Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

CASE 2016-0055: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE IT INVOLVES NINE (9) MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION1

ACQUISITION OF AGR-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS INC. VS. ASSAILING THE DECISION DATED DECEMBER 8, 2015 OF THE
GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES) ET AL. (G.R. COURT (DECEMBER 8, 2015 DECISION), WHICH UPHELD WITH
NO. 209271, 26 JULY 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (NOTE: MODIFICATION THE DECISION3 DATED MAY 17, 2013 AND
THERE ARE OTHER COMPANION CASES) (SUBJECT/S: SC THE RESOLUTION4 DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 OF THE
RESOLVES ONLY ACTUAL CONTROVERSIES; EXCEPTIONS COURT OF APPEALS (CA) IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 00013.
RESOLUTION OF CASES RENDERED MOOT) (BRIEF TITLE:
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE VS. GREENPEACE)

HOW DID THE SC RESOLVE THESE MOTIONS FOR


DISPOSITIVE: RECONSIDERATION?

WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration are GRANTED. SC GRANTED THESE MOTIONS.
The Decision dated December 8, 2015 of the Court, which
affirmed with modification the Decision dated May 17, 2013
and the Resolution dat.ed September 20, 2013 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00013, is hereby SET ASIDE for ON WHAT MAIN GROUND?
the reasons above-explained. A new one is ENTERED
DISJ\r1ISSIN G 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 ON THE GROUND OF MOOTNESS.
respondents Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines),
JUagsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunladng Agrikultura,
and others on the ground of mootness.
THESE CASES STEMMED FROM RESPONDENTS PETITION FOR
WRIT OF KALIKASAN. THE WRIT BEING SOUGHT WAS
MOOTED BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE BIOSAFETY PERMITS
SO ORDERED. ISSUED BY BUREAU OF PLANT INDISTRY AND THE
COMPLETION OF THE BT TALONG FIELD TRIALS. THERE IS NO
MORE FIELD TEST TO ENJOIN.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

ALSO, THERE IS NO PERCEPTIBLE BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC


THAT MAY BE GAINED BY RESOLVING RESPONDENTS
WHAT DOES THIS CASE INVOLVE? PETITION FOR WRIT OF KALIKASAN.

WHAT CONTROVERSIES CAN THE COURT ADJUDICATE?


AND FOURTH, WHEN THE CASE IS CAPABLE OF REPETITION
YET EVADING REVIEW.

AS A GENERAL RULE ONLY ACTUAL, ONGOING


CONTROVERSIES. THIS RULE IS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1,
ARTICLE VIII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE COURT IS NOT EMPOWERED TO


DECIDE MOOT QUESTIONS OR ABSTRACT PROPOSITIONS.

WHEN A CASE IS MOOT, IT BECOMES NON-JUSTICIABLE.

ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS GENERAL RULE?

YES.

FIRST, WHEN THERE IS A GRAVE VIOLATION OF THE


CONSTITUTION;

SECOND, WHEN 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;
continuing international debate on GMOs and the varying degrees of
acceptance of GM technology by states . . . . Page 69. The Court also
cautioned that the uncertainties generated by conflicting scientific
findings or limited research [are] not diminished by extensive use at
present of GM technology in agriculture. Page 70.
International Service for the Turning to the existing biosafety regulation in the Philippines, the
Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Supreme Court found Administrative Order (DAO) 08-2002 deficient
because it lacks provisions for meaningful, participatory, and
Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace transparent public consultation prior to field trials and contains no
mechanisms requiring applicants seeking to import or release GMOs
Southeast Asia (Philippines) to comply with international biosafety standards. Pages 89-91. The
Court also found that officials should have complied with
environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures prior to approving
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, release of Bt talong. Pages 91-92.
Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. Nos. 209271,
209276, 209301 & 209430 (December 8, 2015) Invoking the precautionary principle, the Supreme Court blocked
Supreme Court of the Philippines further field trials of Bt talong until regulatory systems governing the
import and release of GMOs are strengthened. When these features -
The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld a lower court decision uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of
invalidating an administrative order governing import and release of serious harm - coincide, the case for the precautionary principle is
genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in the Philippines. The Court strongest. When in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of the
addressed a range of issues, from standing and mootness to application constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Page 100.
of the precautionary principle. On the procedural claims by the The Court proceeded to nullify DAO 08-2002 and enjoined
petitioners that the case was moot and academic because all field applications for contained use, field testing, propagation and
trials had been suspended, the Supreme Court found the paramount commercialization, and importation of any GMOs until a new
public interest in the case and the fact that the legal issues were administrative order is adopted. Page 102.
capable of repetition yet evading review justified the Courts review of
the case. Page 38. The Court also noted the petitioners were
warranted in seeking judicial review because the biotechnology
administrative framework does not provide a speedy, or adequate
remedy. Page 40.

The decision explains the current controversy over GMOs and, in


particular, genetically-modified food crops for human consumption.
Drawing on research and case studies from around the world, and the
testimony of expert witnesses, the Supreme Court found there to be no
consensus on the safety of Bt talong to humans and the environment,
stating [t]hese divergent views of local scientists reflect 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
MOST REV. PEDRO ARIGO, et. al., Petitioners, Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros
Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, which
vs. events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful
ecology.
SCOTT H. SWIFT, et. al., Respondents.
ISSUES:
G.R. No. 206510 September 16, 2014
1. Whether or not petitioners have legal standing.

2. Whether or not US respondents may be held liable for damages


caused by USS Guardian.
PONENTE: Villarama 3. Whether or not the waiver of immunity from suit under VFA
applies in this case.
TOPIC: Writ of kalikasan, UNCLOS, Immunity from suit

HELD:
FACTS:
First issue: YES.
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 Petitioners have legal standing
arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship
replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty. On January 6, 2013, Locus standi is a right of appearance in a court of justice on
the ship left Sasebo, Japan for Subic Bay, arriving on January 13, 2013 a given question. Specifically, it is a partys personal and substantial
after a brief stop for fuel in Okinawa, Japan. 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
On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay generalized grievance. However, the rule on standing is a procedural
for its next port of call in Makassar, Indonesia. On January 17, 2013 at matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like
2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the
ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so its warship entered a restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and
requires, such as when the subject matter of the controversy is of caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the
transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or ambit of Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of
of paramount public interest. the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while historically, warships
enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in
recognized the public right of citizens to a balanced and healthful cases where they fail to comply with the rules and regulations of
ecology which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is the coastal State regarding passage through the latters internal
solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. We declared that the waters and the territorial sea.
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 In the case of warships, as pointed out by Justice Carpio,
implications. Such right carries with it the correlative duty to refrain they continue to enjoy sovereign immunity subject to the following
from impairing the environment. exceptions:

On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners Article 30: Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations
minors in Oposa, this Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens of the coastal State
have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental rights,
they can do so in representation of their own and future generations. If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the
coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and
Second issue: YES. 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


The US respondents were sued in their official capacity as warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial
commanding officers of the US Navy who had control and supervision purposes
over the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act or omission
resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the USS Guardian on the The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or
TRNP was committed while they were performing official military damage to the coastal State resulting from the non-compliance by a
duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial
officials will require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by purposes with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning
the US government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself. passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions of this
The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of Convention or other rules of international law.
jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice
and Robling. Article 32: Immunities of warships and other government ships
operated for non-commercial purposes
During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T.
Carpio took the position that the conduct of the US in this case, when
With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a
articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of regional basis, directly or through competent international
warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial organizations, in formulating and elaborating international rules,
purposes. A foreign warships unauthorized entry into our internal standards and recommended practices and procedures consistent with
waters with resulting damage to marine resources is one situation this Convention, for the protection and preservation of the marine
in which the above provisions may apply. environment, taking into account characteristic regional features.

But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, as in In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present
this case, the US? controversy is beyond dispute. Although the said treaty upholds
the immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of Coastal States
According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not ratified while navigating the latters territorial sea, the flag States shall be
the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-standing policy the US considers required to leave the territorial sea immediately if they flout the
itself bound by customary international rules on the traditional uses of laws and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable
the oceans as codified in UNCLOS. for damages caused by their warships or any other government
vessel operated for non-commercial purposes under Article 31.
Moreover, Justice Carpio emphasizes that the US refusal to join the
UNCLOS was centered on its disagreement with UNCLOS regime of Third issue: NO.
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 waiver of State immunity under the VF A pertains only
to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the
The Court also fully concurred with Justice Carpios view that non- present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be
membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal case
the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters against a person charged with a violation of an environmental law is to
and territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear international be filed separately.
responsibility under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian
grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Indeed, it is The Court considered a view that a ruling on the application
difficult to imagine that our long-time ally and trading partner, which or non-application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US
has been actively supporting the countrys efforts to preserve our vital personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding of the USS
marine resources, would shirk from its obligation to compensate the Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province of a petition
damage caused by its warship while transiting our internal waters. for a writ of Kalikasan.
Much less can we comprehend a Government exercising leadership in
international affairs, unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS directive The Court also found unnecessary at this point to determine
for all nations to cooperate in the global task to protect and preserve whether such waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. In the same
the marine environment as provided in Article 197 of UNCLOS vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted from the violation
of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of damages,
Article 197: Cooperation on a global or regional basis including the collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067,
in a separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the criminal 2. Whether LAMI flattened any mountain and cause
action charging the same violation of an environmental law. environmental damage of such magnitured as to
prejudice the life, health, property of inhabitants in two
or more cities or provinces

Ruling

1. No. LAMI strictly followed the permit issued by CENRO


and passed the evaluation conducted after the
issuance of the permit so it clearly had the authority to
cut trees and did not violate Sec. 68 of the Revised
Forestry Code. The Philippine Mining Act is not
Case Digest: LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. v. applicable to the case since LAMI is not conducting
Agham Party List anything on the port site and it secured all the
LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. v. Agham Party List necessary permits and licenses for the construction of
a port and LAMIs activity was limited to preparatory
works for the ports construction. The Philippine Mining
G.R. No. 209165 April 12, 2016 Act deals with mining operations and other mining
activities.
(Natural Resources Law; Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases) 2. No. The Respondent, in accusing that LAMI allegedly flattened a
mountain, did not cite any law allegedly violated by LAMI in relation
to this claim. It did not present any proof to demonstrate that the local
residents in Zambales and those of the towns of Pangaisnan
Facts complained of any great danger or harm on the alleged leveling of the
land formation which may affect their lives, health, or properties.
LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) is the operator of a mining Neither was there any evidence showing of a grave and real
claim located in Sta. Cruz, Zambales. It embarked on a project to build environmental damage to the barangay and the surrounding vicinity.
a private, non-commercial port in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz, Zambales.
It is about 25 kilometers away from the mine site. The records of expert testimonies and government entities and
offiicials also show that there is in fact no mountain in Brgy. Bolitoc,
Agham Party list filed a Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan with the Court Sta. Cruz, Zambales.
of Appeals. The CA denied the petition.
The Supreme Court agreed with the CA in denying the petition for a
Issues Writ of Kalikasan.

1. Whether LAMI violated the environmental laws: the


Revised Forestry Code, and Philippine Mining Act;

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi