Oposa v Factoran (Environmental Law) E.O. No.

192, Section

Oposa v Factoran 4. of which expressly mandates that the Department of Envir

onment and Natural Resources "shall be the
GR No. 101083
primary government agency responsible for the conservation,
management, development and proper use of the country'
July 30, 1993

s environment and natural resources, specifically forest and g

FACTS:
razing lands, mineral, resources, including those in
Petitioners herein
reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public
are all minors duly represented and joined by their respectiv e
domain, as w ell as the licensing and regulation of all natural
parents contesting the granting of the Timber License Agreement
resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure
(TLAs), which they claim was done
equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare
with grave abuse of discretion,
of the present and future generations of Filipinos.
violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology. ISSUES:
WON the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is a substantive
right Art. III, Sec. 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall
WON timber licenses are contracts; be passed

WON the cancellation of which would constitute non- impairment RULING:

clause which is prohibited under the Constitution
(1) Yes, it is a substantive right.
APPLICABLE LAWS:
Right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which t he
Art II,
petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of "i nter-
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of th e generational responsibility" and "intergenerational justice."
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the
rhythm and harmony of nature. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next
to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a
Art. II, balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors'
assertion of their right to a
sound environment constitutes, at the same time,
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to he alth of
the people and instill health consciousness among them.
the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that
right for the generations to come. (2) Since timber licenses are not
contracts, the non-impairment clause, cannot be invoked.
DENR et al VS. YAP et al
October 8, 2008
G.R. No. 167707

FACTS:
This petition is for a review on certiorari of the
decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming that
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kalibo Aklan,
which granted the petition for declaratory relief filed
by respondents-claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al, and
ordered the survey of Boracay for titling purposes.
On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Proclamation
No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island as a tourist zone and
marine reserve. Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 precluded
them from filing an application for a judicial confirmation
of imperfect title or survey of land for titling purposes,
respondents-claimants filed a petition for declaratory
relief with the RTC in Kalibo, Aklan.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) opposed the petition countering that Boracay Island
was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed
part of the mass of lands classified as public forest,
which was not available for disposition pursuant to section
3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code.
ISSUE:
Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are
automatically deemed agricultural land, therefore
Province of Rizal vs Exec. Sec.
Facts:
making these lands alienable.
HELD:
No. To prove that the land subject of an application for
registration is alienable, the applicant must establish the
existence of a positive act of the government such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive order, an
administrative action, investigative reports of the Bureau
of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is
required. In keeping with the presumption of state
ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that
there must be a positive act of the government, such as an
official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land
into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the
public domain belong to the State, that the State is the
source of any asserted right to ownership of land and
charged with the conservation of such patrimony.
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the
government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to
the State as part of the inalienable public domain.
This is a petition filed by the Province of Rizal, the municipality
of San Mateo, and various concerned citizens for review on
certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, denying, for
lack of cause of action, the petition for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus with application for a temporary restraining
order/writ of preliminary injunction assailing the legality and
constitutionality of Proclamation No. 635.
At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its
environs, parts of the Marikina Watershed Reservation were set
aside by the Office of the President [President Ramos], through
Proclamation No. 635, for use as a sanitary landfill and similar
waste disposal applications.
The petioners opposed the implementation of said order since
the creation of dump site under the territorial jurisdiction would
compromise the health of their constutents. Moreso, the the
dump site is to be constructed in Watershed reservation.
Through their concerted efforts of the officials and residents of
Province of Rizal and Municipality of San Mateo, the dump site
was closed. However, during the term of President Estrada in
2003, the dumpsite was re-opened.
A temporary restraining order was then filed. Although
petitioners did not raised the question that the project was not
consulted and approved by their appropriate Sanggunian, the
court take it into consideration since a mere MOA does not
guarantee the dump sites permanent closure.
consultations. However, the ambivalence of his reply was
brought to the fore when at the height of the protest rally and
barricade made by the residents of petitioners to stop dump
Issue:
Whether or not the consultation and approval of the Province of
Rizal and municipality of San Mateo is needed before the
implementation of the project..
Ruling:
The court reiterated again that "the earth belongs in usufruct to
the living."
Yes, as lucidly explained by the court: contrary to the averment
of the respondents, Proclamation No. 635, which was passed on
28 August 1995, is subject to the provisions of the Local
Government Code, which was approved four years earlier, on 10
October 1991.
Section 2(c) of the said law declares that it is the policy of the
state- "to require all national agencies and offices to conduct
periodic consultation with appropriate local government units,
non-governmental and people's organization, and other
concerned sectors of the community before any project or
program is implemented in their respective jurisdiction."
Likewise Section 27 requires prior consultations before a
program shall be implemented by government authorities ans
the prior approval of the Sanggunian is obtained." Corollarily as
held in Lina , Jr. v. Pao, Section 2 (c), requiring
consultations with the appropriate local government units,
should apply to national government projects affecting the
environmental or ecological balance of the particular
community implementing the project.
Relative to the case, during the oral arguments at the hearing
for the temporary restraining order, Director Uranza of the
MMDA Solid Waste Management Task Force declared before
the Court of Appeals that they had conducted the required
trucks from reaching the site, all the municipal mayors of the
province of Rizal openly declared their full support for the rally
and notified the MMDA that they would oppose any further
attempt to dump garbage in their province.
Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the powers, duties
and functions of the municipality, grants the sangguniang
bayan the power to, among other things, enact ordinances,
approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general
welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to
Section 16 of th(e) Code. These include:
Approving ordinances and passing resolutions to protect the
environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts
which endanger the environment, such as dynamite
fishing and other forms of destructive fishing, illegal logging
and smuggling of logs, smuggling of natural resources products
and of endangered species of flora and fauna, slash and burn
farming, and such other activities which result in pollution,
acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of
ecological imbalance; [Section 447 (1)(vi)]
Prescribing reasonable limits and restraints on the use of
property within the jurisdiction of the municipality, adopting a
comprehensive land use plan for the municipality, reclassifying
land within the jurisdiction of the city, subject to the pertinent
provisions of this Code, enacting integrated zoning ordinances
in consonance with the approved comprehensive land use plan,
subject to existing laws, rules and regulations; establishing fire
limits or zones, particularly in populous centers; and regulating
the construction, repair or modification of buildings within said
Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines) v.
fire limits or zones in accordance with the provisions of this
Code;[Section 447 (2)(vi-ix)]
(3) Approving ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and
effective delivery of the basic services and facilities as provided
for under Section 17 of this Code, and in addition to said
services and facilities, providing for the establishment,
maintenance, protection, and conservation of communal forests
and watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, and other
similar forest development projects .and, subject to existing
laws, establishing and providing for the maintenance, repair and
operation of an efficient waterworks system to supply water for
the inhabitants and purifying the source of the water supply;
regulating the construction, maintenance, repair and use of
hydrants, pumps, cisterns and reservoirs; protecting the purity
and quantity of the water supply of the municipality and, for this
purpose, extending the coverage of appropriate ordinances over
all territory within the drainage area of said water supply and
within one hundred (100) meters of the reservoir, conduit,
canal, aqueduct, pumping station, or watershed used in
connection with the water service; and regulating the
consumption, use or wastage of water.[Section 447 (5)(i) &
(vii)]
Briefly stated, 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,
(2)prior approval of the project by the
appropriate sanggunian.
Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the projects
implementation is illegal.
Environmental Management Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
CA-G.R. SP NO. 00013 (May 17, 2013)
Court of Appeals
Summary: The Court issued the writ to stop the field trials and
commercial products of the genetically-modified Bacillus
Thuringiensis (Bt) eggplants being done in various parts of the
country. Undergoing testing are eggplants which have been
genetically altered with a gene from the Bt bacteria which allow
it to produce its own pesticide.
FACTS: 1. The petitioners alleged that government ministries
failed to adopt sufficient biosafety protocols for field trials and
feasibility studies of genetically-modified organisms, specifically
talong (eggplant).
The petition also alleged that entities (primarily universities)
failed to obtain an environmental clearance certificate prior to
conducting field trials of bt talong.
The court considered the question whether the field trials
violated the constitutional right of the people to a balanced and
healthy ecology.
The court applied the precautionary principle, stating it is clear that there
is no full scientific certainty yet as to the effects of the bt talong field trials
to the environment and the health of the people. This is where the
precautionary principle sets in which states that, when human activities
may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the
environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions
shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat. . . . It is in this
light that this Court finds that the issuance of a writ of kalikasan
is warranted under the circumstances[.] Pages 19-20.
ISSUE: WON the writ of kalikasan and continuing writ of
mandamus are warranted- YES
RATIO: With regard to the constitutional claim, the court explained:
In the instant case, the field trials of bt talong involve the willful and
deliberate alterative of the genetic traits of a living element of the
ecosystem and the relationship of living organisms that rely on each
other for their survival. Consequently, the field trials of bt talong could
not be declared by this Court as safe to human health and to our
ecology, with full scientific certainty, being an alteration of an
otherwise natural state of affairs in our ecology. Pages 22-23.
The Court directed the respondents to: 1) permanently cease and
desist from further conducting bt talong field trials; and 2) protect,
preserve, rehabilitate and restore the environment. Page 24.
On a motion for reconsideration filed by government officials
asking the Court to reverse the ban, the Court upheld its
decision in September 2013, stating the writ of kalikasan and
continuing writ of mandamus it had issued in favor of the
petitioners were "justified and warranted".
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)
DOCTRINES:
LEGAL STANDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASE
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.
MOOTNESS AND ACADEMIC OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
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.
PRIMARY JURISDICTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION
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.
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.
NEGLECT OF DUTY OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUE:
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.
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE:
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.
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
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
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
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,
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;
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
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
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.
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.
obliged to foresee and forestall harm to the environment.
The Rules incorporated the principle in Part V, Rule 20,
which states:
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 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.
Yes. The precautionary principle originated in Germany in the
1960s, expressing the normative idea that governments are
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
biodiversity -rich 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
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.