Supreme Court of Philippines Confirms Genetically

Modified (GM) Eggplant Ban | Global Research -

Centre for Research on Globalization
The Philippines Supreme Court permanently halted the field testing for genetically modified eggplant, Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis),
upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which stopped the field trials for the GM plant.

Not only did the High Court deny the petition to continue cultivation of the GM eggplant, but the appeals courts May 2013
decision was also amended.

Aside from permanently stopping field testing for Bt talong (eggplant), the Supreme Court also declared null and void the
Department of Agricultures (DAs) Administrative Order No. 08, series of 2002.

Additionally, the court ruled that any application for field testing, contained use, propagation, and importation of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) is temporarily stopped pending the promulgation of a new administrative order.

In its ruling, the High Tribunal also explained its application of the precautionary principle, which maintains that lack of
scientific certainty is no reason for inaction at the risk of potentially serious or irreversible harm to the environment. This
principal has been explained at length in a paper by Nassim Taleb et al. (http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf)

In May 2013, the court stopped the nationwide field testing of the Bt eggplant following a petition filed by Greenpeace and
farmers group Masipag against respondents UP Los Baos Foundation Inc, UP Mindanao Foundation Inc, the Department
of Agriculture, and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The cautionary principle was also used in this
case.

Moreover, the court announced that existing regulations of the DA and the Department of Science and Technology were not
enough to ensure the safety of the environment and health of the people.

The High Court agreed with the appellate court, mentioning the lack of consensus among scientists regarding the safety of
Bt crops.

It also found the DAs administrative order lacking in the minimum safety requirements under Executive Order 514, which
established the National Biosafety Framework (NBF).

More transparent, meaningful and participatory consultation of scientists and the public was called for.
Three conditions were noted in the case that warranted the application of the principle:
Settings in which the risks of harm are uncertain
Settings in which harm might be irreversible and what is lost is irreplaceable
Settings in which the harm that might result would be serious

The court stated:

When these features uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious harm coincide, the case for the
precautionary principle is strongest. When in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology.
Opinion

The Bt Talong case and protecting genetically modified

plants in the Philippines
Posted on March 30, 2016

Last December 2015, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case involving genetically modified
plants, i.e., the Bt Talong case (G.R. No. 209271, 209276, 209301, & 209430, 08 December 2015). The
Bt Talong case involved a genetically modified eggplant where the crystal toxin genes from the soil
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) were incorporated into the eggplant genome to produce the
protein Cryl Ac. This supposedly made the genetically modified eggplant resistant to pests such as the
fruit and shoot borer and, in turn, produces higher yields for farmers.

The case arose when the proponents of Bt Talong were about to start its field testing. Various groups (e.g.,
environmentalist NGO Greenpeace Southeast Asia [Philippines], Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng
Agrikultura, a coalition of local farmers, scientists, and NGOs, and various individuals) sought to stop the field
testing on the ground that it will violate the right to health and balanced ecology since Bt crops may be harmful to
health and the environment. These groups presented various studies, such as those showing that other Bt crops
can cause harm to the ecosystem by possibly reducing the number of beneficial species. They also contended that
the field testing of Bt Talong will inevitably contaminate non-Bt modified eggplants.

On the other hand, the proponents of the Bt Talong presented arguments and evidence to contradict the claimed
harmful effects of the Bt Talong, citing, among others, 130 research projects covering 25 years of research which
concluded that genetically modified plants posed no greater risks than conventional plant breeding methods; and
that there was no evidence of the harm that Bt Talong was expected to cause. They also contended that with the
Bt Talong, reliance on insecticides will be reduced, which is claimed to be more harmful to animals and humans.
Despite these arguments, however, the Supreme Court still stopped the field testing of Bt Talong under the
Precautionary Principle.

The Precautionary Principle is applied when there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link
between human activity and environmental effect. It is based on the premise that it is better to stop the human
activity now, even if there is no clear evidence of its harmful effect to the environment, rather than risk
permanently destroying the environment.

With the Supreme Court stopping the field testing of Bt Talong, does it mean that genetically modified plants are
forever barred from entering the Philippines?

This may not necessarily be the case as it seems that the State also recognizes that genetically modified plants
may be needed to address food security and somehow encourages its development.

This can be seen in the Philippine Plant Variety Protection Act of 2002 (or PVP Law), where it would appear that
creating new plant varieties, including genetically modified plants, is encouraged.

The PVP Law was enacted as recognition that new plant varieties are vital in attaining food security. Food security
can be achieved, for example, through new plant varieties that are pest resistant which would ultimately result into
a better yield.

The PVP Law grants any breeder that developed a new plant variety the exclusive right to offer for sale, sell,
produce, export, and import the plants propagating material (e.g., seeds). Such grant of exclusive rights to the
breeder is subject to the condition that the breeder shows that his plant is new, distinct, uniform, and stable.

But does the PVP Law apply to genetically modified plants? The PVP Law does not limit the development of new
plant varieties to the traditional method of hybridization where the parents of the plants are chosen by the
breeder for pollination. The PVP Law appears to accept genetically modified plants as proper subjects of plant
variety protection.

What the PVP Law only requires is for the plant to be new, distinct, uniform, and stable. It is, therefore, the
authors opinion that genetically modified plants can be a valid subject of the PVP Law. In fact, the PVP Law even
gives the breeder the exclusive rights over the genetically engineered versions of his new plant variety (referred to
by the PVP Law as Essentially Derived Varieties).

Although the Supreme Courts decision appears to contradict one of the purposes of the PVP Law, it should be
pointed out that the PVP Law also recognizes the need to preserve the environment, to wit: The State, while
recognizing intellectual property rights in the field of agriculture, does so in a manner supportive of and not
inconsistent with its obligation to maintain a healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

Thus, while the Supreme Court in the Bt Talong case stopped the field testing of Bt Talong in the Philippines, it
does not necessarily mean that genetically modified plant varieties cannot be registered and protected under the
PVP Law. It is submitted that as long as a plant variety that is new, distinct, uniform, and stable has been created,
in a way that is consistent with the maintenance of a healthful ecology (say created outside of the Philippines), a
PVP Law application may still be successfully filed.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. This article is for general informational and
educational purposes only and not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion).

Jose Eduardo T. Genilo is a Senior Associate of the Intellectual Property Department of the Angara Abello
Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices.

SC reverses own decision banning bt talong

By Edu Punay (The Philippine Star) | Updated July 28, 2016 - 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines The Supreme Court (SC) has reversed itself in the case involving the governments field trials
of bacillus thuringiensis (bt) eggplants, a genetically modified variety that produces its own pesticide.

In a ruling promulgated last Tuesday, the high court set aside its ruling in December last year permanently stopping
the field testing of the genetically modified product, favoring the petition filed by the environmental group
Greenpeace.

The SC unanimously ruled to instead dismiss the Greenpeace petition on the ground of mootness.

The high tribunal granted the consolidated appeals of multinational firms and farmers pushing for the field trials,
propagation and commercialization and importation of the bt eggplants.

It agreed with the argument in the motions for reconsideration that the petition of Greenpeace should have been
dismissed following the completion and termination of the bt talong field trials and the expiration of the biosafety
permits.

These cases, which stemmed from respondents petition for writ of kalikasan, were mooted by the expiration of
the biosafety permits issued by the Bureau of Plant Industry and the termination of bt talong field trials subject of
the permits. These effectively negated the need for the reliefs sought by respondents as there was no longer any
field test to stop, the SC explained in its new ruling.

The court also admitted that it should not have acted on the constitutional question on the issue of whether
Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 08-2002 was unconstitutional as the matter was only
collaterally raised in the petition.

In its earlier decision, the high court also voided the DA order that provided rules and regulations for the
importation and release into the environment of plants and plant products derived from the use of modern
biotechology.

Lastly, the SC also noted that the earlier orders of the Court of Appeals (CA) stopping the field trials after hearing
the same case are no longer capable of execution.

In May 2013, the CA issued a writ of kalikasan directing the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and other concerned government agencies to permanently cease and desist from further conducting field trials
of bt talong in the country.
The case reached the SC after the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications Inc.,
Environmental Management Bureau, Crop Life Philippines Inc., University of the Philippines Los Baos Foundation
Inc. and University of the Philippines filed separate petitions seeking reversal of the CA ruling and which were later
consolidated by the SC.

Bt talong technology to proceed as SC reverses own

ruling

The Supreme Court has reversed its ruling that prevented the field testing of the genetically engineered Bt talong.
In a unanimous decision, the high court granted the motions for reconsideration filed by the International Service for the Acquisition
of Agri-Biotech Applications Inc., Environmental Management Bureau, Crop Life Philippines, University of the Philippines Los Baos
Foundation and University of the Philippines.

The court agreed that the case should have been dismissed for mootness since the Bt talong field trials have been completed and
terminated and the biosafety permits issued by the Bureau of Plant Industry have already expired. Thus, these effectively negated
the need for the reliefs sought by respondents [Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines) and Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa
Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura] as there was no longer any field test to stop.

According to the SC, an action is considered moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues have
become academic or when the subject matter has been resolved, and it is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract
propositions, or to declare principles or riles of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it.
It added that the completion and termination of the field tests would not automatically lead to the commercial propagation of Bt
talong as three stages are still needed before genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may be made available in the market. The Bt
talong technology never went beyond the field testing phase.

Thus, there are no guaranteed after-effects to the already concluded Bt talong field trials that demands 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 December 2015, the high tribunal ordered that field trials of Bt talong be permanently stopped following the nullification of the
Department of Agriculture (DA) Administrative Order No. 08-2002. The DA document, which regulates the use of GMOs, was found
insufficient in enforcing biosafety protocols. Along with the suspension of Bt talong trials, the SC also temporarily halted
any application for field testing, contained use, propagation and importation of GMOs. The decision was opposed by farmers and
scientists.

Bt talong, developed through biotechnology, can increase productivity in areas affected by eggplant pests known as fruit and shoot
borers without the use of chemical pesticides.
According to Vice President for Academic Affairs Gisela Concepcion, the decision brought rays of hopeto UP researchers, as well
as to stakeholders in the feed miller and livestock/poultry industries.
by upovpaa on August 4, 2016 in RESEARCH AND CREATIVE WORK