Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOCTRINES:
The liberalized rule on standing is now enshrined in the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental
cases. The provision on citizen suits in the Rules collapses the tradional rule on
personal and direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of
nature, and aims to further encourage the protection of the environment.
The case falls under the capable of repetition yet evading review exception to
the mootness principle, the human and environmental health hazards posed by
the introduction of a genetically modified plant which is a very popular staple
vegetable among Filipinos is an issue of paramount public interest.
The provisions of DAO 2002-08 do not provide a speedy or adequate remedy for
the respondents to determine the questions of unique national and local
importance raised in this case that pertain to laws and rules for environmental
protection, thus Greenpeace, et.al. is justified in coming to the Supreme Court.
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE:
FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
1. Yes. The liberalized rule on standing is now enshrined in the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases.
The provision on citizen suits in the Rules collapses the tradional rule on personal
and direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature, and aims
to further encourage the protection of the environment.
2. No. The case falls under the capable of repetition yet evading review exception to
the mootness principle, the human and environmental health hazards posed by the
introduction of a genetically modified plant which is a very popular staple vegetable
among Filipinos is an issue of paramount public interest.
3. No. The provisions of DAO 2002-08 do not provide a speedy or adequate remedy for
the respondents to determine the questions of unique national and local importance
raised in this case that pertain to laws and rules for environmental protection, thus
Greenpeace, et.al. is justified in coming to the Supreme Court.
4. Yes. EO 514 mandates that concerned departments and agencies, most particularly
petitioners DENR-EMB, BPI and FPA, to make a determination whether the EIS
system should apply to the release of GMOs into the environment and issue joint
guidelines on the matter.
The Philippine EIS System (PEISS) is concerned primarily with assessing the
direct and indirect impacts of a project on the biophysical and human environment
and ensuring that these impacts are addressed by appropriate environmental
protection and enhancement measures. It aids proponents in incorporating
environmental considerations in planning their projects as well as in determining the
environments impact on their project. There are six stages in the regular EIA
process. The proponent initiates the first three stages while EMB takes the lead in
the last three stages. Public participation is enlisted in most stages.
Even without the issuance of EO 514, GMO field testing should have at least
been considered for EIA under existing regulations of EMB on new and emerging
technologies, to wit:
g) Group V (Unclassified Projects): These are the projects not listed
in any of the groups, e.g. projects using new processes/technologies
with uncertain impacts. This is an interim category unclassified
projects will eventually be classified into their appropriate groups after
EMB evaluation. (Emphasis supplied)
All government agencies as well as private corporations, firms and entities who
intend to undertake activities or projects which will affect the quality of environment
are required to prepare a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to
undertaking such development activity.
5. Yes. It must be stressed that DAO 2002-08 and related DA order are not the only
legal bases for regulating field trials of GM plants and plant products. EO 514 clearly
provides that the NBF applies to the development, adoption and implementation of
all biosafety policies, measures and guidelines and in making biosafety decisions
concerning the research, development, handling and use, transboundary movement,
release into the environment and management of regulated articles.
The NBF requires the use of precaution, as provided in Section 2.6 which reads:
It likewise contains general principles and minimum guidelines that the concerned
agencies are expected to follow and which their respective rules and regulations
must conform with. In cases of conflict in applying the principles, the principle of
protecting the public interest and welfare shall always prevail, and no provision of the
NBF shall be construed as to limit the legal authority and mandate of heads of
departments and agencies to consider the national interest and public welfare in
making biosafety decisions.
Parenthetically, during the hearing at the CA, Atty. Segui of the EMB was evasive
in answering the questions on whether his office undertook the necessary evaluation
on the possible environmental impact of Bt talong field trials and the release of
GMOs into the environment in general. While he initially cited lack of budget and
competence as reasons for their inaction, he later said that an amendment of the
law should be made since projects involving GMOS are not covered by Proclamation
No. 2146, entitled Proclaiming Certain Areas and Types of Projects as
Environmentally Critical and Within the Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement
System Established Under Presidential Decree No. 1586.
The Supreme Court took the above as an indication of the DENR-EMBs lack of
serious attention to their mandate under EO 514 to ensure that environmental
assessments are done and impacts identified in biosafety decisions.
Section 6 of EO 514 likewise directed the DOST, DENR, DA and DOH to ensure
the allocation of funds for the implementation of the NBF as it was intended to be a
multi-disciplinary effort involving the different government departments and agencies.
The petitioners government agencies clearly failed to fulfil their mandates in the
implementation of the NBF.
6. Yes. The precautionary principle originated in Germany in the 1960s, expressing the
normative idea that governments are obliged to foresee and forestall harm to the
environment. The Rules incorporated the principle in Part V, Rule 20, which states:
While the goal of increasing crop yields to raise farm incomes is laudable,
independent scientific studies revealed uncertainties due to unfulfilled economic
benefits from Bt crops and plants, adverse effects on the environment associated
with the use of GE technology in agriculture, and serious health hazards from
consumption of GM foods. For a biodiversity-rich country like the Philippines, the
natural and unforeseen consequences of contamination and genetic pollution would
be disastrous and irreversible.
There exists a preponderance of evidence that the release of the GMOs into the
environment threatens to damage our ecosystems and not just the field trial sites,
and eventually the health of our people once the Bt eggplants are consumed as food.
Adopting the precautionary approach, the Supreme Court ruled that the principles
of the NBF need to be operationalized first by the coordinated actions of the
concerned departments and agencies before allowing the release into the
environment of genetically modified eggplant.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION