10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

791 Phil. 243

EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 209271, July 26, 2016 ]
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-
BIOTECH APPLICATIONS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. GREENPEACE
SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT
SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA
(MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III,
DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE
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, AND 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 AND
PESTICIDE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS,
GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA
AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA
(MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III,
DR, ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA HI, CATHERINE
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, AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS.
CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER-IN-
INTERVENTION.
[G.R. NO. 209301]
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS FOUNDATION,
INC.,. PETITIONER, VS. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA
(PHILIPPINES) MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA
PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO
CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG,
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 1/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA

PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR.
ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY
L. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL
CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND EDWIN
MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 209430]
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS, PETITIONER,
VS. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES),
MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG
AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN
MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III,
CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO
MODINA, DAGOROY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR.
WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR.,
FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON,
MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND PROMULGATED: EDWIN
MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
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

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 2/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 3/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 4/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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]

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 5/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 6/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 7/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 8/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[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."
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 9/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 10/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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 of PROVISIONS
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 the
importation or release into the Philippine Government responsible
environment of: 1. Any plant which for the promotion of agricultural and
has been altered or produced through rural growth and development so as to
the use of modern biotechnology if the ensure food security and to contribute
donor organism, host organism, or to poverty alleviation, the DA shall
vector or vector agent belongs to any take the lead in addressing biosafety
of the genera or taxa classified by BPI issues related to the country's
as meeting the definition of plant pest agricultural productivity and food
or is a medium for the introduction of security, x x x.
noxious weeds; or 2. Any plant or plant
product altered or produced through
the use of modern biotechnology
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 11/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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 country, the
Exceptions. - This Order shall not DOST shall take the lead in ensuring
apply to the contained use of a that the best available science is
regulated article, which is within the utilized and applied in adopting
regulatory supervision of NCBP. biosafety 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

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 12/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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 be carried1. The risk assessment shall be carried
out in a scientifically sound and out in a scientifically sound and
transparent manner based on available transparent manner based on available
scientific and technical information. scientific and technical information.
The expert advice of, and guidelines The expert advice of and guidelines
developed by, relevant international developed by, relevant international
organizations and regulatory organizations, including
authorities of countries with significant intergovernmental bodies, and
experience in the regulatory regulatory authorities of countries
supervision of the regulated article with significant experience in the
shall be taken into account in the regulatory supervision of the
conduct of risk assessment. regulated 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
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 13/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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
xxxx NCBP and BPI 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
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 14/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

xxxx

Section 6. Institutional Biosafety

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

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 15/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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 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
xxxx
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

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 16/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 17/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 18/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

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.

Sereno, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo,
Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Carpio,* J., No part prior inhibition.
Jardeleza,** J., No part.

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that on July 26, 2016 a Decision/Resolution, copy attached herewith,
was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled cases, the original of which was
received by this Office on August 18,2016 at 2:00 p.m.

Very truly yours,

(SGD)
FELIPA G. BORLONGAN-ANAMA
Clerk of Court

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 19/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

* No part.

** No part.

[1] See (7) motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by Croplife Philippines, Inc. January 5,
2016 (rollo [G.R. No. 209276], Vol. IX, pp. 4681-4718); (2) E-Parte Manifestation with
MR filed by ISAAA on January 7, 2016 (id. at 4746-4778); (3) MR filed by intervenor
Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines, Inc. on January 14, 2016 (id. at 4785-4835);
(4) MR filed by Environmental Management Bureau, the Bureau of Plant Industry, and the
Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority on January 14, 2016 (id. at 4836-4863); (5) Urgent
Motion to Intervene (with [MR]-in-Intervention) filed by Alyansa ng mga Grupong Haligi
ng Agham at Teknolohiya para sa Mamamayan (AGHAM) on February 2, 2016 (id.at
4903-4922); (5) MR filed by the University of the Philippines on February 2, 2016 (id. at
4945-4952); (7) MR filed by UPLBFI on February 3, 2016 (id. at 4953-4980); (8)
Petition/[MR]-in- Intervention filed by Philippine Association of Feed Millers, Inc. on
February 16, 2016 (id. at 4998- 5027); and (9) Manifestation filed by Edgar C. Talasan, et
al. (Farmers) on January 20, 2016 adopting the arguments of the other petitioners in their
respective MRs (id. at 4897-4902).

[2] In G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301, and 209430. Id. at 4530-4636.

[3]Rollo (G.R. No. 209271), Vol. I, pp. 135-159. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P.
Dicdican with Associate Justices Myra V, Garcia-Fernandez and Nina G. Antonio-
Valenzuela concurring.

[4] Id. at 161-174.

[5] Dated September 24, 2010. CA rollo, Vol. I, pp. 82-84, including dorsal portions.

[6] See id. at 131. See also rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, pp. 4539-4540.

[7]See rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, p. 4540. See Letter dated March 30, 2009 and
Certificate of Completion of Contained Experiment issued on the same date; CA rollo,
Vol. II, pp. 885-886.

[8]
Entitled "CONSTITUTING THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON BIOSAFETY OF
THE PHILIPPINES (NCBP) AND for Other Purposes" (October 15,1990).

[9] See Sections 4 (a) and 4 (b) of EO 430.

[10] See Certificate of Completion of Contained Experiment dated March 30, 2009. CA
rollo, Vol. II, p. 886.

[11] Rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, p.4540.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 20/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[12] CA rollo, Vol. II, pp. 1058-1064.

[13] Rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, p. 4540.

[14]
Entitled "RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE IMPORTATION AND RELEASE
INTO THE ENVIRONMENT OF Plants and Plant Products Derived from the Use of
Modern Biotechnology," adopted on April 3, 2002.

[15] See Biosafety Permits; CA rollo, Vol. II, pp. 1058-1064.

[16] Rollo (G,R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, p. 4539.

[17] Id. at 4540.

[18] CA rollo, Vol. I, pp. 2-69.

[19] Entitled "Philippine Environmental Policy" dated June 16, 1977.

[20] Rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, pp. 4539-4540.

[21] Id. at 4541.

[22] Id. at 4540.

[23] See id. at 4541.

[24] See Resolution dated May 2, 2012 signed by Clerk of Court Enriqueta E. Vidal; CA
rollo, Vol. I, pp. 400-401.

[25]It appears from the records that UPLB was not included as one of the parties who was
issued Writ of Kalikasan nor furnished with a copy of the petition filed by respondents.
(See Resolution dated August 17, 2012 of the CA; CA rollo, Vol. Ill, pp. 2114-2116. See
also Transcript of Stenographic Notes [TSN] dated August 14, 2012, pp. 4-8.)

[26] Rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, p. 4542.

[27]It appears from the December 8, 2015 Decision, the Court inadvertently omitted
UPMFI and UPLBFI as parties who were served of the Writ of Kalikasan. Also, UPLB
was unintentionally included as one of the parties who were served the same. See id.

[28]See Verified Return [of the Writ of Kalikasan dated 02 May 2012] with Opposition to
the Application for a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) filed by ISAAA
on May 21, 2012 (CA rollo, Vol. I, pp. 437-544); Return of the Writ filed by EMB, BPI,
and FPA on May 29, 2012 (CA rollo, Vol. II, pp. 1266-1344); Return filed by UPLBFI on
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 21/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

May 28, 2012 (CA rollo, Vol. Ill, pp. 2009-2077); and Return of the Writ filed by UPMFI
on July 6, 2012 (CA rollo, Vol. Ill, pp. 2081-2090).

[29]See rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, pp. 4543-4544. See also rollo (G.R. No.
209271), Vol. I, pp. 141-143.

[30] CA rollo, Vol. Ill, pp. 2100-2101.

[31] Rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, p. 4544.

[32]
See TSN dated August 14, 2012, pp. 4-17 and 45. See also CA Resolution dated
August 17, 2012; CA rollo, Vol. II, pp. 2114-2116.

[33] CA rollo, Vol. Ill, pp. 2120-2123.

[34] CA rollo, Vol. V, pp. 3618-3619.

[35] Rollo (G.R. No. 209271), Vol. I, pp. 135-159.

[36] Id. at 157-158.

[37] Id. at 145.

[38] Section 1, Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases provides:

RULE 20
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

Section 1. Applicability. - When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in

establishing a causal link between human activity and environmental effect, the
court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case before it.

The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall
be given the benefit of the doubt.

[39] Administrative Matter No. 09-6-8-SC dated April 13, 2010, which became effective on
April 29, 2010.

[40]See rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, p. 4545. See also rollo (G.R. No. 209271, Vol. I,
pp. 146-152.

[41] See BPI, EMB, and FPA's motion for reconsideration (MR) dated June 5, 2013 (CA
rollo, Vol. V, pp. 3860-3888); ISAAA's MR dated June 11, 2013 (id. at 3893-3946);
UPLB's MR dated June 10, 2013 (id. at 3949-3958); and UPLBFFs MR dated June 10,
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 22/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

2013 (id. at 3961-3963).

[42] Rollo (G.R. No. 209271), Vol. I, pp. 161 -174.

[43] Id. at 168. See also rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, p. 4546.

[44]Rollo (G.R. No. 209271), Vol. I, pp. 166-167. See also rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol.
IX, p. 4546.

[45]In G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301, and 209430. See rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol.
IX, pp. 4530- 4636.

[46] See id. at 4634.

[47] See id. at 4630-4633.

[48]Id. at 4570, citing Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon v. Francisco, Sr., 678
Phil. 679, 690 (2011).

[49] Entitled "Establishing the National Biosafety Framework, Prescribing Guidelines for
its Implementation, Strengthening the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines,
and for Other Purposes," approved on March 17,2006.

[50]"Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the United Nations Convention on Biological

Diversity," signed by the Philippines on May 24, 2000 and entered into force on
September 11, 2003.

[51] See rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, pp. 4619-4623.

[52] See id. at 4623-4624.

[53] Id. at 4634.

[54] See motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by Croplife Philippines, Inc. January 5,
2016 (rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, pp. 4681-4718); E-Parte Manifestation with MR
filed by ISAAA on January 7, 2016 (id. at 4746-4778); MR filed by intervenor
Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines, Inc. on January 14, 2016 (id. at 4785-4835);
MR filed by EMB, BPI, and FPA on January 14, 2016 (id. at 4836-4863); Urgent Motion
to Intervene (with [MR]-in-Intervention) filed by Alyansa ng mga Grupong Haligi ng
Agham at Teknolohiya para sa Mamamayan (AGHAM) on February 2, 2016 (id.at 4903-
4922); MR filed by the University of the Philippines on February 2, 2016 (id. at 4945-
4952); MR filed by UPLBFI on February 3, 2016 (id. at 4953-4980); and Petition/M[MR]-
in-Intervention filed by Philippine Association of Feed Millers, Inc. on February 16, 2016
(id. at 4998-5027). See also Manifestation filed by Edgar C. Talasan, et al. (Fanners) on
January 20, 2016 adopting the arguments of the other petitioners in their respective MRs
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 23/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

(id. at 4897-4902).

[55] See id. at 4945-4947.

[56]See id. at 4687-4690, 4754-4760, 4787-4791, 4844-4853, 4871-4875, 4911-4916,

4950-4978, and 5012-5015.

[57] See id. at 4690-4696, 4767-4772, and 4885-4889.

[58] See Consolidated Comment and Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration of UP and
UPLBFI and Motions for Reconsideration-in-Intervention of AGHAM Partylist dated
April 12, 2016 (id. at 5054- 5067) and Consolidated Comment and Opposition to Motions
for Reconsideration of ISAAA, EMB- DENR, Et. Al. and Motions for Reconsideration-in-
Intervention of BCP, Croplife, and PAFMI dated April 26, 2016 (id. at 5087-5099) both
filed by respondents; and Consolidated Comment dated May 2, 2016 filed by intervenors
Pambansang Kilusan ng ruga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA), Sibol ng Agham at
Tecknolohiya (SIBAT), Consumer Rights for Safe Food, Earth Elements, Inc., and Organic
Producers & Trace Association Philippines, Inc. (id. at 5108-5129).

[59] See id. at 5057-5058.

[60] See id. at 5058-5060 and 5088-5089.

[61] See id. at 5062-5063.

[62] Atty. Pormento v. Estrada, 643 Phil. 735, 738 (2010).

[63] id.

[64] Id. at 739,

[65] Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., 721 Phil. 416, 522 (2013).

[66] See rollo (G.R, No. 209276), Vol. IX, p. 4570.

[67] 137 Phil. 471 (1969).

[68]
Entitled "An Act to Amend Republic Act NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED AND
EIGHTY, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'THE REVISED ELECTION CODE', BY
LIMITING THE PERIOD OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN, INSERTING FOR THIS
PURPOSE NEW SECTIONS THEREIN TO BE KNOWN AS SECTIONS 50-A AND 50-
B AND AMENDING SECTION ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-THREE OF THE SAME
CODE" (June 17,1967).

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 24/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[69] Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, supra note 67, at 489-490,

[70] De Castro v. Commission on Elections, 335 Phil. 462 (1997);

[71] See id. at 465-466, citing De Mesa v. Mencias, 124 Phil. 1187, 1192-1193 (1966).

[72] 522 Phil. 705 (2006).

[73]Entitled "PROCLAMATION DECLARING ASTATE OF NATIONAL

EMERGENCY" dated February 24,2006.

[74] David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra note 72, at 752-755.

[75] 559 Phil. 622 (2007).

[76] Entitled "ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT" (August 17, 1960).

[77] See Constantino v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 75, at 635-636.

[78] 726 Phil. 63(2014)

[79] See id. 76-77.

[80] See id. at 77-79.

[81] See id. at 80-83.

[82] See id. at 4661.

[83] Id. at 4660.

[84]The three (3) stages are: (1) Contained Use, where research on the regulated article is
limited inside a physical containment facility for purposes of laboratory experimentation;
(2) Field Testing, where the regulated articles are intentionally introduced to the
environment in a highly regulated manner for experimental purposes; and (3) Propagation,
where the regulated article is introduced to commerce. Id. at 4661-4662.

[85] Id. at 4662.

[86] See Section 9, Part IV of DAO 08-2002.

[87] Rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, pp. 4659-4678.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 25/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[88] Id. at 4663.

[89] Entitled "RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE RESEARCH AND

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," published in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation on March 30, 2016.

[90] See rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, p. 4570.

[91] See id. at 4661-4663. See also CA rollo, Vol. I, pp. 20-23 and 56-65.

[92] See CA rollo, Vol. I, p. 55.

[93] Id. at 58.

[94] Rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, p. 4663.

[95] Id. at 4623.

[96] See id. at 4621-4623.

[97] Id. at 4619.

[98] See Sec. 3 (A), Part I of DAO 08-2002.

[99] See Sec. 3 (B), Article II, in relation to Section 1, Article I, of the JDC 01-2016.

[100] See penultimate preambular paragraph and Section 2 (A), Part I of DAO 08-2002.

[101] See Sec. 4, Article III of the JDC 01-2016.

[102] See Sec. 12 (A), Article V of the JDC 01-2016.

[103] See Sec. 6, Article III of the JDC 01-2016.

[104] See Sec. 1 (L) Part I of DAO 08-2002.

[105] See Sec. 7, Article III of the JDC 01-2016.

[106] Supra note 65.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 26/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[107] Id. at 524-525; citations omitted.

[108] See rollo (G.R. No. 209276), Vol. IX, p. 4659.

[109] See CA rollo, Vol. I, pp. 44-45 and 50.

[110] Id. at 55.

[111] Id. at 58.

[112] Id. at 57-58.

[113] Id. at 56.

[114] Id. at 68.

[115]See Vivas v. The Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 716 Phil. 132,
153(2013).

[116]See ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Philippine Multi-Media System, Inc., 596 Phil.
283, 312 (2009), citing Spouses Mirasolv. CA, 403 Phil. 760, 774 (2001).

CONCURRING OPINION

LEONEN, J.:

I concur with the Resolution[1] penned by my esteemed colleague Associate Justice Estela
M. Perlas-Bernabe. In addition to her points, I reiterate by reference the points I raised in
my Concurring Opinion,[2] which was promulgated with the original Decision[3] in this
case.

I reserve opinion on whether the "exceptional character of the situation and the paramount
public interest"[4] can be a ground for ruling on a case despite it becoming moot and
academic. In my view, a more becoming appreciation of the judiciary's role in the entire
constitutional order should always give pause to go beyond the issues crystallized by an
actual case with a real, present controversy. Going beyond the parameters of a live case
may be an invitation to participate in the crafting of policies properly addressed to the
other departments and organs of government. I am of the belief that the judiciary should
take an attitude of principled restraint.

Nonetheless, I agree with the ponencia that the exception is not involved in this case.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 27/28
10/1/25, 10:06 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

The constitutionality of Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 8, Series of

2002, was properly raised. In any case, there is now a new regulatory measure, the validity
of which is not in issue. Whether the repealed Administrative Order was raised need no
longer be discussed. t

ACCORDINGLY, I join the grant of the Motions for Reconsideration.

[1]International Service for the Aquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et al. (Resolution), G.R. No. 209271, July 5,
2016 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Bane].

[2]J. Leonen, Concurring in Opinion in International Service for the Aquisition of Agri-
Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et al, G.R. No.
209271, December 8, 2015 [Per J. Villarama, Jr., En Banc].

[3] International Service for the Aquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et al, G.R. No. 209271, December 8, 2015 [Per
J. Villarama, Jr., En Banc].

[4]International Service for the Aquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et al. (Resolution), G.R. No. 209271, July 5,
2016, p. 9 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62325 28/28