MOST REV. PEDRO ARIGO, et. al.

, Petitioners,
vs.
SCOTT H. SWIFT, et. al., Respondents.
G.R. No. 206510

September 16, 2014

PONENTE: Villarama
TOPIC: Writ of kalikasan, UNCLOS, Immunity from suit

FACTS:
The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship of the US
Navy. In December 2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic
clearance for the said vessel to enter and exit the territorial waters of the Philippines
and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship replenishment,
maintenance, and crew liberty. On January 6, 2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for
Subic Bay, arriving on January 13, 2013 after a brief stop for fuel in Okinawa, Japan.
On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its next port
of call in Makassar, Indonesia. On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the
Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha
Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan. No one was injured in the incident,
and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.
Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations
of the USS Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental damage of such
magnitude as to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo,
Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and TawiTawi, which events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology.
ISSUES:
1.
2.

Whether or not petitioners have legal standing.

Whether or not US respondents may be held liable for damages caused by USS
Guardian.

3.

Whether or not the waiver of immunity from suit under VFA applies in this case.

HELD:
First issue: YES.

Petitioners have legal standing

Locus standi is a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given
question. Specifically, it is a partys personal and substantial interest in a case where
he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the act being challenged, and
calls for more than just a generalized grievance. However, the rule on standing is a
procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary
citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when
the subject matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching
significance to society, or of paramount public interest.
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we recognized the public
right of citizens to a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our
constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. We declared that
the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the Constitution for it
is assumed, like other civil and polittcal rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist
from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with
intergenerational implications. Such right carries with it the correlative duty to refrain
from impairing the environment.
On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa,
this Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the
enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own and
future generations.
Second issue: YES.

The US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding

officers of the US Navy who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its
crew. The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the USS
Guardian on the TRNP was committed while they were performing official military
duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will require
remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is deemed
to be one against the US itself. The principle of State immunity therefore bars the

exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and
Robling.
During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio took the
position that the conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a restricted
area in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and caused damage to the TRNP reef system,
brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while historically, warships enjoy
sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the
UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases where they fail to comply with
the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through the
latters internal waters and the territorial sea.

In the case of warships, as pointed out by Justice Carpio, they continue

to enjoy sovereign immunity subject to the following exceptions:
Article 30: Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal
State
If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State
concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for
compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the
territorial sea immediately.
Article 31: Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship or other
government ship operated for non-commercial purposes
The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the
coastal State resulting from the non-compliance by a warship or other government ship
operated for non-commercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the coastal
State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions of this
Convention or other rules of international law.
Article 32: Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for noncommercial purposes
With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and
31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government
ships operated for non-commercial purposes. A foreign warships unauthorized entry
into our internal waters with resulting damage to marine resources is one
situation in which the above provisions may apply.
But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, as in this case, the
US?

According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a
matter of long-standing policy the US considers itself bound by customary international
rules on the traditional uses of the oceans as codified in UNCLOS.
Moreover, Justice Carpio emphasizes that the US refusal to join the UNCLOS was
centered on its disagreement with UNCLOS regime of deep seabed mining (Part XI)
which considers the oceans and deep seabed commonly owned by mankind, pointing
out that such has nothing to do with its the US acceptance of customary international
rules on navigation.
The Court also fully concurred with Justice Carpios view that non-membership in the
UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a
Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear
international responsibility under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian
grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine
that our long-time ally and trading partner, which has been actively supporting the
countrys efforts to preserve our vital marine resources, would shirk from its obligation to
compensate the damage caused by its warship while transiting our internal waters.
Much less can we comprehend a Government exercising leadership in international
affairs, unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS directive for all nations to cooperate in the
global task to protect and preserve the marine environment as provided in Article 197 of
UNCLOS
Article 197: Cooperation on a global or regional basis
States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis,
directly or through competent international organizations, in formulating and elaborating
international rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures consistent
with this Convention, for the protection and preservation of the marine environment,
taking into account characteristic regional features.
In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond
dispute. Although the said treaty upholds the immunity of warships from the
jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the latters territorial sea, the flag
States shall be required to leave the territorial sea immediately if they flout the
laws and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages
caused by their warships or any other government vessel operated for noncommercial purposes under Article 31.
Third issue: NO.

The waiver of State immunity under the VF A pertains only to criminal

jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of a
writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a

criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an environmental law is to be

filed separately.
The Court considered a view that a ruling on the application or nonapplication of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US personnel who may be
found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature and
beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.
The Court also found unnecessary at this point to determine whether such
waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant
damages which have resulted from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules
allows the recovery of damages, including the collection of administrative fines under
R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the criminal action
charging the same violation of an environmental law.
Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan
G.R. No. 196870, June 26, 2012
FACTS:
Claiming that tourist arrivals to Boracay would reach 1 million in the future,
respondent Province of Aklan planned to expand the port facilities at Barangay Caticlan,
Municipality of Malay. Thus, on May 7, 2009, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Aklan
Province issued a resolution, authorizing Governor Carlito Marquez to file an application
with respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) to reclaim the 2.64 hectares of
foreshore area in Caticlan. In the same year, the Province deliberated on the possible
expansion from its original proposed reclamation area of 2.64 hectares to forty (40)
hectares in order to maximize the utilization of its resources.
After PRAs approval, on April 27, 2010, respondent Department of Environment
and Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau-Region VI (DENR-EMB
RVI) issued to the Province Environmental Compliance Certificate-R6-1003-096-7100
(the questioned ECC) for Phase 1 of the Reclamation Project to the extent of 2.64
hectares to be done along the Caticlan side beside the existing jetty port.
On May 17, 2010, the Province finally entered into a MOA with PRA which stated
that the land use development of the reclamation project shall be for commercial,
recreational and institutional and other applicable uses. It was at this point that the
Province deemed it necessary to conduct a series of public consultation meetings.
On the other hand, the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan, the Sangguniang
Bayan of the Municipality of Malay and petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. (BFI), an
organization composed of some 160 businessmen and residents in Boracay, expressed

their strong opposition to the reclamation project on environmental, socio-economic and

legal grounds.
Despite the opposition, the Province merely noted their objections and issued a
notice to the contractor on December 1, 2010 to commence with the construction of the
project. Thus, on June 1, 2011, BFI filed with the Supreme Court the instant Petition for
Environmental Protection Order/Issuance of the Writ of Continuing Mandamus.
Thereafter, the Court issued a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) and
ordered the respondents to file their respective comments to the petition.
The Petition was premised on the following grounds, among others:
a the Province failed to obtain the favorable endorsement of the LGU
concerned;
b the Province failed to conduct the required consultation procedures as
required by the Local Government Code (LGC).
The Province responded by claiming that its compliance with the requirements of
DENR-EMB RVI and PRA that led to the approval of the reclamation project by the said
government agencies, as well as the recent enactments of the Barangay Council of
Caticlan and the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Malay favorably endorsing
the said project, had categorically addressed all the issues raised by the BFI in its
Petition. It also considered the Petition to be premature for lack of cause of action due
to the failure of BFI to fully exhaust the available administrative remedies even before
seeking judicial relief.

ISSUES:
WON the petition is premature because petitioner failed to exhaust administrative
remedies before filing this case?
WON there was proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the project?

RULING:
On the issue of prematurity due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies
The Court held that the petition is not premature for failing to exhaust
administrative remedies and to observe the hierarchy of courts as claimed by the
respondents.

The Court reiterated their ruling in Pagara v. Court of Appeals where they
clarified that the rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and
fast rule. It is not applicable where, among others, there are circumstances indicating
the urgency of judicial intervention such as in the instant case. The rule may also be
disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy or where
the protestant has no other recourse.
Meanwhile, the new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-68-SC, provides a relief for petitioner under the writ of continuing mandamus, which is a
special civil action that may be availed of to compel the performance of an act
specifically enjoined by law and which provides for the issuance of a TEPO as an
auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the writ itself.
The writ of continuing mandamus allows an aggrieved party to file a verified
petition in the proper court when any government agency or instrumentality or officer
thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins
as a duty xxx in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law
rule or regulation or a right therein, xxx and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Such proper court may be the Regional
Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or
omission occurred, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court.
Here, the Court found that BFI had no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law to determine the questions of unique national and local
importance raised that pertain to laws and rules for environmental protection.
Moreover, the writ of continuing mandamus permits the court to retain
jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs
mandated under the courts decision and, in order to do this, the court may compel the
submission of compliance reports from the respondent government agencies as well as
avail of other means to monitor compliance with its decision.

On the issue of whether or not there was proper, timely, and sufficient public
consultation for the project
The Court found that there was no proper, timely, and sufficient public
consultation for the project.
The Local Government Code (LGC) establishes the duties of national
government agencies in the maintenance of ecological balance and requires them to
secure prior public consultations and approval of local government units. In Province of
Rizal v. Executive Secretary, the Court emphasized that, under the Local Government

Code, two requisites must be met before a national project that affects the
environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be implemented: (1)
prior consultation with the affected local communities, and (2) prior approval of the
project by the appropriate sanggunian. The absence of either of such mandatory
requirements will render the projects implementation as illegal.
Here, the Court classified the reclamation project as a national project since it
affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities. In one ruling, the
Court noted that such national projects mentioned in Section 27 of the LGC include
those that may cause pollution and bring about climate change, among others, such as
the reclamation project in this case.
Also, DENR DAO 2003-30 provides that project proponents should initiate public
consultations early in order to ensure that environmentally relevant concerns of
stakeholders are taken into consideration in the EIA study and the formulation of the
management plan.
Thus, the law requires the Province, being the delegate of the PRAs power to
reclaim land in this case, to conduct prior consultations and prior approval. However, the
information dissemination conducted months after the ECC had already been issued
was insufficient to comply with the requirements under the LGC.
Furthermore, the lack of prior public consultation and approval is not corrected by
the subsequent endorsement of the reclamation project by the Sangguniang Barangay
of Caticlan and the Sangguniang Bayan in 2012, which were both undoubtedly achieved
at the urging and insistence of the Province.
Dolot vs. Paje, etc., et al.,
G.R. No. 199199, August 27,2013
Facts
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the Order dated September 16, 2011 and Resolution3 dated October 18, 2011
issued by RTC of Sorsogon, Branch 53 on Continuing Mandamus, Damages and
Attorneys Fees with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Environment Protection
Order (TEPO).
Petitioner Maricris Dolot, et al, filed the aforesaid petition with the RTC of
Sorsogon alleging that mining operations conducted by Antones Enterprises, Global
Summit Mines Development Corporation and TR Ore puts the municipality of Matnog in
environmental dangers and despite this fact, Sorsogon Governor Raul Lee and his
predecessor Sally Lee issued to the operators a small-scale mining permit. Similarly, it
was alleged that representatives of PMS and DENR did nothing to protect the interest of
the people in same community, thus, respondents violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7076

or the Peoples Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991, R.A. No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining
Act of 1995, and the Local Government Code. Dolot, et al primarily prayed for the
shutdown of said mining operations through issuance of TEPO as well as the
rehabilitation of the mining sites and the return of the iron ore mined in the area.
The case was referred by the Executive Judge to the RTC of Sorsogon, Branch
53 being the designated environmental court. However, the case was summarily
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC averred that SC Administrative Order (A.O.)
No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 limit the power of such court to try and hear the
case as its territorial jurisdiction was limited to violations of environmental laws within
the boundaries of Sorsogon City and the neighboring municipalities of Donsol, Pilar,
Castilla, Casiguran and Juban.
Issue
Whether the RTC-Branch 53 has jurisdiction to resolve Civil Case No. 2011-8338.
Ruling
The SC held that such reasoning is plainly erroneous and that RTC cannot solely
rely on SC A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 and confine itself within its four
corners in determining whether it had jurisdiction over the action filed by the petitioners.
As reiterated by the SC, jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to hear, try
and decide a case, is conferred by law. It may either be over the nature of the action,
over the subject matter, over the person of the defendants or over the issues framed in
the pleadings. BP Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 also states that
jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is vested in
the RTC, hence, original jurisdiction shall be exercised by the RTCs. Both the SC AO
and AC merely provide for the venue where an action may be filed. The Court does not
have the power to confer jurisdiction on any court or tribunal as the allocation of
jurisdiction is lodged solely in Congress and the same cannot be delegated to another
office or agency of the Government.
The high court further emphasized that venue relates only to the place of trial or
the geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought and does
not equate to the jurisdiction of the court as it is aimed to accord convenience to the
parties, as it relates to the place of trial, and does not restrict their access to the courts.
Therefore, RTCs motu proprio dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
is incorrect. While it appears that the alleged actionable neglect or omission occurred in
the Municipality of Matnog and as such, the petition should have been filed in the RTC
of Irosin, it does not warrant the outright dismissal of the petition by the RTC as venue
may be waived. Moreover, the action filed by the petitioners is not criminal in nature
where venue is an essential element of jurisdiction. With these, the SC granted the
petition and directed the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon to
transfer the case to the RTC of Irosin, Branch 55, for further proceedings with dispatch.

EN BANC[G.R. No. 195482 : June 21, 2011]ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. V.

PLACER DOME, INC."G.R. No. 195482 (ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. PLACER
DOME, INC.)Nota Bien:
If you were to search this case using the above-cited G.R. No., you will see a mere
resolution of the Court without any defined statement of facts, issues or ruling.
So what I did was to research on the factual antecedents which culminated
into this petition. Please, verify it if you cannot understand the following
discussions.
Antecedent Facts:
Placer Dome is the parent corporation of Marcopper Mining Company. It is engaged in themining
operations in Marinduque from 1964

1997. In May 2006, Placer Dome merged with BarrickGold Corporation, a foreign entity.In
March 1996, the disaster came about. A fracture in the drainage tunnel of a large pitcontaining
leftover mine tailings led to a discharge of toxic mine waste into the Makulapnit-Boac
riversystem and caused flash floods in areas along the river. Barangay Hinapulan, was
buried in six feet of muddy floodwater, causing damage to people and their families, as
well as livestock, marine resourcesand maritime life.Placer Dome entered into a contract with
then President Fidel V. Ramos to rehabilitate thewaters of Marinduque. It did not reach fruition.
Start of Court Process:
In 2011, three residents of Marinduque, Eliza M. Hernandez, Mamerto M. Lanete andGodofredo L.
Manoy, represented by Father Joaquin Bernas, filed a petition for writ of
kalikasan.
In theirpetition, they argued that said Placer Dome should be held liable for expelling some 2 million
cubicmeters of toxic industrial waste into the Boac river when a drainage plug holding
toxic mining wastefrom its operations ruptured.The writ of
Kalikasan
was granted. In March 2011, the Court issued a resolution which referredthe case to the Court of
Appeals for hearing, reception of evidence, and rendition of judgment. CA thenissued a resolution
requiring the petitioners to issue a sub poena against Placer Dome.
Issue:
After receiving the resolution issued by CA, Barrick Gold, currently the owner of Placer Dome,filed a
Clarificatory Manifestation
to clarify which court exercises jurisdiction over the case in order toshed light to the procedural
paths available to the parties.
Supreme Court Resolution
Pursuant to Section 3, Rule VII of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, petitions forthe
Writ of Kalikasan "shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the
Court of Appeals." It was in consonance with this provision that, on 8 March 2011, the Court issued
theResolution which, after granting the Writ of Kalikasan sought by petitioners, referred the case to the
CAfor hearing, reception of evidence and rendition of judgment. Considering said
referral of the case to theCA, its re-docketing of the petition as CA-G.R. SP No. 00001 and its
conduct of proceedings relativethereto, it is imperative that the various motions and
incidents filed by the parties, together with theentire records of the case, be likewise referred to

said Court in observance of the doctrine of hierarchyof courts and in the interest of the orderly
and expeditious conduct of the proceedings in the case.

MMDA v Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (Environmental

Law)
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
GR No. 171947-48
December 18, 2008
FACTS:
The complaint by the residents alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had
fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically Presidential Decree
No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code and that ALL defendants (public
officials) must be jointly and/or solidarily liable and collectively ordered to clean up Manila
Bay and to restore its water quality to class B, waters fit for swimming, diving, and other
forms of contact recreation.
ISSUES:
(1) WON Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the headings, Upgrading of Water
Quality and Clean-up Operations, envisage a cleanup in general or are they limited
only to the cleanup of specific pollution incidents;
(2) WON petitioners be compel led by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila
Bay.
APPLICABLE LAWS:
PD 1152 Philippine Environmental Code Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality.
Where the quality of water has deteriorated t o a degree where it s state will
adversely affect its best u sage, the government agencies concerned shall take such
measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet
the prescribed water quality standards. Section 20. Clean-up Operations.It shall be
the responsibility of the polluter to contain , remove and clean - up water pollution
incidents at his own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the government
agencies concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean-up operations and
expenses incurred in said operation shall be charged against the persons and/ or entities
responsible for such pollution.
HELD:
(1) Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned
ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning operations
when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to
act even in the absence of a specific pollution incident, as long as water quality
has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage.
Section 17 & 20 are of general application and are not for specific pollution incidents only.
The fact that the pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude and scope that it is

well -nigh impossible to draw the line between a specific and a general
incident.

pollution

(2) The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be Compelled by Mandamus. While the
implementation of the MMDA's mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process,
the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done
is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. Under what other
judicial discipline describes as continuing mandamus , the Court may, under
extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its
decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference.
NOTE: This continuing mandamus is no longer applicable, since this is institutionalized in
the rules of procedure for environmental cases.
20 days Temporary restraining order

CASE: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc., et.al. v.
Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et.al. (G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301 and
209430)
DATE: 8 December 2015
PONENTE: J. Villarama, Jr.
BACKGROUND

In 1990, President Corazon Aquino signed Executive Order (EO) No. 430 creating the
National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) which was tasked to identify
and evaluate potential hazards involved in initiating genetic engineering experiments and
introducing new species and genetically engineered organisms and recommend measures
to minimize risks.
In 1991, NCBP formulated the Philippine Biosafety Guidelines which governs the
regulation of the importation or introduction, movement and field release of potentially
hazardous biological materials in the Philippines. The same was followed by the
Guidelines on Planned Release of Genetically Manipulated Organisms (GMOs) and
Potentially Harmful Exotic Species (PHES).
On 29 December 1993, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) came into force.
This is a multilateral treaty recognizing the great potential of modern biotechnology for
human well-being if developed and used with adequate safety measures for the
environment and human health.
In January 2000, an agreement was reached on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
(Cartagena Protocol), a supplement to the CBD, which aims to ensure an adequate level
of safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern
biotechnology. The Philippines signed the same on May 24 of the same year.
In April 2002, the Department of Agriculture (DA) issued DA Administrative Order No.
08 which provides rules and regulations for the importation and release into the
environment of plants and plant products derived from the use of modern biotechnology.
On 17 March 2006, EO No. 514 (EO 514) entitled, Establishing the National Biosafety
Framework (NBF), Prescribing Guidelines for its Implementation, and Strengthening the

NCBP was issued. It expressly provides that DAO 2002-08, NCBP Guidelines on the
Contained Use of GMOs, except for provisions on potentially harmful exotic species
which were repealed, and all issuances of the Bureau of Food and Drugs Authority (FDA)
on products of modern biotechnology, shall continue to be in force and effect unless
amended by the issuing departments or agencies.
FACTS

On 24 September 2010, a Memorandum of Undertaking was executed between

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAAA),
University of the Philippines Los Baos Foundation, Inc. (UPLBFI) and UP Mindanao
Foundation, Inc. (UPMFI), in pursuance of a collaborative research and development
project on eggplants that are resistant to the fruit and shoot borer. Other partner agencies
involved were UPLB through its Institute of Plant Breeding, Maharastra Hybrid Seed
Company (MAHYCO) of India, Cornell University and the Agricultural Biotechnology
Support Project II (ABSPII) of USAID.
The UPLB Field Trial Proposal states that the pest-resistant crop subject of the field trial
was described as a bio-engineered eggplant. The crystal toxin genes from the soil
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) were incorporated into the eggplant genome to
produce the protein CrylAc which is toxic to target insect pests. The latter is said to be
highly specific to lepidopteran larvae such as fruit and shoot borer (FSB), the most
destructive insect pest of eggplant.
NCBP issued a Certificate of Completion of Contained Experiment which was conducted
from 2007 to 3 March 2009 stating that during the conduct of experiment, all the
biosafety measures have been complied with and no untoward incident has occurred.
On 16 March 2010 and 28 June 2010, the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) issued biosafety
permits to UPLB.
Field testing commenced on various dates in the following approved trial sites: Kabacan,
North Cotabato; Sta. Maria, Pangasinan; Pili, Camarines Sur; Bago Oshiro, Davao City;
and Bay, Laguna.
On 26 April 2012, Greenpeace, MASIPAG and individual respondents (Greenpeace,
et.al.) filed a petition for writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus with prayer
for the issuance of Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) alleging that the
Bt talong field trials violate their constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology
considering that:
- The required Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) under PD 1151 was
not secured prior to the project implementation
- There is no independent, peer-reviewed study on the safety of Bt talong for
human consumption and the environment
- There was a study conducted showing adverse effects on rats who were fed Bt
corn, local scientists likewise attested to the harmful effects of GMOs to human
and animal health
- Bt crops can be directly toxic to non-target species
- There is a failure to comply with the required public consultation under Sections
26 and 27 of the Local Government Code

The case calls for the application of the precautionary principle, it being a classic
environmental case where scientific evidence as to the health, environmental and
socio-economic safety is insufficient or uncertain and preliminary scientific
evaluation indicates reasonable grounds for concern that there are potentially
dangerous effects on human health and the environment
The following reliefs are prayed for by Greenpeace, et.al., to wit:
- Issuance of a TEPO enjoining BPI and Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) of
the Department of Agriculture (DA) from processing for field testing and
registering as herbicidal product Bt talong in the Philippines, stopping all pending
field testing, and ordering the uprooting of planted Bt talong; and
- Issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus commanding the ISAAAI, et.al.: (1)
to submit to an environmental impact statement system under the Environmental
Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR-EMB); (2) to submit an independent, comprehensive, and rigid risk
assessment, field tests report, and regulatory compliance reports; (3) to submit all
issued certifications on public information, public consultation, public
participation and consent from the LGUs affected by the field testing; (4) to
submit an acceptable draft of an amendment of the NBF and DAO 2002-08; and
(5) for BPI of DA to conduct balanced nationwide public information on the
nature of Bt talong and Bt talong field trial, and a survey of its social
acceptability.
On 2 May 2012, the SC issued the writ of kalikasan against ISAAA, EMB, BPI, FPA and
UPLB, ordering them to file a verified return.
The contentions of the respondents are as follows:
- All environmental laws were complied with, including public consultations in the
affected communities
- The Bt talong project is not covered by the Philippine Environmental Impact
Statement Law
- There is a plethora of scientific works and literature, peer-reviewed, on the safety
of Bt talong for human consumption
- Allegations regarding the safety of Bt talong are irrelevant in the field trial stage
as none of the eggplants will be consumed by humans or animals
- There is a non-observance of the rule on hierarchy of courts
- Greenpeace, et.al. have no legal standing as they do not stand to suffer any direct
injury as a result of the Bt talong field tests
- The precautionary principle does not apply since the field testing is only a part of
a continuing study to ensure that the field trials have no significant and negative
impact on the environment
SC, in a Resolution dated 10 July 2012, referred the case to the Court of Appeals.
On 12 September 2012, the parties submitted the following procedural issues before the
CA: (1) whether Greenpeace, et.al. has legal standing to file the petition for writ of
kalikasan; (2) whether the petition has been rendered moot and academic by the alleged
termination of the Bt talong field testing; and (3) whether the case presented a justiciable
controversy
CA, in a Resolution dated 12 October 2012, resolved that: (1) the Greenpeace, et.al.
possess legal standing; (2) the case is not yet moot since it is capable of repetition yet

evading review; and (3) the alleged non-compliance with environmental and local
government laws present justiciable controversies for resolution by the court.
On 17 May 2013, CA rendered a decision in favor of the Greenpeace, et.al. finding that
the precautionary principle set forth in Section 1, Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases (the Rules) finds relevance in the case.
CA rejected the Motions for Reconsideration filed by ISAAA, EMB/BPI/FPA, UPLB and
UPLBFI rejecting the argument that CA violated UPLBs right to academic freedom. The
writ stops the field trials of Bt talong as a procedure, it does not stop Bt talong research.
Thus, there is no assault on academic freedom.
CA further justified its ruling by expounding on the theory that introducing a genetically
modified plant into our ecosystem is an ecologically imbalancing act.
Before the SC is a consolidated petition of ISAAAI, EMB/BPI/FPA, UPLB and UPLBFI
to reverse the CA decision permanently enjoining the conduct of field trials for
Genetically Modified eggplants.

ISSUES
1
2
3
4
5
6

WON Greenpeace, et.al. has a legal standing

WON the case is moot and academic
WON there is a violation of the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of
administrative remedies
WON the law on environmental impact statement/assessment applies on projects
involving the introduction and propagation of GMOs in the country
WON there is neglect or unlawful omission committed by the public respondents in the
processing and evaluation of the applications for Bt talong field testing
WON the Precautionary Principle applies

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.

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.

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.

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.
An environmentally critical project (ECP) is considered by the EMB as likely to have
significant adverse impact that may be sensitive, irreversible and diverse and which
include activities that have significant environmental consequences.
In this context, and given the overwhelming scientific attention worldwide on the
potential hazards of GMOs to human health and the environment, their release into the
environment through field testing would definitely fall under the category of ECP.
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:
2.6. Using Precaution. In accordance with Principle 15 of the Rio
Declaration of 1992 and the relevant provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety, in particular Article 1, 10 (par. 6) and 11 (par. 8), the precautionary
approach shall guide biosafety decisions. The principles and elements of this
approach are hereby implemented through the decision-making system in the
NBF.
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.
Notably, Section 7 of NBF mandates a more transparent, meaningful and participatory
public consultation on the conduct of field trials beyond the posting and publication of
notices and information sheets, consultations with some residents and government officials,
and submission of written comments, provided in DAO 2002-08.

The Supreme Court found that ISAAAI, et.al. simply adhered to the procedures laid
down by DAO 2002-08 and no real effort was made to operationalize the principles of NBF
in the conduct of field testing of Bt talong. Said failure means that the DA lacks mechanisms
to mandate applicants to comply with international biosafety protocols. For these reasons, the
DAO 2002-08 should be declared invalid.
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 multidisciplinary 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:
SEC.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.
SEC 2. Standards for application. In applying the precautionary principle,
the following factors, among others, may be considered: (1) threats to human
life or health; (2) inequity to present or future generations; or (3) prejudice to
the environment without legal consideration of the environmental rights of
those affected.
When the features of uncertainty, possibility of irreversible harm, and possibility of
serious harm coincide, the case for the precautionary principle is strongest. The Supreme
Court found all three (3) conditions present.

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 biodiversityrich country like the Philippines, the natural and unforeseen consequences of contamination
and genetic pollution would be disastrous and irreversible.
Alongside the aforesaid uncertainties, the non-implementation of the NBF in the crucial
stages of risk assessment and public consultation, including the determination of the
applicability of the EIS requirements to the GMO field testing, are compelling reasons for the
application of the precautionary principle.
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.
Further, the precautionary approach entailed inputs from stakeholders, including
marginalized famers, not just the scientific community. This proceeds from the realization
that acceptance of uncertainty is not only a scientific issue, but is related to public policy and
involves an ethical dimension.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
1
2
3

The conduct of Bt talong field testing is permanently enjoined.

DAO 2002-08 is declared null and void.
Any application for contained use, field testing, propagation and commercialization,
and importation of GMOs is temporarily enjoined until a new administrative order is
promulgated in accordance with law.