaterally attacked as
constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not collaterally.
[115]
Verily, 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 contraiy, in deference
to the doctrine of separation of powers. This means that the measure had
first been carefully studied by the executive department and found to be in
accord with the Constitution before it was finally enacted and approved.[116]

All told, with respondents' petition for Writ of Kalikasan already mooted by
the expiration of the Biosafety Permits and the completion of the field trials
subject of these cases, and with none of the exceptions to the mootness
principle properly attending, the Court grants the instant motions for
reconsideration and hereby dismisses the aforesaid petition. With this
pronouncement, no discussion on the substantive merits of the same should
be made.

WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration are GRANTED. The Decision

dated December 8, 2015 of the Court, which affirmed with modification the
Decision dated May 17, 2013 and the Resolution dated September 20, 2013
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00013, is hereby SET ASIDE for
the reasons above-explained. A new one is ENTERED DISMISSING the
Petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer
for the Issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) filed
by respondents Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), Magsasaka at
Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunladng Agrikultura, and others on the ground of
mootness.

SO ORDERED.