International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Apllication vs Green Peace et al.

(2015)

Facts:

A memorandum of undertaking was executed between various stakeholders such as the International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Inc., UP Los Banos Foundation and UP Mindanao Foundation, Inc. in
pursuance of a collaborative research and production project on eggplants that are resistant to pests (Genetically
Modified Eggplants).

They conducted field-testing to approved trail sites such as North Cotabato and Pangasinan.

In this regard, various non-governmental organizations, such as the Greenpeace among others, filed a petition for Writ
of Kalikasan, Writ of Continuing Mandamus and for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order alleging that the
BT Talong field trials violated their constitutional right to health and to a balanced and healthful ecology.

This petition was granted by the Supreme Court and directed the petitioners to file their verified answer. In their
defense, they stated that the field-testing they conducted with regard to the BT Talong has complied with all the
required permits and other requirements from the necessary government agencies. Thus, the project was proved not
harmful to the environment.

However, the Court of Appeals opined that the issuance of the Writs prayed from by the NGOs were proper.

Issue:

Whether or not the precautionary principle applies to this case warranting the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan.

Ruling:

Yes. The SC ruled in favor of Greenpeace et al, for the reason that the precautionary principle applies to this case.
Under such principle, the government is obliged to “foresee and forestall: harm to the environment.

When the features of uncertainty, possibility of irreversible harm and possibility of serious harm coincide, the case for
the precautionary principle applies.

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.

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.

Alongside the 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 GMO field testing, are
compelling reasons for the application of the precautionary principle. There exists a preponderance of evidence that
the release of 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 Court rules 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. The more prudent course is to immediately enjoin the Bt talong field trials and approval for its propagation
or commercialization until the said government offices shall have performed their respective mandates to implement
the NBF.