Cases - NATRES

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R No. 187167 August 16, 2011
PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP. RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF.

HARRY C. ROQUE, JR., AND UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
STUDENTS, ALITHEA BARBARA ACAS, VOLTAIRE ALFERES, CZARINA MAY ALTEZ,
FRANCIS ALVIN ASILO, SHERYL BALOT, RUBY AMOR BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER BAUTISTA,
ROMINA BERNARDO, VALERIE PAGASA BUENAVENTURA, EDAN MARRI CAETE, VANN
ALLEN DELA CRUZ, RENE DELORINO, PAULYN MAY DUMAN, SHARON ESCOTO, RODRIGO
FAJARDO III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA REGINA GREPO, ANNA
MARIE CECILIA GO, IRISH KAY KALAW, MARY ANN JOY LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY,
MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI, MICHAEL OCAMPO, JAKLYN HANNA PINEDA, WILLIAM
RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT REVILLAS, JAMES MARK TERRY RIDON,
JOHANN FRANTZ RIVERA IV, CHRISTIAN RIVERO, DIANNE MARIE ROA, NICHOLAS
SANTIZO, MELISSA CHRISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE MAE TABING, VANESSA ANNE TORNO,
MARIA ESTER VANGUARDIA, and MARCELINO VELOSO III, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ALBERTO
ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, HON. DIONY VENTURA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL MAPPING & RESOURCE INFORMATION AUTHORITY,
and HON. HILARIO DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED
NATIONS,Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionality of Republic
Act No. 95221(RA 9522) adjusting the countrys archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline
regime of nearby territories.
The Antecedents
In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046)2 demarcating the maritime baselines of
the Philippines as an archipelagic State.3 This law followed the framing of the Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I),4 codifying, among others, the
sovereign right of States parties over their "territorial sea," the breadth of which, however, was left
undetermined. Attempts to fill this void during the second round of negotiations in Geneva in 1960
(UNCLOS II) proved futile. Thus, domestically, RA 3046 remained unchanged for nearly five
decades, save for legislation passed in 1968 (Republic Act No. 5446 [RA 5446]) correcting
typographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo.
In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the statute now under scrutiny.
The change was prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III),5 which the Philippines ratified on 27
February 1984.6 Among others, UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of
baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines7 and sets the deadline for the filing of application
for the extended continental shelf.8 Complying with these requirements, RA 9522 shortened one
baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified
adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as
"regimes of islands" whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.
Petitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their respective capacities as
"citizens, taxpayers or x x x legislators,"9 as the case may be, assail the constitutionality of RA 9522
on two principal grounds, namely: (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically,
the reach of the Philippine states sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987
Constitution,10 embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris11 and ancillary treaties,12 and (2) RA 9522
opens the countrys waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and
aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the countrys
nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional
provisions.13
In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522s treatment of the KIG as "regime of islands" not only
results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence
fishermen.14 To buttress their argument of territorial diminution, petitioners facially attack RA 9522 for
what it excluded and included its failure to reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use
of UNCLOS IIIs framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal.
Commenting on the petition, respondent officials raised threshold issues questioning (1) the
petitions compliance with the case or controversy requirement for judicial review grounded on
petitioners alleged lack of locus standi and (2) the propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition
to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, respondents defended RA 9522 as the
countrys compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving Philippine territory over the KIG or
Scarborough Shoal. Respondents add that RA 9522 does not undermine the countrys security,
environment and economic interests or relinquish the Philippines claim over Sabah.
Respondents also question the normative force, under international law, of petitioners assertion that
what Spain ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Paris were the islands and all the
waters found within the boundaries of the rectangular area drawn under the Treaty of Paris.
We left unacted petitioners prayer for an injunctive writ.
The Issues
The petition raises the following issues:
1. Preliminarily
1. Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit; and
2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the
constitutionality of RA 9522.
2. On the merits, whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.
The Ruling of the Court
On the threshold issues, we hold that (1) petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit as
citizens and (2) the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test the constitutionality
of RA 9522. On the merits, we find no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional.
On the Threshold Issues

Petitioners Possess Locus
Standi as Citizens
Petitioners themselves undermine their assertion of locus standi as legislators and taxpayers
because the petition alleges neither infringement of legislative prerogative15 nor misuse of public
funds,16 occasioned by the passage and implementation of RA 9522. Nonetheless, we recognize
petitioners locus standi as citizens with constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution of the
merits of the case which undoubtedly raises issues of national significance necessitating urgent
resolution. Indeed, owing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522, it is understandably difficult to find other
litigants possessing "a more direct and specific interest" to bring the suit, thus satisfying one of the
requirements for granting citizenship standing.17
The Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition

Are Proper Remedies to Test
the Constitutionality of Statutes
In praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds, respondents seek a strict
observance of the offices of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot issue
absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting prejudice on the part of petitioners.18
Respondents submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. When this Court exercises its
constitutional power of judicial review, however, we have, by tradition, viewed the writs of certiorari
and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes,19 and indeed, of
acts of other branches of government.20 Issues of constitutional import are sometimes crafted out of
statutes which, while having no bearing on the personal interests of the petitioners, carry such
relevance in the life of this nation that the Court inevitably finds itself constrained to take cognizance
of the case and pass upon the issues raised, non-compliance with the letter of procedural rules
notwithstanding. The statute sought to be reviewed here is one such law.
RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional

RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool
to Demarcate the Countrys
Maritime Zones and Continental
Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to
Delineate Philippine Territory
Petitioners submit that RA 9522 "dismembers a large portion of the national territory"21 because it
discards the pre-UNCLOS III demarcation of Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and related
treaties, successively encoded in the definition of national territory under the 1935, 1973 and 1987
Constitutions. Petitioners theorize that this constitutional definition trumps any treaty or statutory
provision denying the Philippines sovereign control over waters, beyond the territorial sea
recognized at the time of the Treaty of Paris, that Spain supposedly ceded to the United States.
Petitioners argue that from the Treaty of Paris technical description, Philippine sovereignty over
territorial waters extends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine archipelago, embracing
the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris.22
Petitioners theory fails to persuade us.
UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty
regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical
miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive
economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves that UNCLOS III
delimits.23 UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long negotiations among United Nations
members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the worlds oceans and submarine
areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States graduated authority over a limited span of waters
and submarine lands along their coasts.
On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to
mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or
contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and
continental shelf. Article 48 of UNCLOS III on archipelagic States like ours could not be any clearer:
Article 48. Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive
economic zone and the continental shelf. The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone,
the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic
baselines drawn in accordance with article 47. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit
with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. In turn, this gives notice to
the rest of the international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine areas
within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the exercise of sovereignty over
territorial waters (Article 2), the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation
laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33), and the right to exploit the living and non-living resources in
the exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and continental shelf (Article 77).
Even under petitioners theory that the Philippine territory embraces the islands and all the
waters within the rectangular area delimited in the Treaty of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines
would still have to be drawn in accordance with RA 9522 because this is the only way to draw the
baselines in conformity with UNCLOS III. The baselines cannot be drawn from the boundaries or
other portions of the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris, but from the "outermost
islands and drying reefs of the archipelago."24
UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement or, as
petitioners claim, diminution of territory. Under traditional international law typology, States acquire
(or conversely, lose) territory through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription,25 not by
executing multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with
the treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves. Territorial claims to land
features are outside UNCLOS III, and are instead governed by the rules on general international
law.26
RA 9522s Use of the Framework

of Regime of Islands to Determine the
Maritime Zones of the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal, not Inconsistent
with the Philippines Claim of Sovereignty
Over these Areas
Petitioners next submit that RA 9522s use of UNCLOS IIIs regime of islands framework to draw the
baselines, and to measure the breadth of the applicable maritime zones of the KIG, "weakens our
territorial claim" over that area.27Petitioners add that the KIGs (and Scarborough Shoals) exclusion
from the Philippine archipelagic baselines results in the loss of "about 15,000 square nautical miles
of territorial waters," prejudicing the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.28 A comparison of the
configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 and the extent of maritime space
encompassed by each law, coupled with a reading of the text of RA 9522 and its congressional
deliberations, vis--vis the Philippines obligations under UNCLOS III, belie this view.
1avv phi 1
The configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 shows that RA 9522 merely
followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046, save for at least nine basepoints that RA 9522
skipped to optimize the location of basepoints and adjust the length of one baseline (and thus
comply with UNCLOS IIIs limitation on the maximum length of baselines). Under RA 3046, as under
RA 9522, the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselines drawn around the
Philippine archipelago. This undeniable cartographic fact takes the wind out of petitioners argument
branding RA 9522 as a statutory renunciation of the Philippines claim over the KIG, assuming that
baselines are relevant for this purpose.
Petitioners assertion of loss of "about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters" under RA
9522 is similarly unfounded both in fact and law. On the contrary, RA 9522, by optimizing the
location of basepoints, increased the Philippines total maritime space (covering its internal waters,
territorial sea and exclusive economic zone) by 145,216 square nautical miles, as shown in the table
below:29
Extent of maritime
area using RA 3046, Extent of maritime
as amended, taking area using RA 9522,
into account the taking into account
Treaty of Paris UNCLOS III (in
delimitation (in square nautical
square nautical miles)
miles)
Internal or
archipelagic
waters 166,858 171,435
Territorial Sea 274,136 32,106
Exclusive
Economic Zone 382,669
TOTAL 440,994 586,210
Thus, as the map below shows, the reach of the exclusive economic zone drawn under RA 9522
even extends way beyond the waters covered by the rectangular demarcation under the Treaty of
Paris. Of course, where there are overlapping exclusive economic zones of opposite or adjacent
States, there will have to be a delineation of maritime boundaries in accordance with UNCLOS III.30
Further, petitioners argument that the KIG now lies outside Philippine territory because the
baselines that RA 9522 draws do not enclose the KIG is negated by RA 9522 itself. Section 2 of the
law commits to text the Philippines continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG and
the Scarborough Shoal:
SEC. 2. The baselines in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises
sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the
Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS):
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596 and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal. (Emphasis supplied)

Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as part of the Philippine
archipelago, adverse legal effects would have ensued. The Philippines would have committed a
breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III. First, Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires that "[t]he
drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration
of the archipelago." Second, Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS III requires that "the length of the baselines
shall not exceed 100 nautical miles," save for three per cent (3%) of the total number of baselines
which can reach up to 125 nautical miles.31
Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the KIG32 and the Scarborough
Shoal for several decades, these outlying areas are located at an appreciable distance from the
nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago,33 such that any straight baseline loped around them
from the nearest basepoint will inevitably "depart to an appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago."
The principal sponsor of RA 9522 in the Senate, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, took pains to
emphasize the foregoing during the Senate deliberations:
What we call the Kalayaan Island Group or what the rest of the world call[] the Spratlys and the
Scarborough Shoal are outside our archipelagic baseline because if we put them inside our
baselines we might be accused of violating the provision of international law which states: "The
drawing of such baseline shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of
the archipelago." So sa loob ng ating baseline, dapat magkalapit ang mga islands. Dahil malayo ang
Scarborough Shoal, hindi natin masasabing malapit sila sa atin although we are still allowed by
international law to claim them as our own.
This is called contested islands outside our configuration. We see that our archipelago is defined by
the orange line which [we] call[] archipelagic baseline. Ngayon, tingnan ninyo ang maliit na circle
doon sa itaas, that is Scarborough Shoal, itong malaking circle sa ibaba, that is Kalayaan Group or
the Spratlys. Malayo na sila sa ating archipelago kaya kung ilihis pa natin ang dating archipelagic
baselines para lamang masama itong dalawang circles, hindi na sila magkalapit at baka hindi na
tatanggapin ng United Nations because of the rule that it should follow the natural configuration of
the archipelago.34 (Emphasis supplied)
Similarly, the length of one baseline that RA 3046 drew exceeded UNCLOS IIIs limits. The need to
1avv phi 1
shorten this baseline, and in addition, to optimize the location of basepoints using current maps,
became imperative as discussed by respondents:
[T]he amendment of the baselines law was necessary to enable the Philippines to draw the outer
limits of its maritime zones including the extended continental shelf in the manner provided by Article
47 of [UNCLOS III]. As defined by R.A. 3046, as amended by R.A. 5446, the baselines suffer from
some technical deficiencies, to wit:
1. The length of the baseline across Moro Gulf (from Middle of 3 Rock Awash to Tongquil
Point) is 140.06 nautical miles x x x. This exceeds the maximum length allowed under Article
47(2) of the [UNCLOS III], which states that "The length of such baselines shall not exceed
100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing
any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles."
2. The selection of basepoints is not optimal. At least 9 basepoints can be skipped or deleted
from the baselines system. This will enclose an additional 2,195 nautical miles of water.
3. Finally, the basepoints were drawn from maps existing in 1968, and not established by
geodetic survey methods. Accordingly, some of the points, particularly along the west coasts
of Luzon down to Palawan were later found to be located either inland or on water, not on
low-water line and drying reefs as prescribed by Article 47.35
Hence, far from surrendering the Philippines claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal,
Congress decision to classify the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as "Regime[s] of Islands under
the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121"36 of UNCLOS III manifests the Philippine
States responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III. Under
Article 121 of UNCLOS III, any "naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above
water at high tide," such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under the category of "regime of islands,"
whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.37
Statutory Claim Over Sabah under

RA 5446 Retained
Petitioners argument for the invalidity of RA 9522 for its failure to textualize the Philippines claim
over Sabah in North Borneo is also untenable. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeal,
keeps open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah:
Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as
provided in this Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea
around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the
Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty. (Emphasis supplied)
UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not

Incompatible with the Constitutions
Delineation of Internal Waters
As their final argument against the validity of RA 9522, petitioners contend that the law
unconstitutionally "converts" internal waters into archipelagic waters, hence subjecting these waters
to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage under UNCLOS III, including overflight. Petitioners
extrapolate that these passage rights indubitably expose Philippine internal waters to nuclear and
maritime pollution hazards, in violation of the Constitution.38
Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the Constitution39 or as

"archipelagic waters" under UNCLOS III (Article 49 [1]), the Philippines exercises sovereignty over
the body of water lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the submarine
areas underneath. UNCLOS III affirms this:
Article 49. Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagic waters and of their
bed and subsoil.
1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the

archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47, described as archipelagic
waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.
2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as well as to
their bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.
xxxx
4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not in other
respects affect the status of the archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the
exercise by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such waters and their air
space, bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein. (Emphasis supplied)
The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of municipal and international law
norms subjecting the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to necessary, if not marginal, burdens in
the interest of maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation, consistent with the
international law principle of freedom of navigation. Thus, domestically, the political branches of the
Philippine government, in the competent discharge of their constitutional powers, may pass
legislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes
passage.40 Indeed, bills drawing nautical highways for sea lanes passage are now pending in
Congress.41
In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now codified in UNCLOS III, operate
to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject to the treatys
limitations and conditions for their exercise.42 Significantly, the right of innocent passage is a
customary international law,43 thus automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law.44 No
modern State can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is
exercised in accordance with customary international law without risking retaliatory measures from
the international community.
The fact that for archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters are subject to both the right of
innocent passage and sea lanes passage45 does not place them in lesser footing vis--
vis continental coastal States which are subject, in their territorial sea, to the right of innocent
passage and the right of transit passage through international straits. The imposition of these
passage rights through archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III was a concession by archipelagic
States, in exchange for their right to claim all the waters landward of their baselines, regardless of
their depth or distance from the coast, as archipelagic waters subject to their territorial sovereignty.
More importantly, the recognition of archipelagic States archipelago and the waters enclosed by
their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the treatment of their islands as separate islands
under UNCLOS III.46 Separate islands generate their own maritime zones, placing the waters
between islands separated by more than 24 nautical miles beyond the States territorial sovereignty,
subjecting these waters to the rights of other States under UNCLOS III.47
Petitioners invocation of non-executory constitutional provisions in Article II (Declaration of

Principles and State Policies)48 must also fail. Our present state of jurisprudence considers the
provisions in Article II as mere legislative guides, which, absent enabling legislation, "do not embody
judicially enforceable constitutional rights x x x."49 Article II provisions serve as guides in formulating
and interpreting implementing legislation, as well as in interpreting executory provisions of the
Constitution. Although Oposa v. Factoran50 treated the right to a healthful and balanced ecology
under Section 16 of Article II as an exception, the present petition lacks factual basis to substantiate
the claimed constitutional violation. The other provisions petitioners cite, relating to the protection of
marine wealth (Article XII, Section 2, paragraph 251 ) and subsistence fishermen (Article XIII, Section
752 ), are not violated by RA 9522.
In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusive economic
zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-living resources within
such zone. Such a maritime delineation binds the international community since the delineation is in
strict observance of UNCLOS III. If the maritime delineation is contrary to UNCLOS III, the
international community will of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it.
UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines. UNCLOS III creates a sui
generis maritime space the exclusive economic zone in waters previously part of the high seas.
UNCLOS III grants new rights to coastal States to exclusively exploit the resources found within this
zone up to 200 nautical miles.53 UNCLOS III, however, preserves the traditional freedom of
navigation of other States that attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before UNCLOS III.
RA 9522 and the Philippines Maritime Zones
Petitioners hold the view that, based on the permissive text of UNCLOS III, Congress was not bound
to pass RA 9522.54 We have looked at the relevant provision of UNCLOS III55 and we find petitioners
reading plausible. Nevertheless, the prerogative of choosing this option belongs to Congress, not to
this Court. Moreover, the luxury of choosing this option comes at a very steep price. Absent an
UNCLOS III compliant baselines law, an archipelagic State like the Philippines will find itself devoid
of internationally acceptable baselines from where the breadth of its maritime zones and continental
shelf is measured. This is recipe for a two-fronted disaster: first, it sends an open invitation to the
seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and submarine areas around
our archipelago; and second, it weakens the countrys case in any international dispute over
Philippine maritime space. These are consequences Congress wisely avoided.
The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and adjacent
areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of
the Philippines maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a most vital step on the
part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the Constitution and our
national interest.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

ROBERTO A. ABAD MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ JOSE C. MENDOZA
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
EN BANC
G.R. No. 209271, December 08, 2015
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS,

INC., Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO
SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASIO, DR. BEN MALAYANG
III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ
LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT,
JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR
EDWARD S. HAGEDORN AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, Respondents.
CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner-in-Intervention.
G.R. No. 209276

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY AND FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE AUTHORITY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST
ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKAAT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA
(MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG,
LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA,
DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE,
JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN AND
EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS. CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC. Petitioner-in-Intervention.
G.R. No. 209301
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BANOS FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE

SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKAAT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG
AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA
GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO
MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. HARRY
R. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S.
HAGEDORN AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, Respondents.
G.R. No. 209430
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES),

MAGSASAKAAT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO
CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE
UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO
QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, ATTY. HARRY R. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO
MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN AND EDWIN MARTHINE
LOPEZ, Respondents.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
The consolidated petitions before Us seek the reversal of the Decision1 dated May 17, 2013 and
Resolution2 dated September 20, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00013 which
permanently enjoined the conduct of field trials for genetically modified eggplant.
The Parties
Respondent Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines) is the Philippine branch of Greenpeace Southeast Asia,
a regional office of Greenpeace International registered in Thailand.3 Greenpeace is a non-governmental
environmental organization which operates in over 40 countries and with an international coordinating body
in Amsterdam, Netherlands. It is well known for independent direct actions in the global campaign to
preserve the environment and promote peace.
Petitioner International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAAA) is an
international non-profit organization founded in 1990 "to facilitate the acquisition and transfer of agricultural
biotechnology applications from the industrial countries, for the benefit of resource-poor farmers in the
developing world" and ultimately "to alleviate hunger and poverty in the developing countries." Partly
funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), ISAAA promotes the use of
agricultural biotechnology, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).4
Respondent Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) is a coalition of local

farmers, scientists and NGOs working towards "the sustainable use and management of biodiversity through
farmers' control of genetic and biological resources, agricultural production, and associated knowledge."
The University of the Philippines Los Bafios (UPLB) is an autonomous constituent of the University of the
Philippines (UP), originally established as the UP College of Agriculture. It is the center of biotechnology
education and research in Southeast Asia and home to at least four international research and extension
centers. Petitioner UPLB Foundation, Inc. (UPLBFI) is a private corporation organized "to be an instrument
for institutionalizing a rational system of utilizing UPLB expertise and other assets for generating additional
revenues and other resources needed by [UPLB]". Its main purpose is to assist UPLB in "expanding and
optimally utilizing its human, financial, and material resources towards a focused thrust in agriculture,
biotechnology, engineering and environmental sciences and related academic programs and activities." A
memorandum of agreement between UPLBFI and UPLB allows the former to use available facilities for its
activities and the latter to designate from among its staff such personnel needed by projects.5
Petitioner University of the Philippines (UP) is an institution of higher learning founded in 1908. Under its
new charter, Republic Act 9500,6 approved on April 29, 2008 by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, UP was
declared as the national university tasked "to perform its unique and distinctive leadership in higher
education and development." Among others, UP was mandated to "serve as a research university in various
fields of expertise and specialization by conducting basic and applied research and development, and
promoting research in various colleges and universities, and contributing to the dissemination and
application of knowledge."7
The other individual respondents are Filipino scientists, professors, public officials and ordinary citizens
invoking their constitutionally guaranteed right to health and balanced ecology, and suing on their behalf
and on behalf of future generations of Filipinos.
Factual Background
Biotechnology is a multi-disciplinary field which may be defined as "any technique that uses living organisms
or substances from those organisms to make or modify a product, to improve plants or animals, or to
develop microorganisms for specific uses."8 Its many applications include agricultural production, livestock,
industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals.
In 1979, President Ferdinand Marcos approved and provided funding for the establishment of the National
Institute for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (BIOTECH) at UPLB. It is the premier national research
and development (R & D) institution applying traditional and modern biotechnologies in innovating products,
processes, testing and analytical services for agriculture, health, energy, industry and development.9
In 1990, President Corazon C. Aquino signed Executive Order (EO) No. 430 creating the National Committee
on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP). NCBP was tasked, among others, to "identify and evaluate potential
hazards involved in initiating genetic engineering experiments or the introduction of new species and
genetically engineered organisms and recommend measures to minimize risks" and to "formulate and review
national policies and guidelines on biosafety, such as the safe conduct of work on genetic engineering, pests
and their genetic materials for the protection of public health, environment and personnel and supervise the
implementation thereof."
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 guidelines also describe the required physical and biological containment and safety
procedures in handling biological materials. This was followed in 1998 by the "Guidelines on Planned Release
of Genetically Manipulated Organisms (GMOs) and Potentially Harmful Exotic Species (PHES)."10
On December 29, 1993, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) came into force. This multilateral
treaty recognized that "modern biotechnology has great potential for human well-being if developed and
used with adequate safety measures for the environment and human health." Its main objectives, as spelled
out in Article 1, are the "conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the
fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources."
In January 2000, an agreement was reached on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Cartagena Protocol), a
supplemental to the CBD. The Cartagena Protocol aims "to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of the
safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may
have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account
risks to human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements."
On May 24, 2000, the Philippines signed the Cartagena Protocol, which came into force on September 11,
2003. On August 14, 2006, the Philippine Senate adopted Senate Resolution No. 92 or the "Resolution
Concurring in the Ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) to the UN Convention on
Biological Diversity."
On July 16, 2001, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued a policy statement reiterating the government
policy of promoting the safe and responsible use of modern biotechnology and its products as one of several
means to achieve and sustain food security, equitable access to health services, sustainable and safe
environment and industry development.11
In April 2002, the Department of Agriculture (DA) issued DA-Administrative Order (AO) No. 08 providing
rules and regulations for the importation and release into the environment of plants and plant products
derived from the use of modem biotechnology.
DAO-08-2002 covers the importation or release into the environment of: (1) any plant which has been
altered or produced through the use of modem biotechnology if the donor organism, host organism, or
vector or vector agent belongs to the genera or taxa classified by the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) as
meeting the definition of plant pest or is a medium for the introduction of noxious weeds; or (2) any plant or
plant product altered through the use of modem biotechnology which may pose significant risks to human
health and the environment based on available scientific and technical information.
The country's biosafety regulatory system was further strengthened with the issuance of EO No. 514 (EO
514) on March 17, 2006, "Establishing the National Biosafety Framework (NBF), Prescribing Guidelines for
its Implementation, and Strengthening the NCBP." The NBF shall apply to the development, adoption and
implementation of all biosafety policies, measures and guidelines and in making decisions concerning the
research, development, handling and use, transboundary movement, release into the environment and
management of regulated articles.12
EO 514 expressly provides that, unless amended by the issuing departments or agencies, DAO 08-2002, the
NCBP Guidelines on the Contained Use of Genetically Modified Organisms, 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 modem biotechnology, shall continue to be in force and effect.13
On September 24, 2010, a Memorandum of Undertaking14 (MOU) was executed between UPLBFI, ISAAA 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 in the project 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 US AID.
As indicated in the Field Trial Proposal15 submitted by the implementing institution (UPLB), the pest-resistant
crop subject of the field trial was described as a "bioengineered eggplant." The crystal toxin genes from the
soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) were incorporated into the eggplant (talong) genome to produce
the protein CrylAc which is toxic to the target insect pests. CrylAc protein is said to be highly specific
to lepidopteran larvae such as the fruit and shoot borer (FSB), the most destructive insect pest of eggplant.
Under the regulatory supervision of NCBP, a contained experiment was started in 2007 and officially
completed on March 3, 2009. The NCBP thus issued a Certificate of Completion of Contained Experiment
stating that "During the conduct of the experiment, all the biosafety measures have been complied with and
no untoward incident has occurred."16
BPI issued Biosafety Permits17 to UPLB on March 16, 2010 and June 28, 2010. Thereafter, field testing of Bt
talong 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 April 26, 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 a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO). They alleged that the Bt talong field trials violate their constitutional
right to health and a balanced ecology considering that (1) the required environmental compliance
certificate under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1151 was not secured prior to the project implementation; (2)
as a regulated article under DAO 08-2002, Bt talong is presumed harmful to human health and the
environment, and there is no independent, peer-reviewed study on the safety of Bt talong for human
consumption and the environment; (3) a study conducted by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini showed adverse
effects on rats who were fed Bt corn, while local scientists also attested to the harmful effects of GMOs to
human and animal health; (4) Bt crops can be directly toxic to non-target species as highlighted by a
research conducted in the US which demonstrated that pollen from Bt maize was toxic to the Monarch
butterfly; (5) data from the use of Bt CrylAb maize indicate that beneficial insects have increased mortality
when fed on larvae of a maize pest, the corn borer, which had been fed on Bt, and hence non-target
beneficial species that may feed on eggplant could be similarly affected; (6) data from China show that the
use of Bt crops (Bt cotton) can exacerbate populations of other secondary pests; (7) the built-in pesticides
of Bt crops will lead to Bt resistant pests, thus increasing the use of pesticides contrary to the claims by
GMO manufacturers; and (8) the 200 meters perimeter pollen trap area in the field testing area set by BPI is
not sufficient to stop contamination of nearby non-Bt eggplants because pollinators such as honeybees can
fly as far as four kilometers and an eggplant is 48% insect-pollinated. The full acceptance by the project
proponents of the findings in the MAHYCO Dossier was strongly assailed on the ground that these do not
precisely and adequately assess the numerous hazards posed by Bt talong and its field trial.
Greenpeace, et al. further claimed that the Bt talong field test project did not comply with the required
public consultation under Sections 26 & 27 of the Local Government Code, A random survey by Greenpeace
on July 21, 2011 revealed that ten households living in the area immediately around the Bt
talong experimental farm in Bay, Laguna expressed lack of knowledge about the field testing in their locality.
The Sangguniang Barangay of Pangasugan in Baybay, Leyte complained about the lack of information on the
nature and uncertainties of the Bt talong field testing in their barangay. The Davao City Government likewise
opposed the project due to lack of transparency and public consultation. It ordered the uprooting
of Bt eggplants at the trial site and disposed them strictly in accordance with protocols relayed by the BPI
through Ms. Merle Palacpac. Such action highlighted the city government's policy on "sustainable and safe
practices." On the other hand, the Sangguniang Bayan of Sta. Barbara, Iloilo passed a resolution suspending
the field testing due to the following: lack of public consultation; absence of adequate study to determine
the effect of Bt talong field testing on friendly insects; absence of risk assessment on the potential impacts
of genetically modified (GM) crops on human health and the environment; and the possibility of cross-
pollination of Bt eggplants with native species or variety of eggplants, and serious threat to human health if
these products were sold to the market.
Greenpeace, et al. argued that this case calls for the application of the precautionary principle, the Bt
talong field testing 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 thus prayed for:

a. Upon the filing [of this petition], a Temporary Environment Protection Order should be issued: (i)
enjoining public respondents BPI and FPA of the DA from processing for field testing, and registering as
herbicidal product, Bt talong in the Philippines; (ii) stopping all pending field testing of Bt talong anywhere in
the Philippines; and (in) ordering the uprooting of planted Bt talong for field trials as their very presence
pose significant and irreparable risks to human health and the environment.
b. Upon the filing [of this petition], issue a writ of continuing mandamus commanding:
(i) Respondents to submit to and undergo the process of environmental impact statement system under the
Environmental Management Bureau;
(ii) Respondents to submit independent, comprehensive, and rigid risk assessment, field tests report,
regulatory compliance reports and supporting documents, and other material particulars of the Bt
talong field trial;
(iii) Respondents to submit all its issued certifications on public information, public consultation, public
participation, and consent of the local government units in the barangays, municipalities, and provinces
affected by the field testing of Bt talong;
(iv) Respondent regulator, in coordination with relevant government agencies and in consultation with
stakeholders, to submit an acceptable draft of an amendment of the National Bio-Safety Framework of the
Philippines, and DA Administrative Order No. 08, defining or incorporating an independent, transparent, and
comprehensive scientific and socio-economic risk assessment, public information, consultation, and
participation, and providing for their effective implementation, in accord with international safety standards;
and,
(v) Respondent BPI of the DA, in coordination with relevant government agencies, to conduct balanced
nationwide public information on the nature of Bt talong and Bt talong field trial, and a survey of social
acceptability of the same.
c. Upon filing [of this petition], issue a writ of kalikasan commanding Respondents to file their respective
returns and explain why they should not be judicially sanctioned for violating or threatening to violate or
allowing the violation of the above-enumerated laws, principles, and international principle and standards, or
committing acts, which would result into an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the
life, health, or property of petitioners in particular and of the Filipino people in general.
d. After hearing and judicial determination, to cancel all Bt talong field experiments that are found to be
violating the abovementioned laws, principles, and international standards; and recommend to Congress
curative legislations to effectuate such order.18 ChanRoblesVirt ualawli bra ry
On May 2, 2012, the Court issued the writ of kalikasan against ISAAA, Environmental Management Bureau
(EMB)/BPI/Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) and UPLB,18-a ordering them to make a verified return
within a non-extendible period often (10) days, as provided in Sec. 8, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases.19
ISAAA, EMB/BPI/FPA, UPLBFI and UPMFI filed their respective verified returns. They all argued that the
issuance of writ of kalikasan is not proper because in the implementation of the Bt talong project, all
environmental laws were complied with, including public consultations in the affected communities, to
ensure that the people's right to a balanced and healthful ecology was protected and respected. They also
asserted that the Bt talong project is not covered by the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)
Law and that Bt talong field trials will not significantly affect the quality of the environment nor pose a
hazard to human health. ISAAA contended that the NBF amply safeguards the environment policies and
goals promoted by the PEIS Law. On its part, UPLBFI asserted that there is a "plethora of scientific works
and literature, peer-reviewed, on the safety of Bt talong for human consumption."20 UPLB, which filed an
Answer21 to the petition before the CA, adopted said position of UPLBFI.
ISAAA argued that the allegations regarding the safety of Bt talong as food are irrelevant in the field trial
stage as none of the eggplants will be consumed by humans or animals, and all materials that will not be
used for analyses will be chopped, boiled and buried following the Biosafety Permit requirements. It cited a
50-year history of safe use and consumption of agricultural products sprayed with commercial Bt microbial
pesticides and a 14-year history of safe consumption of food and feed derived from Bt crops. Also mentioned
is the almost 2 million hectares of land in the Philippines which have been planted with Bt corn since 2003,
and the absence of documented significant and negative impact to the environment and human health. The
statements given by scientists and experts in support of the allegations of Greenpeace, et al. on the safety
of Bt corn was also addressed by citing the contrary findings in other studies which have been peer-reviewed
and published in scientific journals.
On the procedural aspect, ISAAA sought the dismissal of the petition for writ of kalikasan for non-
observance of the rule on hierarchy of courts and the allegations therein being mere assertions and baseless
conclusions of law. EMB, BPI and FPA questioned the legal standing of Greenpeace, et al. in filing the
petition for writ of kalikasan as they do not stand to suffer any direct injury as a result of the Bt talong field
tests. They likewise prayed for the denial of the petition for continuing mandamus for failure to state a cause
of action and for utter lack of merit.
UPMFI also questioned the legal standing of Greenpeace, et al. for failing to allege that they have been
prejudiced or damaged, or their constitutional rights to health and a balanced ecology were violated or
threatened to be violated by the conduct of Bt talong field trials. Insofar as the field trials in Davao City, the
actual field trials at Bago Oshiro started on November 25, 2010 but the plants were uprooted by Davao City
officials on December 17-18, 2010. There were no further field trials conducted and hence no violation of
constitutional rights of persons or damage to the environment, with respect to Davao City, occurred which
will justify the issuance of a writ of kalikasan. UPMFI emphasized that under the MOU, its responsibility was
only to handle the funds for the project in their trial site. It pointed out that in the Field Trial Proposal, Public
Information Sheet, Biosafety Permit for Field Testing, and Terminal Report (Davao City Government) by
respondent Leonardo R. Avila III, nowhere does UPMFI appear either as project proponent, partner or
implementing arm. Since UPMFI, which is separate and distinct from UP, undertook only the fund
management of Bt talong field test project the duration of which expired on July 1, 2011, it had nothing to
do with any field trials conducted in other parts of the country.
Finally, it is argued that the precautionary principle is not applicable considering that the field testing is only
a part of a continuing study being done to ensure that the field trials have no significant and negative impact
on the environment. There is thus no resulting environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the
life, health, property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. Moreover, the issues raised by
Greenpeace, et al. largely involve technical matters which pertain to the special competence of BPI whose
determination thereon is entitled to great respect and even finality.
By Resolution dated July 10, 2012, the Court referred this case to the CA for acceptance of the return of the
writ and for hearing, reception of evidence and rendition of judgment.22
CA Proceedings and Judgment
At the preliminary conference held on September 12, 2012, the parties submitted the following procedural
issues: (1) whether or not Greenpeace, et al. have legal standing to file the petition for writ of kalikasan; (2)
whether or not said petition had been rendered moot and academic by the alleged termination of the Bt
talong field testing; and (3) whether or not the case presented a justiciable controversy.
Under Resolution23 dated October 12, 2012, the CA resolved that: (1) Greenpeace, et al. possess the
requisite legal standing to file the petition for writ of kalikasan; (2) assuming arguendo that the field trials
have already been terminated, 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.
The CA then proceeded to hear the merits of the case, adopting the "hot-tub" method wherein the expert
witnesses of both parties testify at the same time. Greenpeace, et al. presented the following as expert
witnesses: Dr. Ben Malayang III (Dr. Malayang), Dr. Charito Medina (Dr. Medina), and Dr. Tushar
Chakraborty (Dr. Chakraborty). On the opposing side were the expert witnesses in the persons of Dr.
Reynaldo Ebora (Dr. Ebora), Dr. Saturnina Halos (Dr. Halos), Dr. Flerida Cario (Dr. Cario), and Dr. Peter
Davies (Dr. Davies). Other witnesses who testified were: Atty. Carmelo Segui (Atty. Segui), Ms. Merle
Palacpac (Ms. Palacpac), Mr. Mario Navasero (Mr. Navasero) and Dr. Randy Hautea (Dr. Hautea).
On November 20, 2012, Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines, Inc. (BCPI) filed an Urgent Motion for
Leave to Intervene as Respondent.24 It claimed to have a legal interest in the subject matter of the case as
a broad-based coalition of advocates for the advancement of modern biotechnology in the Philippines.
In its Resolution25 dated January 16, 2013, the CA denied BCPI's motion for intervention stating that the
latter had no direct and specific interest in the conduct of Bt talong field trials.
On May 17, 2013, the CA rendered a Decision in favor of Greenpeace, et al., as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us GRANTING the
petition filed in this case. The respondents are DIRECTED to: chanRoblesv irt ual Lawlib rary
(a) Permanently cease and desist from further conducting bt talong field trials; and
(b) Protect, preserve, rehabilitate and restore the environment in accordance with the foregoing judgment of
this Court.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.26 ChanRoblesVi rtualaw lib rary
The CA found that existing regulations issued by the DA and the Department of Science and Technology
(DOST) are insufficient to guarantee the safety of the environment and health of the people. Concurring with
Dr. Malayang's view that the government must exercise precaution "under the realm of public policy" and
beyond scientific debate, the appellate court noted the possible irreversible effects of the field trials and the
introduction of Bt talong to the market.
After scrutinizing the parties' arguments and evidence, the CA concluded that the precautionary principle set
forth in Section 1, Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases27 finds relevance in the
present controversy. Stressing the fact that the "over-all safety guarantee of the bt talong" remains
unknown, the appellate court cited the testimony of Dr. Cario who admitted that the product is not yet safe
for consumption because a safety assessment is still to be done. Again, the Decision quoted from Dr.
Malayang who testified that the question of Bt talong's safety demands maximum precaution and utmost
prudence, bearing in mind the country's rich biodiversity. Amid the uncertainties surrounding the Bt talong,
the CA thus upheld the primacy of the people's constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology.
Denying the motions for reconsideration filed by ISAAA, EMB/BPI/FPA, UPLB and UPLBFI, the CA in its
Resolution dated September 20, 2013 rejected the argument of UPLB that the appellate court's ruling
violated UPLB's constitutional right to academic freedom. The appellate court pointed out that the writ
of kalikasan originally issued by this Court did not stop research on Bt talong but only the particular
procedure adopted in doing field trials and only at this time when there is yet no law in the form of a
congressional enactment for ensuring its safety and levels of acceptable risks when introduced into the open
environment. Since the writ stops the field trials of Bt talong as a procedure but does not stop Bt
talong research, there is no assault on academic freedom.
The CA then justified its ruling by expounding on the theory that introducing a genetically modified plant
into our ecosystem is an "ecologically imbalancing act." Thus:
We suppose that it is of universal and general knowledge that an ecosystem is a universe of biotic (living)
and non-biotic things interacting as a living community in a particular space and time. In the ecosystem are
found specific and particular biotic and non-biotic entities which depend on each other for the biotic entities
to survive and maintain life. A critical element for biotic entities to maintain life would be that their
populations are in a proper and natural proportion to others so that, in the given limits of available non-
biotic entities in the ecosystem, no one population overwhelms another. In the case of the Philippines, it is
considered as one of the richest countries in terms of biodiversity. It has so many plants and animals. It also
has many kinds of other living things than many countries in the world. We do not fully know how all these
living things or creatures interact among themselves. But, for sure, there is a perfect and sound balance
of our biodiversity as created or brought about by God out of His infinite and absolute wisdom. In
other words, every living creature has been in existence or has come into being for a purpose. So, we
humans are not supposed to tamper with any one element in this swirl of interrelationships among living
things in our ecosystem. Now, introducing a genetically modified plant in our intricate world of
plants by humans certainly appears to be an ecologically imbalancing act. The damage that it will
cause may be irreparable and irreversible.
At this point, it is significant to note that during the hearing conducted by this Court on November 20, 2012
wherein the testimonies of seven experts were given, Dr. Peter J. Davies (Ph.D in Plant [Physiology]), Dr.
Tuskar Chakraborty (Ph.D in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology), Dr. Charito Medina (Ph.D in
Environmental Biology), Dr. Reginaldo Ebora (Ph.D in Entomology), Dr. Flerida Cario (Ph.D in Insecticide
Toxicology), Dr. Ben Malayang (Ph.D in Wildland Resource Science) and Dr. Saturnina Halos (Ph.D in
Genetics) were in unison in admitting that bt talong is an altered plant. x x x
xxxx
Thus, it is evident and clear that bt talong is a technology involving the deliberate alteration of an otherwise
natural state of affairs. It is designed and intended to alter natural feed-feeder relationships of the eggplant.
It is a deliberate genetic reconstruction of the eggplant to alter its natural order which is meant to eliminate
one feeder (the borer) in order to give undue advantage to another feeder (the humans). The genetic
transformation is one designed to make bt talong toxic to its pests (the targeted organisms). In effect, bt
talong kills its targeted organisms. Consequently, the testing or introduction of bt talong into the
Philippines, by its nature and intent, is a grave and present danger to (and an assault on) the
Filipinos' constitutional right to a balanced ecology because, in any book and by any yardstick, it is an
ecologically imbalancing event or phenomenon. It is a willful and deliberate tampering of a naturally
ordained feed-feeder relationship in our environment. It destroys the balance of our biodiversity. Because it
violates the conjunct right of our people to a balanced ecology, the whole constitutional right of our people
(as legally and logically construed) is violated.
Of course, the bt talong's threat to the human health of the Filipinos as of now remains uncertain. This is
because while, on one hand, no Filipinos has ever eaten it yet, and so, there is no factual evidence of it
actually causing acute or chronic harm to any or a number of ostensibly identifiable perms, on the other
hand, there is correspondingly no factual evidence either of it not causing harm to anyone. However, in a
study published on September 20, 2012 in "Food and Chemical Toxicology", a team of scientists led by
Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini from the University of Caen and backed by the France-based Committee of
Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering came up with a finding that rats fed with
Roundup-tolerant genetically modified corn for two years developed cancers, tumors and multiple organ
damage. The seven expert witnesses who testified in this Court in the hearing conducted on November 20,
2012 were duly confronted with this finding and they were not able to convincingly rebut it. That is why we,
in deciding this case, applied the precautionary principle in granting the petition filed in the case at bench.
Prescinding from the foregoing premises, therefore, because one conjunct right in the whole Constitutional
guarantee is factually and is undoubtedly at risk, and the other still factually uncertain, the entire
constitutional right of the Filipino people to a balanced and healthful ecology is at risk. Hence, the issuance
of the writ of kalikasan and the continuing writ of mandamus is justified and
warranted.28 (Additional Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioners' Arguments
G.R. No. 209271
ISAAA advances the following arguments in support of its petition:

I
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN REFUSING TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF KALIKASAN CONSIDERING THAT THE SAME IS ALREADY MOOT
AND ACADEMIC.
II
CONTINUING MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF KALIKASAN CONSIDERING THAT THE SAME RAISES POLITICAL
QUESTIONS.
A. IN SEEKING TO COMPEL THE REGULATORY AGENCIES "TO SUBMIT AN ACCEPTABLE DRAFT

OF THE AMENDMENT OF THE NATIONAL BIO-SAFETY FRAMEWORK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
AND DA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 08," AND IN PRAYING THAT THE COURT OF
APPEALS "RECOMMEND TO CONGRESS CURATIVE LEGISLATIONS," RESPONDENTS SEEK
TO REVIEW THE WISDOM OF THE PHILIPPINE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR GMOS, WHICH
THE COURT OF APPEALS IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DO SO.
B. WORSE, THE COURT OF APPEALS EVEN HELD THAT THERE ARE NO LAWS GOVERNING THE
STUDY, INTRODUCTION AND USE OF GMOS IN THE PHILIPPINES AND COMPLETELY
DISREGARDED E.O. NO. 514 AND DA- AO 08-2002.
III
CONTINUING MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF KALIKASAN CONSIDERING THAT RESPONDENTS FAILED TO
EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
IV
CONTINUING MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF KALIKASAN CONSIDERING THAT PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER
THE SAME LIES WITH THE REGULATORY AGENCIES.
THE COURT OF APPEALS EXHIBITED BIAS AND PARTIALITY AND PREJUDGED THE INSTANT CASE WHEN IT
RENDERED THE ASSAILED DECISION DATED 17 MAY 2013 AND RESOLUTION DATED 20 SEPTEMBER 2013.
VI
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GRANTING THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN IN FAVOR OF
RESPONDENTS.
A. THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PROJECT PROPONENTS OF THE BT TALONG
FIELD TRIALS COMPLIED WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS IN
ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY
ARE PROTECTED AND RESPECTED.
B. THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD SHOWS THAT THE BT TALONG FIELD TRIALS DO NOT CAUSE
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AND DO NOT PREJUDICE THE LIFE, HEALTH AND PROPERTY OF
INHABITANTS OF TWO OR MORE PROVINCES OR CITIES.
C. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN APPLYING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

IN THIS CASE DESPITE THE FACT THAT RESPONDENTS FAILED TO PRESENT AN IOTA OF
EVIDENCE TO PROVE THEIR CLAIM.
VII
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GRANTING A WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS AGAINST
PETITIONER ISAAA.
VIII
THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION DATED 17 MAY 2013 AND RESOLUTION DATED 20 SEPTEMBER 2013 IS
AN AFFRONT TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS.29 ChanRoblesVirt ualawli bra ry
G.R. No. 209276
Petitioners EMB, BPI and FPA, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) assails the CA
Decision granting the petition for writ of kalikasanand writ of continuing mandamus despite the failure of
Greenpeace, et al. (respondents) to prove the requisites for their issuance.
Petitioners contend that while respondents presented purported studies that supposedly show signs of
toxicity in genetically engineered eggplant and other crops, these studies are insubstantial as they were not
published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Respondents thus failed to present evidence to prove their
claim that the Bt talong field trials violated environmental laws and rules.
As to the application of the precautionary principle, petitioners asserted that its application in this case is
misplaced. The paper by Prof. Seralini which was relied upon by the CA, was not formally offered in
evidence. In volunteering the said article to the parties, petitioners lament that the CA manifested its bias
towards respondents' position and did not even consider the testimony of Dr. Davies who stated that
"Seralini's work has been refuted by International committees of scientists"30 as shown by published articles
critical of Seralini's work.
Petitioners aver that there was no damage to human health since no Bt talong will be ingested by any
human being during the field trial stage. Besides, if the results of said testing are adverse, petitioners will
not allow the release of Bt talong to the environment, in line with the guidelines set by EO 514. The CA thus
misappreciated the regulatory process as approval for field testing does not automatically mean approval for
propagation of the same product. And even assuming that the field trials may indeed cause adverse
environmental or health effects, the requirement of unlawful act or omission on the part of petitioners or any
of the proponents, was still absent. Respondents clearly failed to prove there was any unlawful deviation
from the provisions of DAO 08-2002. The BPI's factual finding on the basis of risk assessment on the Bt
talong project should thus be accorded respect, if not finality by the courts.
Petitioners likewise fault the CA in giving such ambiguous and general directive for them to protect,
preserve, rehabilitate and restore the environment, lacking in specifics which only indicates that there was
really nothing to preserve, rehabilitate or restore as there was nothing damaged or adversely affected in the
first place. As to the supposed inadequacy and ineffectiveness of existing regulations, these are all political
questions and policy issues best left to the discretion of the policy-makers, the Legislative and Executive
branches of government. Petitioners add that the CA treads on judicial legislation when it recommended the
re-examination of country's existing laws and regulations governing studies and research on GMOs.
GR. No. 209301
Petitioner UPLBFI argues that respondents failed to adduce the quantum of evidence necessary to prove
actual or imminent injury to them or the environment as to render the controversy ripe for judicial
determination. It points out that nowhere in the testimonies during the "hot-tub" presentation of expert
witnesses did the witnesses for respondents claim actual or imminent injury to them or to the environment
as a result of the Bt talong field tests, as they spoke only of injury in the speculative, imagined kind without
any factual basis. Further, the petition for writ of kalikasan has been mooted by the termination of the field
trials as of August 10, 2012.
Finding the CA decision as a judgment not based on fact, UPLBFI maintains that by reason of the nature,
character, scale, duration, design, processes undertaken, risk assessments and strategies employed, results
heretofore recorded, scientific literature, the safeguards and other precautionary measures undertaken and
applied, the Bt talong field tests did not or could not have violated the right of respondents to a balanced
and healthful ecology. The appellate court apparently misapprehended the nature, character, design of the
field trials as one for "consumption" rather than for "field testing" as defined in DAO 08-2002, the sole
purpose of which is for the "efficacy" of the eggplant variety's resistance to the FSB.
Against the respondents' bare allegations, UPLBFI submits the following "specific facts borne by competent
evidence on record" (admitted exhibits)31:
118. Since the technology's inception 50 years ago, studies have shown
that genetically modified crops, including Bt talong, significantly
reduce the use of pesticides by farmers in growing eggplants,
lessening pesticide poisoning to humans.
119. Pesticide use globally has decreased in the last [14-15] years owing to
the use of insect-resistant genetically modified crops. Moreover, that
insect-resistant genetically modified crops significantly reduce the use
of pesticides in growing plants thus lessening pesticide poisoning in
humans, reducing pesticide load in the environment and encouraging
more biodiversity in farms.
120. Global warming is likewise reduced as more crops can be grown.
121. Transgenic Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) cotton has had a major impact
on the Australian cotton industry by largely controlling Lepidopteran
pests. To date, it had no significant impact on the invertebrate
community studied.
122. Feeding on CrylAcc contaminated non-target herbivores does not

harm predatory heteropterans and, therefore, cultivation of Btcotton
may provide an opportunity for conservation of these predators in
cotton ecosystems by reducing insecticide use.
123. The Bt protein in Bt corn only affects target insects and that Bt corn
pollens do not negatively affect monarch butterflies.
124. The field trials will not cause "contamination" as feared by the
petitioners because flight distance of the pollinators is a deterrent to
cross pollination. Studies reveal that there can be no cross pollination
more than a fifty (50) meter distance.
xx
xx
135. There is a 50 year history of safe use and consumption of agricultural

products sprayed with commercial Bt microbial pesticides and a 14
year history of safe consumption of food and feed derived from Bt
crops.
xx
xx
140. In separate reviews by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) and
the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), the "work" of
one Prof. Seralini relied upon by [respondents] was dismissed as
"scientifically flawed", thus providing no plausible basis to the
proposition that Bt talong is dangerous to public health.
141. In a learned treatise by James Clive entitled "Global Status of

Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011," the Philippines was cited to
be the first country in the ASEAN region to implement a regulatory
system for transgenic crops (which includes DAO 08-[2]002).
Accordingly, the said regulatory system has also served as a model for
other countries in the region and other developing countries outside of
Asia.
On the precautionary principle, UPLBFI contends that the CA misapplied it in this case. The testimonial and
documentary evidence of respondents, taken together, do not amount to "scientifically plausible" evidence
of threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment. In fact, since BPI started regulating GM
crops in 2002, they have monitored 171 field trials all over the Philippines and said agency has not observed
any adverse environmental effect caused by said field trials. Plainly, respondents failed to show proof of
"specific facts" of environmental damage of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases as to warrant sanctions over the Bt talong field trials.
Lastly, UPLBFI avers that the Bt talong field trial was an exercise of the constitutional liberty of scientists
and other academicians of UP, of which they have been deprived without due process of law. Stressing that
a possibility is not a fact, UPLBFI deplores the CA decision's pronouncement of their guilt despite the
preponderance of evidence on the environmental safety of the field trials, as evident from its declaration
that "the over-all safety guarantee of Bt talong remains to be still unknown." It thus asks if in the
meantime, petitioners must bear the judicial stigma of being cast as violators of the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology for an injury or damage unsubstantiated by evidence of scientific plausibility.
G.R. No. 209430
Petitioner UP reiterates UPLBFI's argument that the Bt talong field testing was conducted in the exercise of
UPLB's academic freedom, which is a constitutional right. In this case, there is nothing based on evidence on
record or overwhelming public welfare concern, such as the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology, which would warrant restraint on UPLB's exercise of academic freedom. Considering that UPLB
complied with all laws, rules and regulations regarding the application and conduct of field testing of GM
eggplant, and was performing such field tests within the prescribed limits of DAO 08-2002, and there being
no harm to the environment or prejudice that will be caused to the life, health or property of inhabitants in
two or more cities or provinces, to restrain it from performing the said field testing is unjustified.
Petitioner likewise objects to the CA's application of the precautionary principle in this case, in violation of
the standards set by the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. It points out that the Bt eggplants are
not yet intended to be introduced into the Philippine ecosystem nor to the local market for human
consumption.
Cited were the testimonies of two expert witnesses presented before the CA: Dr. Navasero who is an
entomologist and expert in integrated pest management and insect taxonomy, and Dr. Davies, a member of
the faculty of the Department of Plant Biology and Horticulture at Cornell University for 43 years and served
as a senior science advisor in agricultural technology to the United States Department of State. Both had
testified that based on generally accepted and scientific methodology, the field trial of Bt crops do not cause
damage to the environment or human health.
Petitioner assails the CA in relying instead on the conjectural statements of Dr. Malayang. It asserts that the
CA could not support its Decision and Resolution on the pure conjectures and imagination of one witness.
Basic is the rule that a decision must be supported by evidence on record.
Respondents' Consolidated Comment
Respondents aver that Bt talong became the subject of public protest in our country precisely because of the
serious safety concerns on the impact of Bt talong toxin on human and animal health and the environment
through field trial contamination. They point out that the inherent and potential risks and adverse effects of
GM crops are recognized in the Cartagena Protocol and our biosafety regulations (EO 514 and DAO 08-
2002). Contamination may occur through pollination, ingestion by insects and other animals, water and soil
run off, human error, mechanical accident and even by stealing was inevitable in growing Bt talong in an
open environment for field trial. Such contamination may manifest even after many years and in places very
far away from the trial sites.
Contrary to petitioners' claim that they did not violate any law or regulation, or unlawful omission,
respondents assert that, in the face of scientific uncertainties on the safety and effects of Bt talong,
petitioners omitted their crucial duties to conduct environmental impact assessment (EIA); evaluate health
impacts; get the free, prior and informed consent of the people in the host communities; and provide
remedial and liability processes in the approval of the biosafety permit and conduct of the field trials in its
five sites located in five provinces. These omissions have put the people and the environment at serious and
irreversible risks.
Respondents cite the numerous studies contained in "Adverse Impacts of Transgenic Crops/Foods: A
Compilation of Scientific References with Abstracts" printed by Coalition for a GMO-Free India; a study
on Bt corn in the Philippines, "Socio-economic Impacts of Genetically Modified Corn in the Philippines"
published by MASIPAG in 2013; and the published report of the investigation conducted by Greenpeace,
"White Corn in the Philippines: Contaminated with Genetically Modified Corn Varieties" which revealed
positive results for samples purchased from different stores in Sultan Kudarat, Mindanao, indicating that
they were contaminated with GM corn varieties, specifically the herbicide tolerant and Bt insect resistant
genes from Monsanto, the world's largest biotech company based in the US.
To demonstrate the health hazards posed by Bt crops, respondents cite the following sources: the studies of
Drs. L. Moreno-Fierros, N. Garcia, R. Gutierrez, R. Lopez-Revilla, and RI Vazquez-Padron, all from the
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico; the conclusion made by Prof. Eric-Gilles Seralini of the University
of Caen, France, who is also the president of the Scientific Council of the Committee for Independent
Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), in his review, commissioned by Greenpeace,
of Mahyco's data submitted in support of the application to grow and market Bt eggplant in India; and the
medical interpretations of Prof. Seralini's findings by Filipino doctors Dr. Romeo Quijano of the University of
the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital and Dr. Wency Kiat, Jr. of St. Luke's Medical Center (Joint
Affidavit).
According to respondents, the above findings and interpretations on serious health risks are strengthened by
the findings of a review of the safety claims in the MAHYCO Dossier authored by Prof. David A. Andow of the
University of Minnesota, an expert in environmental assessment in crop science. The review was made upon
the request in 2010 of His Honorable Shri Jairam Ramesh of the Ministry of Environment and Forests of
India, where MAHYCO is based. MAHYCO is the corporate creator and patent owner of the Bt gene inserted
in Bt talong.
The conclusions of health hazards from the above studies were summarized32 by respondents, as follows:
Studies/interpretation by Conclusion/interpretation
Drs. L. Moreno-Fierros, N. For Bt modified crops (like Bt talong), there

Garcia, R. Gutierrez, R. is concern over its potential
Lopez-Revilla, and RI allergenicity. CrylAcc (the gene inserted

Vazquez-Padron in Bt talong) protoxin is a potent immunogen
(triggers immune response); the protoxin is
immunogenic by both the intraperitoneal
(injected) and intragastric (ingested) route;
the immune response to the protoxin is both
systemic and mucosal; and CrylAcc protoxin
binds to surface proteins in the mouse small
intestine. These suggest that extreme
caution is required in the use of CrylAcc in
food crops.
Prof. Eric-Gilles Seralini His key findings showed statistical significant

differences between group of animals fed GM
and non-GM eggplant that raise food safety
concerns and warrant further
investigation.
Dr. Romeo Quijano & Dr. Interpreting Prof. Seralini's findings, the
Wency Kiat, Jr. altered condition of rats symptomatically
indicate hazards for human health.
Prof. David A. Andow The MAHYCO dossier is inadequate to

support the needed environmental risk
assessment; MAHYCO's food safety
assessment does not comply with
international standards; and that MAHYCO
relied on dubious scientific assumptions and
disregarded real environmental threats.
As to environmental effects, respondents said these include the potential for living modified organisms, such
as Bt talong tested in the field or released into the environment, to contaminate non-GM traditional varieties
and other wild eggplant relatives and turn them into novel pests, outcompete and replace their wild
relatives, increase dependence on pesticides, or spread their introduced genes to weedy relatives,
potentially creating superweeds, and kill beneficial insects.
Respondents then gave the following tabulated summary33 of field trial contamination cases drawn from
various news reports and some scientific literature submitted to the court:
What happened Impact How did it occur
During 2006 and 2007, In July 2011, Bayer Field trials were
traces of three varieties eventually agreed to a conducted between
of unapproved genetically $750m US dollar settlement the mid-1990s and
modified rice owned by resolving claims with about early 2000s. The
Bayer Crop Science were 11,000 US farmers for US Department of
found in US rice exports market losses and clean-up Agriculture (USDA)
in over 30 countries costs. reported these field
worldwide. trials were the
The total costs to the rice likely sources of
industry are likely to have the contamination
been over $1bn worldwide. between the
modified rice and
conventional
varieties. However,
it was unable to
conclude [if it] was
caused by gene
flow (cross
pollination) or
mechanical mixing.
In 2009, unauthorised Canada lost exports to its In the late 1980s a

GElinseed (also known as main European market public research
'flax') produced by a worth hundreds of millions institution, the
public research institution of dollars and non- Crop Development
was discovered in food in GElinseed farmers have Centre in
several EU countries, faced huge costs and Saskatoon, Saskat-
having been imported market losses. chewan, developed
from Canada. a GElinseed variety
FP96believed to
be the origin of the
contamination.
During 2004, the Thai Exports of papaya to GEpapaya is not

government found that Europe have been hit grown
papaya samples from 85 because of fears that commercially in
farms were genetically contamination could have Thailand, so it was
modified. The spread. The Thai clear that the
contamination continued government said it was contamination
into 2006 and it is likely taking action to destroy the originated from the
that the GE contaminated trees. government station
contamination reached experimentally
the food chain. breeding GE
papaya trees. Tests
that showed that
one third of papaya
orchards tested in
the eastern
province of Rayong
and the north-
eastern provinces
of Mahasarakham,
Chaiyaphum and
Kalasinhad GE-
contaminated
papaya seeds in
July 2005. The
owners said that a
research station
gave them the
seeds.
In the US in 2002, seeds Prodigene, the company Seeds from the

from a GEmaize pharma- responsible, was fined $3m GEmaize crop
crop containing a pig for tainting half a million sprouted
vaccine grew bushels of soya bean with a voluntarily in the
independently among trial vaccine used to following season.
normal soybean crops. prevent stomach upsets in
piglets. Prodigene agreed to
pay a fine of $250,000 and
to repay the government
for the cost of incinerating
the soya bean that had
been contaminated with
genetically altered corn.
In 2005, Greenpeace The European Commission The source of the
discovered that GE rice adopted emergency contamination
seeds had been illegally measures (on 15 August appears to have
sold in Hubei, China. 2008) to require been the result of
Then, in 2006, GE rice compulsory certification for illegal planting of
event Bt63 was found in the imports of Chinese rice GEseeds. Seed
baby food sold in Beijing, products that could contain companies in China
Guangzhou and Hong the unauthorised GE rice found to have sold
Kong. In late 2006, GE Bt63. GErice hybrid seed
rice Bt63 was found to be to farmers
contaminating exports in The Chinese government operated directly
Austria, France, the UK took several measures to under the
and Germany. In 2007 it try to stop the university
was again found in EU contamination, which developing GM
imports to Cyprus, included punishing seed rice. It has been
Germany, Greece, Italy companies, confiscating reported that the
and Sweden. GEseed, destroying GErice key scientist sat on
grown in the field and the board of one
tightening control over the GEseed company.
food chain.
In 2005, the European The European Commission The contamination

Commission announced blocked US grain import arose because
that illegal Bt10 GEmaize unless they could be Syngenta's quality
produced by GEseed guaranteed free of Bt10. control procedures
company Syngenta had The USDA fined Syngenta did not
entered the European $375,000. There are no differentiate
food chain. The GEmaize figures for the wider costs. between Bt10 and
Bt10 contains a marker its sister
gene that codes for the commercial line,
widely-used antibiotic Bt11. As a result,
ampicillin, while the Bt11 the experimental
does not. According to and substantially
the international Codex different Bt10 line
Alimentarius Guideline was mistakenly
for Conduct of Food used in breeding.
Safety Assessment of The error was
Foods Derived from detected four years
Recombinant- later when one of
DNA:Plants: 'Antibiotic the seed
resistance genes used in companies
food production that developing Bt11
encode resistance to varieties adopted
clinically used antibiotics more sophisticated
should not be present in analytical
foods' because it techniques.
increases the risk of
antibiotic resistance in
the population.
Refuting the claim of petitioners that contamination is nil or minimal because the scale of Bt talong field trial
is isolated, restricted and that "each experiment per site per season consists of a maximum net area planted
to Bt eggplant of between 480 sq. meters to 1,080 sq. meters,"34 respondents emphasize that as shown by
the above, contamination knows no size and boundaries in an open environment.
With regard to the required geographical coverage of environmental damage for the issuance of writ
of kalikasan, respondents assert that while the Bt talong field trials were conducted in only five provinces,
the environmental damage prejudicial to health extends beyond the health of the present generation of
inhabitants in those provinces.
On petitioners' insistence in demanding that those who allege injury must prove injury, respondents said
that biosafety evidence could not be readily contained in a corpus delicti to be presented in court. Indeed,
the inherent and potential risks and adverse effects brought by GMOs are not like dead bodies or wounds
that are immediately and physically identifiable to an eyewitness and which are resulting from a common
crime. Precisely, this is why the Cartagena Protocol's foundation is on the precautionary principle and
development of sound science and its links, to social and human rights law through its elements of public
awareness, public participation and public right to know. This is also why the case was brought under
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases and not under ordinary or other rules, on the grounds of
violation of the rights of the Filipino people to health, to a balanced and healthful ecology, to information on
matters of national concern, and to participation. The said Rules specifically provides that the appreciation of
evidence in a case like this must be guided by the precautionary principle.
As to the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies being raised by petitioners as ground to dismiss the
present petition, respondents said that nowhere in the 22 sections of DAO 08-2002 that one can find a
remedy to appeal the decision of the DA issuing the field testing permit. What is only provided for is a
mechanism for applicants of a permit, not stakeholders like farmers, traders and consumers to appeal a
decision by the BPI-DA in case of denial of their application for field testing. Moreover, DAO 08-2002 is silent
on appeal after the issuance of the biosafety permit.
Finally, on the propriety of the writ of continuing mandamus, respondents argue that EO 514 explicitly
states that the application of biosafety regulations shall be made in accordance with existing laws and the
guidelines therein provided. Hence, aside from risk assessment requirement of the biosafety regulations,
pursuant to the PEISS law and Sections 12 and 13 of the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, an
environmental impact statement (EIS) is required and an environmental compliance certificate (ECC) is
necessary before such Bt crop field trials can be conducted.
Petitioners' Replies
G.R. No. 209271
ISAAA contends that the Precautionary Principle and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases do not
empower courts to adjudicate a controversy that is moot and academic. It points out that respondents failed
to satisfy all the requirements of the exception to the rule on actual controversies. The Biosafety Permit is
valid for only two years, while the purported stages in the commercialization, propagation and registration
of Bt talong still cannot confer jurisdiction on the CA to decide a moot and academic case.
As to the propriety of the writ of continuing mandamus, ISAAA maintains that public petitioners do not have
"mandatory" and "ministerial" duty to re-examine and reform the biosafety regulatory system, and to
propose curative legislation. The law (EO 514) cited by respondents does not impose such duty on public
petitioners. As for the Cartagena Protocol, it laid down a procedure for the evaluation of the Protocol itself,
not of the Philippine biosafety regulatory system. ISAAA stresses that the CA is without jurisdiction to review
the soundness and wisdom of existing laws, policy and regulations. Indeed, the questions posed by the
respondents are political questions, which must be resolved by the executive and legislative departments in
deference to separation of powers.
On the availability of administrative remedies, ISAAA asserts that respondents are mistaken in saying that
these are limited to appeals. The concerned public may invoke Section 8 (G) of DAO 08-2002 which grants
them the right to submit their written comments on the BPI regarding the field testing permits, or Section 8
(P) for the revocation and cancellation of a field testing permit. Respondents' failure to resort to the internal
mechanisms provided in DAO 08-2002 violates the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, which
warrants the dismissal of respondents' petition.
ISAAA points out that under Section 7 of DAO 08-2002, the BPI is the approving authority for field testing
permits, while under Title IV, Chapter 4, Section 19 of the Administrative Code of 1987, the DA through the
BPI, is responsible for the production of improved planting materials and protection of agricultural crops
from pests and diseases. In bypassing the administrative remedies available, respondents not only failed to
exhaust a less costly and speedier remedy, it also deprived the parties of an opportunity to be heard by the
BPI which has primary jurisdiction and knowledgeable on the issues they sought to raise.
Rejecting the scientific data presented by the respondents, petitioners found Annex "A" of the Consolidated
Comment as irrelevant because it was not formally offered in evidence and are hearsay. Majority of those
records contain incomplete information and none of them pertain to the Bt talong. Respondents likewise
presented two misleading scientific studies which have already been discredited: the 2013 study by B.P.
Mezzomo, et al. and the study by Prof. Seralini in 2012. Petitioner notes that both articles have been
withdrawn from publication.
ISAAA further describes Annex "A" as a mere compilation of records of flawed studies with only 126 usable
records out of the 338 records. In contrast, petitioner cites the work of Nicolia, A., A. Manzo, F. Veronesi,
and D. Rosellini, entitled "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research."
The authors evaluated 1,783 scientific records of GE crop safety research papers, reviews, relevant opinions
and scientific reports from 2002-2012. Their findings concluded that "the scientific research conducted so far
has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops." In the article "Impacts
of GM crops on biodiversity," in which scientific findings concluded that "[o]verall, x x x currently
commercialized GM crops have reduced the impacts of agriculture on biodiversity, through enhanced
adoption of conservation tillage practices, reduction of insecticide use and use of more environmentally
benign herbicides and increasing yields to alleviate pressure to convert additional land into agricultural use."
Debunking the supposed inherent risks and potential dangers of GMOs, petitioner cites EUR 24473-A decade
of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010), concluded from more than 130 research projects, covering a
period of 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, that
"biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding
technologies." Another article cited is "Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and
multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review" which states that scientific findings show that
GM crops do not suggest any health hazard, and are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts
and can be safely used in food and feed.
Addressing the studies relied upon by respondents on the alleged adverse environmental effects of GM
crops, petitioner cites the article "Ecological Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops: Ten Years of Field
Research and Commercial Cultivation" which concluded that "[T]he data available so far provide no scientific
evidence that the cultivation of the presently commercialized GM crops has caused environmental harm." A
related article, "A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton and Maize on Non-target Invertebrates" states that
scientific findings show that non-target insects are more abundant in GM crop fields like Bt cotton
and Bt maize fields than in non-GM crops that are sprayed with insecticides.
The two tables/summaries of studies submitted by respondents are likewise rejected by ISAAA, which
presented the following comments and criticisms on each of the paper/article cited, thus:
With respect to the study made by L. Moreno-Fierros, et al., the same should be rejected considering that
this was not formally offered as evidence by respondents. Hence, the same may not be considered by the
Honorable Court. (Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court; Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Spouses Parocha,
supra)
Further, the study is irrelevant and immaterial. The CrylAcc protein used in the study was from
engineered E. coli and may have been contaminated by endotoxin. The CrylAcc used in the study
was not from Bt talong. Hence, respondents' attempt to extrapolate the interpretation and conclusion of this
study to Bt talong is grossly erroneous and calculated to mislead and deceive the Honorable Court.
Moreover, in a review by Bruce D. Hammond and Michael S. Koch of the said study by L. Moreno-Fierros, et
al., which was published in an article entitled A Review of the Food Safety of Bt Crops, the authors reported
that Adel-Patient, et al. tried and failed to reproduce the results obtained by the study made by L. Moreno-
Fierros, et al. The reason is because of endotoxin contamination in the preparation of the CrylAc protein.
Further, when purified Cry protein was injected to mice through intra-gastric administration, there was no
impact on the immune response of the mice.
In addition, the biological relevance of the study made by L. Moreno-Fierros, et al. to assessing potential
health risks from human consumption of foods derived from Bt crops can be questioned because the doses
tested in mice is irrelevant to human dietary exposure, i.e., the doses given were "far in excess of potential
human intakes".
With respect to the interpretation made by Prof. Eric-Gilles Seralini, the same is not entitled to any weight
and consideration because his sworn statement was not admitted in evidence by the Court of Appeals.
Further, Seralini's findings are seriously flawed. Food safety experts explained the differences observed by
Seralini's statistical analysis as examples of random biological variation that occurs when many
measurements are made on test animals, and which have no biological significance. Hence, there are no
food safety concerns. Further, petitioner ISAAA presented in evidence the findings of regulatory bodies,
particularly the EFSA and the FSANZ, to controvert Seralini's findings. The EFSA and the FSANZ rejected
Seralini's findings because the same were based on questionable statistical procedure employed in
maize in 2007.
In addition, it must be pointed out that the Indian regulatory authority, GEAC, has not revised its earlier
decision approving the safety of Bteggplant notwithstanding the findings of Seralini's assessment. In effect,
Seralini's findings and interpretation were rejected by the Indian regulatory agency.
With respect to the interpretation made by Drs. Romeo Quijano and Wency Kiat, the same is not entitled to
any weight and consideration because the Court of Appeals did not admit their sworn statement. Further,
Drs. Romeo Quijano and Wency Kiat sought to interpret a seriously flawed study, making their sworn
statements equally flawed.
In an attempt to mislead the Honorable Court, respondents tried to pass off the review of Prof. David A.
Andow as the work of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. Such claim is grossly misleading. In
truth, as Prof. David A. Andow indicated in the preface, the report was produced upon the request of Aruna
Rodriguez, a known anti-GM campaigner.
Further, Prof. David A. Andow's review did not point to any negative impact to the environment of
Mahyco's Bt brinjal (Indian name for Bt talong) during the entire period of conduct of field trials all over the
country. He concluded, however, that the dossier is inadequate for ERA. This is perplexing considering this is
the same gene that has been used in Bt cotton since 1996. Scores of environmental and food safety risk
assessment studies have been conducted and there is wealth of information and experience on its safety.
Various meta-analyses indicate that delaying the use of this already effective Bt brinjal for managing this
devastating pest only ensures the continued use of frequent insecticide sprays with proven harm to human
and animal health and the environment and loss of potential income of resource-poor small farmers.
Notwithstanding the conclusions of Prof. David A. Andow, to date, it is worth repeating that the Indian
regulatory body, GEAC, has not revised its earlier decision approving the safety of Bt eggplant based on the
recommendation of two expert committees which found the Mahyco regulatory dossier compliant to the ERA
stipulated by the Indian regulatory body. In effect, like Seralini, Andow's findings and interpretation were
also rejected by the Indian regulatory agency.35 ChanRoblesVirtualawli bra ry
Petitioner reiterates that the PEIS law does not apply to field testing of Bt talong and the rigid requirements
under Section 8 of DAO 08-2002 already takes into consideration any and all significant risks not only to the
environment but also to human health. The requirements under Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government
Code are also inapplicable because the field testing is not among the six environmentally sensitive activities
mentioned therein; the public consultations and prior local government unit (LGU) approval, were
nevertheless complied with. Moreover, the field testing is an exercise of academic freedom protected by the
Constitution, the possibility of Bt talong's commercialization in the future is but incidental to, and fruit of the
experiment.
As to the "commissioned studies" on Bt corn in the Philippines, petitioner asserts that these are
inadmissible, hearsay and unreliable. These were not formally offered in evidence; self-serving as it was
conducted by respondents Greenpeace and MASIPAG themselves; the persons who prepared the same were
not presented in court to identify and testify on its findings; and the methods used in the investigation and
research were not scientific. Said studies failed to establish any correlation between Bt corn and the
purported environmental and health problems.
G.R. No. 209276
EMB, BPI and FPA joined in objecting to Annex "A" of respondents' consolidated comment, for the same
reasons given by ISAAA. They noted that the affidavit of Prof. Seralini, and the joint affidavit of Dr. Kiat and
Dr. Quijano were denied admission by the CA. Given the failure of the respondents to present scientific
evidence to prove the claim of environmental and health damages, respondents are not entitled to the writ
of kalikasan.
Public petitioners reiterate that in issuing the Biosafety Permits to UPLB, they made sure that the latter
complied with all the requirements under DAO 08-2002, including the conduct of risk assessment. The
applications for field testing of Bt talong thus underwent the following procedures:
Having completed the contained experiment on the Bt talong, UPLB filed with BPI several applications for
issuance of Biosafety Permits to conduct multi-locational field testing of Bt talong. Even before the
proponent submitted its application, petitioner BPI conducted a consultative meeting with the proponent to
enlighten the latter about the requirements set out by DA AO No. 8.
Thereafter, petitioner BPI evaluated UPLB's applications vis-a-vis the requirements of Section 8 of DA AO
No. 8 and found them to be sufficient in form and substance, to wit:
First. The applications were in the proper format and contained all of the relevant information as required in
Section 8 (A) (1) of DA AO No. 08.
Second. The applications were accompanied by a (i) Certification from the NCBP that the regulated article
has undergone satisfactory testing under contained conditions in the Philippines, (ii) technical dossier
consisting of scientific literature and other scientific materials relied upon by the applicant showing that Bt
talong will not pose any significant risks to human health and the environment, and (iii) copy of the
proposed PIS for Field Testing as prescribed by Section 8 (A) (2) of DA AO No. 08; and
Third. The applications contained the Endorsement of proposal for field testing, duly approved by the
majority of all the members of the respective Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBC), including at least
one community representative, as required by Section 8 (E) of DA AO No. 08.
a. Under Sections 1 (L) and 8 (D) of DA AO No. 08, the IBC is responsible for the initial evaluation of the risk
assessment and risk management strategies of the applicant for field testing using the NCBP guidelines. The
IBC shall determine if the data obtained under contained conditions provide sufficient basis to
authorize the field testing of the regulated article. In making the determination, the IBC shall ensure
that field testing does not pose any significant risks to human health and the environment. The
IBC may, in its discretion, require the proponent to perform additional experiments under contained
conditions before acting on the field testing proposal. The IBC shall either endorse the field testing proposal
to the BPI or reject it for failing the scientific risk assessment.
b. Relatedly, UPLB had previously complied with Section 1 (L) of DA AO No. 08 which requires an applicant
for field testing to establish an IBC in preparation for the field testing of a regulated article and whose
membership has been approved by the BPI. Section 1 (L) of DA AO No. 08, requires that the IBC shall be
composed of at least five (5) members, three (3) of whom shall be designated as "scientist-members" who
shall possess scientific and technological knowledge and expertise sufficient to enable them to evaluate and
monitor properly any work of the applicant relating to the field testing of a regulated article, and the other
members are designated as "community representatives" who are in a position to represent the interest of
the communities where the field testing is to be conducted.
Before approving the intended multi-locations [field] trials, petitioner BPI, pursuant to Section 8 (F) of DA
AO No. 08, forwarded the complete documents to three (3) independent Scientific Technical Review Panel
(STRP) members. Pending receipt of the risk assessment reports of the three STRP members, petitioner BPI
conducted its own risk assessment.
Thereafter, on separate occasions, petitioner BPI received the final risk assessment reports of the three
STRP members recommending the grant of Biosafety Permits to UPLB after a thorough risk assessment and
evaluation of UPLB's application for field trial of Bt talong.
Meanwhile, petitioner BPI received from UPLB proofs of posting of the PISs for Field Testing in each
concerned barangays and city/municipal halls of the localities having jurisdiction over its proposed field trial
sites.
In addition to the posting of the PISs for Field Testing, petitioner BPI conducted consultative meetings and
public seminars in order to provide public information and in order to give an opportunity to the public to
raise their questions and/or concerns regarding the Bt talongfield trials.36ChanRob les Virtualawl ibra ry
Petitioners maintain that Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code are inapplicable to the Bt
talong field testing considering that its subject matter is not mass production for human consumption. The
project entails only the planting of Bt eggplants and cultivation in a controlled environment; indeed, the
conduct of a field trial is not a guarantee that the Bt talong will be commercialized and allowed for
cultivation in the Philippines.
On the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies by the respondents, petitioners note that during the
period of public consultation under DAO 08-2002, it is BPI which processes written comments on the
application for field testing of a regulated article, and has the authority to approve or disapprove the
application. Also, under Section 8 (P), BPI may revoke a biosafety permit issued on the ground of, among
others, receipt of new information that the field testing poses significant risks to human health and the
environment. Petitioners assert they were never remiss in the performance of their mandated functions, as
shown by their immediate action with respect to the defective certification of posting of PIS in Kabacan,
North Cotabato. Upon receiving the letter-complaint on January 24, 2012, BPI readily ordered their re-
posting. The same incident occurred in Davao City, where BPI refused to lift the suspension of biosafety
permits until "rectification of the conditions for public consultation is carried out."
To underscore respondents' blatant disregard of the administrative process, petitioners refer to documented
instances when respondents took the law in their own hands. Greenpeace barged into one of the Bt
talong field trial sites at Bgy. Paciano Rizal, Bay, Laguna, forcibly entered the entrance gate through the use
of a bolt cutter, and then proceeded to uproot the experimental crops without permission from BPI or the
project proponents. Petitioners submit that the non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies results in lack of cause of action, one of the grounds under the Rules of
Court justifying the dismissal of a complaint.
Petitions-in-Intervention
Crop Life Philippines, Inc. (Crop Life)
Crop Life is an association of companies which belongs to a global (Crop Life International) as well as
regional (Crop Life Asia) networks of member-companies representing the plant science industry. It aims to
"help improve the productivity of Filipino farmers and contribute to Philippine food security in a sustainable
way." It supports "innovation, research and development in agriculture through the use of biology,
chemistry, biotechnology, plant breeding, other techniques and disciplines."
On procedural grounds, Crop Life assails the CA in rendering judgment in violation of petitioners' right to
due process because it was prevented from cross-examining the respondents' expert witnesses and
conducting re-direct examination of petitioners' own witnesses, and being an evidently partial and
prejudiced court. It said the petition for writ of kalikasan should have been dismissed outright as it
effectively asks the Court to engage in "judicial legislation" to "cure" what respondents feel is an inadequate
regulatory framework for field testing of GMOs in the Philippines. Respondents also violated the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, and their petition is barred by estoppel and laches.
Crop Life concurs with the petitioners in arguing that respondents failed to specifically allege and prove the
particular environmental damage resulting from the Bt talong field testing. It cites the scientific evidence on
record and the internationally accepted scientific standards on GMOs and GMO field testing, and considering
the experience of various countries engaged in testing GMOs, telling us that GMO field testing will not
damage the environment nor harm human health and more likely bring about beneficial improvements.
Crop Life likewise assails the application of the Precautionary Principle by the CA which erroneously equated
field testing of Bt talong with Bt talong itself; failed to recognize that in this case, there was no particular
environmental damage identified, much less proven; relied upon the article of Prof. Seralini that was
retracted by the scientific journal which published it; there is no scientific uncertainty on the adverse effects
of GMOs to environment and human health; and did not consider respondents' failure to prove the
insufficiency of the regulatory framework under DAO 08-2002.
On policy grounds, Crop Life argues that requiring all organisms/plants to be considered absolutely safe
before any field testing may be allowed, would result in permanently placing the Philippines in the shadows
of more developed nations (whose economies rest on emerging markets importing products from them). It
points out that the testing of Bt talong specifically addresses defined problems such as the need to curb the
misuse of chemical pesticides.
Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines (BCP)
BCP is a non-stock, non-profit membership association, a broad-based multi-sectoral coalition of advocates

of modern biotechnology in the Philippines.
Reversal of the CA ruling is sought on the following grounds:

I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE KALIKASAN PETITION IN THE ABSENCE
OF ANY JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.
II.
EXISTING LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS ALREADY INCORPORATE THE

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN RELATION TO GMOs.
III.
THE CA DECISION AND THE CA RESOLUTION IMPROPERLY APPLIED THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.
IV.
THE COURT OF APPEALS' ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, IF SUSTAINED,

WOULD PRODUCE A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT IS ANTI-PROGRESS, ANTI-TECHNOLOGY AND,
ULTIMATELY, DETRIMENTAL TO THE FILIPINO PEOPLE.37 ChanRobles Vi rtua lawlib rary
BCP argued that in the guise of taking on a supposed justiciable controversy, despite the Bt talong field
trials having been terminated, the CA entertained a prohibited collateral attack on the sufficiency of DAO 08-
2002. Though not invalidating the issuance, which the CA knew was highly improper, it nonetheless granted
the petition for writ of kalikasan on the theory that "mere biosafety regulations" were insufficient to
guarantee the safety of the environment and the health of the people.
Also reiterated were those grounds for dismissal already raised by the petitioners: failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and finality of findings of administrative agencies.
BCP further asserts that the application of a stringent "risk assessment" process to regulated articles prior to
any release in the environment for field testing mandated by AO No. 8 sufficiently complies with the
rationale behind the development of the precautionary principle. By implementing the stringent provisions of
DAO 08-2002, in conjunction with the standards set by EO 514 and the NBF, the government preemptively
intervenes and takes precautionary measures prior to the release of any potentially harmful substance or
article into the environment. Thus, any potential damage to the environment is prevented or negated.
Moreover, international instruments ratified and formally adopted by the Philippines (CBD and the Cartagena
Protocol) provide additional support in the proper application of the precautionary principle in relation to
GMOs and the environment.
On the "misapplication" by the CA of the precautionary principle, BCP explains that the basic premise for its
application is the existence of threat of harm or damage to the environment, which must be backed by a
reasonable scientific basis and not based on mere hypothetical allegation, before the burden of proof is
shifted to the public respondents in a petition for writ of kalikasan. Here, the CA relied heavily on its
observation that "... field trials of bt talongcould not be declared ... as safe to human health and to ecology,
with full scientific certainty, being an alteration of an otherwise natural state of affairs in our ecology" and
"introducing a genetically modified plant in our intricate world of plants by humans certainly appears to be
an ecologically imbalancing act," among others. BCP finds that this pronouncement of the CA constitutes an
indictment not only against Bt talong but against all GMOs as well. The appellate court's opinion is thus
highly speculative, sweeping and laced with obvious bias.
There being no credible showing in the record that the conduct of Bt talong field trials entails real threats
and that these threats pertain to serious and irreversible damage to the environment, BCP maintains that
the precautionary principle finds no application in this case. While Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases states that "[w]hen 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 CA failed to note that the element of lack of full scientific certainty pertains
merely to the causal link between human activity and environmental effect, and not the existence or risk of
environmental effect.
BCP laments that sustaining the CA's line of reasoning would produce a chilling effect against technological
advancements, especially those in agriculture. Affirming the CA decision thus sets a dangerous precedent
where any and all human activity may be enjoined based on unfounded fears of possible damage to health
or the environment.
Issues
From the foregoing submissions, the Court is presented with the following issues for resolution:
1. Legal standing of respondents;
2. Mootness;
3. Violation of the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies;
4. Application of the law on environmental impact statement/assessment on projects involving

the introduction and propagation of GMOs in the country;
5. Evidence of damage or threat of damage to human health and the environment in two or
more provinces, as a result of the Bt talongfield trials;
6. Neglect or unlawful omission committed by the public respondents in connection with the
processing and evaluation of the applications for Bt talong field testing; and
7. Application of the Precautionary Principle.
The Court's Ruling
Legal Standing
Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."38 It refers particularly to "a
party's 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."39
However, the rule on standing is a matter of procedure which can be relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like
ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is
of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.40 The
Court thus had invariably adopted a liberal policy on standing to allow ordinary citizens and civic
organizations to prosecute actions before this Court questioning the constitutionality or validity of laws, acts,
rulings or orders of various government agencies or instrumentalities.41
Oposa v. Factor an, Jr.42 signaled an even more liberalized policy on locus standi in public suits. In said case,
we recognized the "public right" of citizens to "a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in
our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law." We held that such right
need not be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political 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.
Since the Oposa ruling, ordinary citizens not only have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of
environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own and future generations. Thus:
Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no
difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding
generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can
only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the "rhythm and
harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony
indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and
conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other
natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to
the present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next
to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little
differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to
come.43 (Emphasis supplied.)
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.44 The provision on citizen suits in the Rules
"collapses the traditional 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."45
There is therefore no dispute on the standing of respondents to file before this Court their petition for writ
of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus.
Mootness
It is argued that this case has been mooted by the termination of all field trials on August 10, 2012. In fact,
the validity of all Biosafety permits issued to UPLB expired in June 2012.
An action is considered 'moot' when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues
involved have become academic or dead, or when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and
hence, one is not entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the
parties.46 Time and again, courts have refrained from even expressing an opinion in a case where the issues
have become moot and academic, there being no more justiciable controversy to speak of, so that a
determination thereof would be of no practical use or value.47
Nonetheless, courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic if: first, there is a grave violation of the
Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is
involved; third, when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide
the bench, the bar and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.48 We find
that the presence of the second and fourth exceptions justified the CA in not dismissing the case despite the
termination of Bt talong field trials.
While it may be that the project proponents of Bt talong have terminated the subject field trials, it is not
certain if they have actually completed the field trial stage for the purpose of data gathering. At any rate, it
is on record that the proponents expect to proceed to the next phase of the project, the preparation for
commercial propagation of the Bt eggplants. Biosafety permits will still be issued by the BPI for Bt talong or
other GM crops. Hence, not only does this case fall 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, a very popular staple vegetable among Filipinos, is an issue of paramount
public interest.
Primary Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
In Republic v. Lacap,49 the Court explained the related doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of
administrative remedies, as follows:
The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the
means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to
decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such
administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.
Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that
is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of
the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the
question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,
experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible
rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party
invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and
oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the
courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause great and
irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) when there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved; and, (1) in quo warranto proceedings.
x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Under DAO 08-2002, the public is invited to submit written comments for evaluation by BPI after public
information sheets have been posted (Section 7[G]). Section 7(P) also provides for revocation of field
testing permit on certain grounds, to wit:
P. Revocation of Permit to Field Test. - A Permit to Field Test may be revoked for any of the following
grounds:
1. Provision of false information in the Application to Field Test;
2. Violation of SPS or biosafety rules and regulations or of any conditions specified in the
permit;
3. Failure to allow the inspection of the field testing site;
4. Receipt by BPI of new information that the field testing of the regulated article poses
significant risks to human health and the environment;
5. Whether the regulated article was imported, misdeclaration of shipment; or
6. Such other grounds as BPI may deem reasonable to prevent significant risks to human
health and the environment.
Respondents sought relief under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, claiming serious health
and environmental adverse effects of the Bt talong field trials due to "inherent risks" associated with
genetically modified crops and herbicides. They sought the immediate issuance of a TEPO to enjoin the
processing for field testing and registering Bt talong as herbicidal product in the Philippines, stopping all
pending field trials of Bt talonganywhere in the country, and ordering the uprooting of planted Bt talong in
the field trial sites.
In addition to the TEPO and writ of kalikasan, respondents also sought the issuance of a writ of continuing
mandamus commanding the respondents to: (1) comply with the requirement of environmental impact
statement; (2) submit comprehensive risk assessments, field test reports, regulatory compliance reports
and other material documents on Bt talong including issued certifications on public consultation with LGUs;
(3) work with other agencies to submit a draft amendment to biosafety regulations; and (4) BPI, in
coordination with relevant government agencies, conduct balanced nationwide public information on the
nature of Bt talong field trial, and a survey of its social acceptability.
Clearly, the provisions of DAO 08-2002 do not provide a speedy, or adequate remedy for the respondents
"to determine the questions of unique national and local importance raised here that pertain to laws and
rules for environmental protection, thus [they were] justified in coming to this Court."50 We take judicial
notice of the fact that genetically modified food is an intensely debated global issue, and despite the entry of
GMO crops (Bt corn) into the Philippines in the last decade, it is only now that such controversy involving
alleged damage or threat to human health and the environment from GMOs has reached the courts.
Genetic Engineering
Genetic manipulation has long been practiced by conventional breeders of plant or animal to fulfill specific
purposes. The basic strategy employed is to use the sexual mechanism to reorganize the genomes of two
individuals in a new genetic matrix, and select for individuals in the progeny with the desirable combination
of the parental characteristics. Hybridization is the conventional way of creating variation. In animals,
mating is effected by introducing the desired sperm donor to the female at the right time. In plants, pollen
grains from the desired source are deposited on the stigma of a receptive female plant. Pollination or mating
is followed by fertilization and subsequently development into an embryo. The effect of this action is the
reorganization of the genomes of two parents into a new genetic matrix to create new individuals expressing
traits from both parents. The ease of crossing of mating varies from one species to another. However,
conventional breeding technologies are limited by their long duration, need for sexual compatibility, low
selection efficiency, and restricted gene pool.51
Recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology, often referred to as genetic engineering, allows scientists to transfer
genes from one organism to any other, circumventing the sexual process. For example, a gene from a
bacterium can be transferred to corn. Consequently, DNA technology allowed scientists to treat all living
things as belonging to one giant breeding pool. Unlike other natural genome rearrangements
phenomena, rDNA introduces alien DNA sequences into the genome. Even though crossing of two sexually
compatible individuals produces recombinant progeny, the term recombinant DNA is restricted to the
product of the union of DNA segments of different biological origins. The product of recombinant DNA
manipulation is called a transgenic organism. rDNA is the core technology of biotechnology.52
The organism that is created through genetic engineering is called a genetically modified organism (GMO).
Since the production of the first GMOs in the 1970s, genes have been transferred between animal species,
between plant species, and from animal species to plant species. Some genes can make an animal or plant
grow faster or larger, or both. A gene produced by flounder (anti-freeze) was transplanted into salmon so
that salmon can be farmed in colder climates. Many species offish are genetically engineered to speed
growth, to alter flesh quality, and to increase cold and disease resistance. In farm animals such as cattle,
genes can be inserted to reduce the amount of fat in meat, to increase milk production, and to increase
superior cheese-making proteins in milk. Biotechnology has also modified plants to produce its own
pesticide, resist common diseases or to tolerate weed-killing herbicide sprays.53
Despite these promising innovations, there has been a great deal of controversy over bioengineered foods.
Some scientists believe genetic engineering dangerously tampers with the most fundamental natural
components of life; that genetic engineering is scientifically unsound; and that when scientists transfer
genes into a new organism, the results could be unexpected and dangerous. But no long-term studies have
been done to determine what effects GMO foods might have on human health.54
Genetically Modified Foods
The term GM food refers to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular
biology techniques. These plants are modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased
resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content.55 Genetic modification of plants occurs in several
stages:
1. An organism that has the desired characteristic is identified and the specific gene producing
this characteristic is located and the DNA is cut off.
2. The gene is then attached to a carrier in order to introduce the gene into the cells of the
plant to be modified. Mostly plasmid (piece of bacterial DNA) acts as a carrier.
3. Along with the gene and carrier a 'promoter' is also added to ensure that the gene works
adequately when it is introduced into the plant.
4. The gene of interest together with carrier and promoter is then inserted into bacterium, and
is allowed to reproduce to create many copies of the gene which are then transferred into
the plant being modified.
5. The plants are examined to ensure that they have the desired physical characteristic
conferred by the new gene.
6. The genetically modified plants are bred with conventional plants of the same variety to
produce seed for further testing and possibly for future commercial use. The entire process
from the initial gene selection to commercial production can take up to ten years or more.56
Benefits of GM Foods
The application of biotechnology in agricultural production promises to overcome the major constraints being
faced in farming such as insect pest infestation and diseases which lead to substantial yield losses. Pest-
resistant crops could substantially improve yields in developing countries where pest damage is rampant and
reduce the use of chemical pesticides. Crop plants which have been genetically engineered to withstand the
application of powerful herbicides57 using genes from soil bacteria eliminates the time-consuming and not
cost-effective physical removal of weeds by tilling. The herbicides to which the GM crops are tolerant are
"broad spectrum" weedkillers, which means they can be sprayed over the entire field, killing all plants apart
from the GM crop. Herbicide-tolerant crops include transgenes providing tolerance to the herbicides
(glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium). These herbicides kill nearly all kinds of plants except those that
have the tolerance gene. Another important benefit is that this class of herbicides breaks down quickly in the
soil, eliminating residue carryover problems and reducing adverse environmental impacts.58
Some plants are genetically engineered to withstand cold climates such as GM strawberries or soybeans,
expressing the anti-freeze gene of arctic flounder, to protect themselves against the damaging effects of the
frost; and GM tobacco and potato with anti-freeze gene from cold water fish. Crops could also be genetically
modified to produce micronutrients vital to the human diet such as the "golden rice" genetically modified to
produce beta-carotene, which can solve Vitamin A deficiency and prevent night blindness in pre-school
children. Other efforts to enhance nutritional content of plants include the genetic modification of canola to
enhance Vitamin E content or better balance fatty acids, cereals for specific starch or protein, rice for
increased iron to reduce anemia, and plant oils to adjust cholesterol levels. There are also food crops
engineered to produce edible vaccines against infectious diseases that would make vaccination more readily
available to children around the world. For example, transgenic bananas containing inactivated viruses
protecting against common developing world diseases such as cholera, hepatitis B and diarrhea, have been
produced. These vaccines will be much easier to ship, store and administer than traditional injectable
vaccines.59
Overall, biotechnology is perceived as having the potential to either help or hinder reconciling of the often
opposing goals of meeting the human demand for food, nutrition, fiber, timber, and other natural resources.
Biotech crops could put more food on the table per unit of land and water used in agriculture, thus resulting
in decreased land and water diverted to human uses. Increasing crop yields and reducing the amount of
cultivated land necessary would also reduce the area subject to soil erosion from agricultural practices,
which in turn would limit associated environmental effects on water bodies and aquatic species and would
reduce loss of carbon sinks and stores into the atmosphere.60
Adverse Health Effects of GMOs
Along with the much heralded benefits of GM crops to human health and environment, there emerged
controversial issues concerning GM foods.
In 1999, it was found that genetically engineered foods can have negative health effects. Based on scientific
studies, these foods can unleash new pathogens, contain allergens and toxins, and increase the risk of
cancer, herbicide exposure, and harm to fetuses and infants.61 Independent studies conducted went as far to
conclude that GM food and feed are "inherently hazardous to health."62
A widely reported case is that of the Brazil nut gene expressed in soybean in order to increase the
methionine content for animal feed. The protein was subsequently shown to be an allergen and the product
was never marketed. Genetically modified foods can introduce novel proteins into the food supply from
organisms that are never consumed as foods, which may pose a health risk. This may elicit potentially
harmful immunological responses, including allergic hypersensitivity.63
A feeding experiment conducted by Dr. Arpad Pusztai also demonstrated that potatoes genetically altered to
produce lectins, natural insecticides, to protect them against aphids, damaged the animals' gut, other
organs, and immune system. Dr. Pusztai found that "the damage originated not from the transgene and its
expressed product but from the damage caused by the insertion of the transgene, probably due to
insertional mutagenesis."64 If confirmed, Pusztai's conclusions will reinforce concerns that gene insertion
itself may create new toxins; it will also implicate the toxin commonly used in other genetically engineered
crops - the Bt toxin which, Pusztai says, is also a lectin.65
The use of antibiotic resistance marker (arm) gene, inserted into a plant or microbe, that helps determine if
the foreign gene has successfully spliced into the host organism, is another cause of grave concern among
scientists. These arm genes might unexpectedly recombine with disease-causing bacteria or microbes in the
environment or in the guts of animals or humans who eat GM food, thus contributing to the growing public
health danger of antibiotic-resistance of infections that cannot be cured with traditional antibiotics (e.g., new
strains of salmonella, e-coli, campylobacter and enterococci).66However, recent advances in genetic
engineering indicate that use of such selection markers is likely to diminish with the anticipated
development of alternative types of marker genes.67
Increased cancer risk is another critical issue in the consumption of GM foods. A growth hormone genetically
modified to stimulate milk production in cows was found to elevate levels of IGF-1 (insulin-like Growth
Factor-1, identical versions of which occurs in cows and humans) in cow's milk by 80%. IGF-1 is reported to
be a key factor in prostate cancer, breast cancer and lung cancer.68 Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of
Illinois warned of the danger of high levels of IGF-1 contained in milk cows injected with synthetic bovine
growth hormone (rBGH), which could be a potential risk factor for breast and gastrointestinal cancers.69
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, has been found to worsen modern
diseases. A report published in the journal Entropy argues that glyphosate residues, found in most
commonly consumed foods in the Western diet courtesy of genetically engineered sugar, corn, soy and
wheat, "enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment
to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease." Another research demonstrated a connection between
increased use of Roundup with rising autism rates in the US.70
Adverse Effects of GMOs to the Environment
Genetically modified crops affect the environment in many ways such as contaminating non-GMO plants,
creating super weeds and super pests, harming non-target species, changing soil microbial and biochemical
properties, and threatening biodiversity.
There are two primary types of technology so far deployed: insect resistance (Bt) and herbicide tolerance
(HT). Both have drastic modes of action to kill the target species at high efficiency. Bt crops contain a toxin
lethal to certain insects, and Bt sprays have been used by organic farmers as a last option to deal with
certain pests like the corn borer. It is feared that genetically modified Bt crops will speed up resistance to Bt,
thereby rendering the organic spray ineffective.71 Lab and field tests also indicate that common plant pests
such as cotton bollworms, living under constant pressure from GE crops, will soon evolve into "superpests"
completely immune to Bt sprays and other environmentally sustainable biopesticides.72 In the case of HT,
the technology involves the combined use of a chemical herbicide and a GM plant. The herbicide is generally
a broad spectrum herbicide (commonly glyphosate or glufosinate) which kills weeds while leaving the crop
plant alive as it is genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide. The herbicide acts to inhibit an
essential enzyme that is found in all plants and as a result is able to eliminate all weeds whereas most
conventional herbicides are selective in their action and target a limited number of weeds. Concern has been
raised regarding over-reliance on use of one or two herbicides in increased amounts over time which leads
to the emergence of herbicide resistant weeds. Also, the transfer of an herbicide-resistance gene into a
weed can convert it into a superweed. Pests and weeds will emerge that are pesticide or herbicide resistant,
which means that stronger, more toxic chemicals will be needed to get rid of the pests.73
It is a well-accepted fact that genetically engineered plants can move beyond the field sites and cross with
wild relatives.74 It is by nature a design of plants to cross pollinate to spread genes further afield. Maize, oil
seed rape, sugar beet, barley, among others, are wind and insect pollinated, allowing pollen to travel large
distances. In GM crop fields, pollen drift and insect pollination create obvious problems for nearby non-GM
or organic crops.75 GM maize could cross-pollinate neighboring non-GM or organic maize crops. Maize pollen
can travel at least 500-700 meters and still be viable and distances of several kilometers have even been
reported.76 But many experiments showed varying results and actual cross-pollinations were observed in
Mexico up to 200 meters only, while in Oklahoma it was 500 meters. In crop species that are outcrossers,
many environmental factors influence the maximum pollination distance such as the size of pollen grains,
the humidity in the air, and the wind speed.77Brinjal is usually self-pollinated, but the extent of cross-
pollination has been reported as high as 48% and hence it is classified as cross-pollinated crop. The cone-
like formation of anthers favors self-pollination; but since the stigma ultimately projects beyond the anthers,
there is an ample opportunity for cross-pollination. The rates of natural cross-pollination may vary
depending on genotype, location, and insect activity. The extent of outcrossing has been reported from 3 to
7% in China and from 0 to 8.2% (with a mean of 2.7%) at Asian Vegetable Research Development Centre;
however the Indian researchers have reported 2 to 48% outcrossing in brinjal varieties in India. Outcrossing
primarily takes place with the help of insects.78
The StarLink incident is also a widely reported GM fiasco. In June 2000, Starlink, a genetically modified
yellow corn which contains the pesticide Bt in every cell, was found in white corn tortilla chips in Florida,
USA. Starlink had been approved for animal feed but not for human consumption due to concerns about
dangerous allergic reactions. The Starlink incident is often cited to illustrate how difficult it is to keep
genetically modified crops from spreading.79
This gene flow to wild species is particularly alarming to environmentalists. The wild species from which our
agricultural plants originate are an important genetic resource for further plant breeding if, for example,
there is a requirement for improved resistance to climate change or plant pests. Future plant breeding could
be jeopardized if transgenes spread into these resources. Similarly, agriculture in the centers of origin could
be permanently damaged if transgenes spread into regional landraces.80 Invasive species can replace a
single species or a whole range of species, and they can also change the conditions within ecological
systems. Crossing can cause losses in the genetic information of the original species, a reduction in genetic
diversity and an ongoing incremental change of genetic identity in the original plants. It is hard to predict
which species will become invasive.81 Indeed, GM crops could threaten the centers of crop biodiversity or
outgrow a local flora to the detriment of native species.82
Bt gene in genetically modified crops might be toxic to non-target organisms that consume it. When Bt corn
sheds its pollen, these are cast into the wind, dusting nearby plants and trees. Concern has been expressed
about the potential toxicity of the Bt toxin in corn pollen to the monarch butterfly because initial laboratory
studies showed increased mortality in larvae. However, in another study it was believed that it is unlikely
that a significant risk to those butterflies exists.83
On the effect of transgene crops on soil, one study investigated CrylAcc and CpTI proteins and their effects
on microbial properties and enzyme activities. Results showed that there was persistence of said proteins in
soil under 4-year consecutive cultivation of transgenic cottons. Soil microbial biomass carbon, microbial
activities, and soil enzyme activities (except urease and phosphodiesterase) significantly decreased in soil
under transgenic cottons.84
In another review, it was stated that the direct effects of the plant that has been modified is of the most
concern since the introduction of transgenic proteins for pest and disease resistance can involve the
production of chemical substances that are potentially toxic to non-target soil organisms, including
mycorrhizal fungi and soil microfauna that are involved in organic matter decomposition. Experimental
studies have shown that the transgenic proteins Btcrystal toxin and T4 lysozyme, though used to prevent
insect damage to the above ground plant parts, are not only present in root exudates but that they maintain
biological activity after entering the soil.85
As to the herbicide glyphosate, recent studies revealed its negative effects on the soil, which include
compaction and resultant runoff, the killing of beneficial microbes and bacteria, and the exhaustion of
necessary minerals and nutrients that plants require. It was found that glyphosate "locks up" manganese
and other minerals in the soil so that they can't be utilized by the plants that need them, and that it is toxic
to rhizobia, the bacterium that fixes nitrogen in the soil. There is likewise evidence showing that glyphosates
can make their way to groundwater supplies.86 In a study which tested the effects of the herbicide Roundup
on six species of larval amphibians from North America, it was demonstrated that when we "use realistic
exposure times and the frequently occurring stress of predators found in natural ecologic communities, one
of our most widely applied herbicides (Roundup) has the potential to kill many species of amphibians." At
the same time, the study noted that Monsanto Corporation has recently released "an additional formulation
of glyphosate (Roundup Biactive), which contains a different (but unspecified) surfactant that is reported to
be less toxic."87
Evidence of Damage or Threat of Damage to Human Health and the Environment
Both petitioners and respondents submitted documentary evidence consisting of reports of scientific studies
and articles in support of their respective positions on the benefits and risks of GM plants.
Further, the parties presented their respective expert witnesses who testified on the allegations raised in the
petition concerning damage or threat of damage to human health and the environment resulting from the
conduct of Bt talong field trials in the Philippines. The CA conducted "hot tubbing," the colloquial term for
concurrent expert evidence, a method used for giving evidence in civil cases in Australia. In a "hot tub"
hearing, the judge can hear all the experts discussing the same issue at the same time to explain each of
their points in a discussion with a professional colleague. The objective is to achieve greater efficiency and
expedition, by reduced emphasis on cross-examination and increased emphasis on professional dialogue,
and swifter identification of the critical areas of disagreement between the experts.88
On November 20, 2012, the parties' expert witnesses testified in a hot tub hearing before the chairman and
members of the CA's Special Thirteenth Division. Dr. Chakraborty, Dr. Medina and Dr. Malayang were
presented by the petitioners while Dr. Davies, Dr. Halos, Dr. Ebora and Dr. Cario appeared for the
respondents.
The following are summaries of the expert witnesses' judicial affidavits:

For Petitioners
DR. DAVIES, Professor of Plant Physiology at Cornell University, Jefferson Science Fellow serving as senior
science advisor on agricultural biotechnology in the US Department of State, and editor for plant physiology
for McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology.
In his review of agricultural biotechnology around the world, he has not encountered any verifiable report of
a field trial of any GM crop that caused damage to the environment and to human health. This involves more
than 25,000 field trials in 20 years with crops such as Bteggplant, Bt cotton, Bt corn, and others. The same
applies to the commercial cultivation of Bt crops, which have been grown in ever increasing quantities
worldwide for 16 years and now comprise the majority of the world acreage of maize and cotton.
A recent European Union (EU) report which concludes that more than 130 EU research projects covering a
period of more than 25 years of research involving more than 500 independent research groups, show that
consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods
containing ingredients from conventional crops. The World Health Organization (WHO), American Medical
Association, US National Academy of Sciences, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) all have come to the
same conclusion.
GMOs have been proven safe as conventionally-bred crops in animal studies. A small number of poorly done
studies purportedly claiming negative effects, should be viewed with great caution and have been highly
criticized for their veracity by the overwhelming majority of highly respected scientists. Many hundreds of
studies show no harmful effects. To date, not a single rigorous study of GM foods in animals has revealed
any adverse effect; not a single case of allergy, illness, cancer, or death have been shown to be associated
with foods derived from GM crops, despite the fact that they have been consumed by Americans for 16
years.
Recent studies indicate that Bt crops enhance the ecological diversity in the areas surrounding those
where Bt crops are grown. Over a period of 13 years, cultivation of Bt cotton in China results in an increase
in insect diversity and abundance and a decrease in crop damaging insects not only in Bt crop fields but also
in surrounding non-Bt fields.
GM crops deliver significant yield increases, result in less exposure to pesticides, improve food security
worldwide, protect against devastating crop losses and famine, improve nutrition, and some GM crop
techniques help combat climate change.89
DR. HALOS, Ph.D. in Genetics, University of California Berkeley, B.S. Agriculture, Major in Agronomy (Plant
Breeding), UPLB, and served as Instructor, Associate Professor, Chief Science Research Specialist, Research
Director at UPLB, UP Diliman, De La Salle University, Forest Research Institute now Ecosystems Research
and Development Bureau of DENR and the Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines.
From her research, she gathered that the protein product of the Bt gene CrylAcc in Bt cotton that is also
in Bt eggplant has been found safe by many food and environmental safety regulatory agencies such as
those in Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, Japan
and EU.
Since 2002, BPI has granted 95 biosafety permits for field trials. Of these 70 field trial permits were
for Bt corn, cotton and eggplant. No adverse effect of any of these Bt crop field trials have been reported.
No report of adverse effects of Bt crop field trial exists. All claims of adverse health and environmental
effects of Bt crops has not been scientifically validated. The yearly expansion of GM crop areas in both the
developing and industrialized countries is an attestation of the preference of farmers and the economic
benefits that accrue to them.
GM crops have positive environmental impact. Currently commercialized GM crops have reduced the adverse
impacts of agriculture on biodiversity. The use of Bt crops has significantly reduced the use of pesticides,
and also increased farmer incomes.90
DR. EBORA, Ph.D. in Entomology, Michigan State University; B.S. Agriculture and M.S. Entomology (Insect
Pathology/Microbial Control), UPLB; Post-graduate trainings in microbiology and biotechnology, Osaka
University, Japan, and Intellectual Property Management and Technology Transfer, ISAAA AmeriCenter,
Cornell University, USA. Director, and Research Associate Professor, National Institute of Molecular Biology
and Biotechnology (BIOTECH), UPLB; Philippine Coordinator of the Program for Biosafety Systems; former
Executive Director, Philippine Council for Industry, Energy and Emerging Technology Research and
Development, DOST; former Chair, Biosafety Committee, DOST; and was a Member of the Institutional
Biosafety Committees of UPLB and International Rice Research Institute (IRRI); and was extensively
involved in the isolation, bioassay or efficacy testing and development of Bt as microbial insecticides for the
control of Asian corn borer and mosquito larvae at BIOTECH.
The contained field trial experiments, among others, were designed to address concerns on cross-pollination
or horizontal gene transfer, pollination distances, harm to beneficial organisms, and development of insect
resistance. To prevent cross-pollination, an isolation distance of 200 meters from other areas where
eggplants are grown or wild relatives are present, was observed, and with five (5) rows of non-transgenic
eggplants that serve as pollen trap plants. As to the flight distance of honeybees reaching 4 kilometers,
what was not mentioned is the viability of pollen after it was shed and travelled at a certain distance.
Numerous literatures have shown that isolation distances much less than 200 meters is sufficient to prevent
cross-pollination. Two studies are cited: Sekara and Bieniasz (2008) noted that cross-pollination at a
distance of 50 meters was nonexistent; and the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center
(AVRDC) indicated that eggplants produce perfect flowers which may be cross-pollinated but self-pollination
is more common, the extent of natural crossing depends upon insect activity and this can be avoided by
isolating each variety by 20 meters or with another tall flowering plant. The isolation distance imposed by
DA-BPI is 1 Ox the recommended isolation distance; the 200 meters distance was found sufficient for pure
seed production in India (the same recommendation by Chen [2001] of AVRDC foundation for seed
production purity standards); field studies in 2 locations in India have shown that at a distance beyond 30
meters no more outcrossing could be detected. Taking all these data into account, the 48% outcrossing
being raised by petitioners is most likely for adjacent plants and therefore not a valid argument for the on-
going field trials.
The Bt talong will not directly affect beneficial organisms like pollinators, predators and parasites of insect
pests because it is toxic only to caterpillars or insects belonging to Order Lepidoptera (butterfly and moths).
The selective toxicity of Bt protein in Bt talong is partly due to the fact that the gut physiology of these
insects is very different from caterpillars, and not all caterpillars are affected by it. There is a significant
number of literature on Bt protein's selectivity and specificity.
As to the development of insect resistance, this is not possible during the multi-location field trials for Bt
talong because of low selection pressure and limited exposure of the insect pest to Bt talong. Insect
resistance is not unique to GM crops as it is a commonly observed biological reaction of insect pests to
control measures like insecticides. In the event Bt talong is approved for commercialization and will be
widely used by fanners, this concern could be addressed by insect resistance management (IRM); an IRM
strategy should be required prior to the commercial release of Bt talong.
There is no compelling reason to stop the field trials; on the contrary they should be allowed to proceed so
that scientists and researchers will be able to generate valuable data and information which will be helpful in
making informed decisions regarding the usefulness of the technology.91
For Respondents
DR. MALAYANG III, Ph.D. in Wildland Resource Science, University of California at Berkeley; M.A.
Philosophy, M.A. International Affairs (Southeast Asia Studies major in Economics), Ohio University; AB
Philosophy, UP Diliman; former Undersecretary of Environment and Natural Resources; served as
Environmental Science representative in the National Biosafety Committee of the Philippines and
participated in the drafting of the Philippines Biosafety Framework; and student, lecturer and advocate of
biodiversity, food security, biosafety and environmental policy.
He is concerned with how GMOs are being introduced for commercial-scale use (as against being used for
academic research) in the Philippines on the following grounds: (a) how they might contaminate the
indigenous genetic resources of the country; (b) how they may cause an imbalance of predator-prey
relationships in ecosystems, so that certain species might dominate ecological niches and erode their
biodiversity and ecological stability; (c) how they may erode the ability of farmers to control their genetic
resources to sustain their cropping systems; and (d) how much are present biosafety protocols able to
safeguard the long-term ecological and economic interests of the Philippines as a particularly biodiversity-
rich country and which is, therefore, highly sensitive to genetic pollution; to the extent that its biodiversity is
its long-term equity to advances in biotechnology, the most robust measures must be taken so that such
resources will not be lost.
Being a highly biodiversity-rich country, biosafety measures in the Philippines must be adopted using a 3-
stage approach: Stage 1 - Develop criteria for biosafety measures; meaning, first, adopt a set of standards
for determining the level of robustness of biosafety measures and protocols that would be acceptable in the
particular case of the Philippines; include required scoping and internal and external validity requirements of
impact and safety assessments; Stage 2 - Using the criteria produced in Stage 1, develop biosafety
measures and protocols to be adopted in the Philippines; and Stage 3 - Apply the protocol with the highest
rigor.
Biosafety must be a public affair involving a broad spectrum of the Filipino state rather than its
considerations being restricted only to specific professionals and sectors in the country; biosafety must be
based on an enactment of Congress and open to challenge and adjudication against international laws;
provisions must be made to make it a crime against humanity to recklessly erode and weaken genetic
resources of our people.92
DR. MEDINA, Ph.D. in Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Canada; M.S. (Insect and Plant
Ecology) and B.S. Agriculture, UPLB; National Coordinator of MASIPAG; served as resource person in more
than a hundred trainings and seminars, both local and abroad; served as member in international
agricultural assessment sponsored by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP), WHO, and the World Bank; worked on a project for development of resistance to corn
borer in 1981 at the Institute of Plant Breeding in UPLB, and served as researcher and later Associate
Professor of Environmental Management of the UP Open University.
Based on her studies and extensive experience, the Bt talong field testing poses the following risks or
hazards: (a) While natural Bt sprays used in organic farming have little effect on non-target organisms
because the bacterial 'pro-toxin' is in an inactive state and only becomes toxic when processed and reduced
in the gut of certain (targeted) species of insect larvae, in contrast, Bt plants contain an artificial,
truncated Bt gene and less processing is required to generate the toxin because the toxin is already in its
active form. It is therefore less selective, and may harm non-target insects that do not have the enzymes to
process the pro-toxin, as well as the pests for which it is intended; (b) Bt proteins from natural Bt sprays
degrade relatively quickly in the field as a result of ultraviolet light and lose most toxic activity within several
days to two weeks after application. In Bt crops, however, the Bt toxin is produced by the internal system of
the plants thus non-degradable by mere exposure to sunlight and generated throughout the entire lifespan
of the plant; (c) Bt talong can also affect the environment by harming important or beneficial insects directly
or indirectly. Genetically engineered Bt eggplant, like other Btcrops, could be harmful to non-target
organisms if they consume the toxin directly in pollen or plant debris. This could cause harm to ecosystems
by reducing the numbers of important species, or reducing the numbers of beneficial organisms that would
naturally help control the pest species; (c) The evolution of resistance to Bt crops is a real risk and is treated
as such in ecological science throughout the world. If enough individuals become resistant then the pest
control fails; the pest becomes abundant and affects crop yield. Granting the pest control practice is
successful, it may also simply swap one pest for another, a phenomenon known as secondary pest outbreak.
Several studies have shown that other pest insects are filling the void left by the absence of the one (or very
few) insect pests that Bt crops target, and this is now the problem with Bt maize.
Eggplant is 48% insect pollinated thereby any field release or field testing of genetically modified Bt
talong will eventually lead to contamination of non-genetically modified eggplant varieties. Insects,
particularly honeybees, can fly as far as 4 kilometers and therefore the 200 meters perimeter pollen trap
area in the confined field testing set by BPI is not sufficient. And once contamination occurs, genetic cleanup
of eggplant or any other plant is impossible. Moreover, intra-specific gene flow from Bt talong to other
varieties and populations of eggplants should be examined, as cultivated eggplant (Solanum melongena)
can cross breed with feral populations of S. melongena, and it is possible that cultivated varieties can revert
to wild phenotypes. Additionally, there is likely to be natural crossing between Bt talong and wild relatives.
Hybridization with perhaps as many as 29 wild relative species needs to be evaluated carefully and the
consequences of any hybridization that occurs needs to be evaluated.
In 2010, the Minister of Environment and Forests of the Government of India, in his decision for moratorium
of Bt Brinjal, listed potential contamination of eggplant varieties as one of the reasons why the release of Bt
Brinjal was not allowed. Dr. Andow of the University of Minnesota also published an 84-pages report on the
Environmental Risk Assessment of Bt Brinjal, and among his conclusions is that several environmental risks
were not considered and nearly all the risk assessment done were inadequate. He concluded that until the
risks were understood or managed, there seems to be little reason to approve Bt Brinjal release.93
DR. CHAKRABORTY, Ph.D., M.S. Biochemistry, B.S. (Honors in Chemistry), Calcutta University; Molecular
Biologist, presently Principal Scientist and Head of the Gene Regulation Laboratory in the Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research - Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (CSIR-IICB); Member, Governing
Body and Executive Committee of the state council of Biotechnology, Government of West Bengal and
Chairman of the Biotechnology group of the state council of Science and Technology, Government of West
Bengal; Visiting Professor of the National Institute of Science, Technology and Development (CSIR-NISTAD);
citizen of India and resident of Kolkata, India.
GMO is a classic example of "paradoxes of consequences", where human actions have unintended
consequences, which are in direct opposition to what was intended. The difference in controlled laboratory
condition and standards, and real life open field level micro and macro-environment pushes the advantage
towards the target and non-target living system, with time. The pest resistance to Bt toxin and development
of herbicide tolerance (HT) in weeds is just a matter of time. The decade long experience in Bt and Ht genes
amply proves this point. If we ignore this now - we are manufacturing a global environmental disaster -
which will be a crime against humanity. There is no way to recall these GMO from the environment.
Even the short term benefits of GM agriculture are not scale neutral, or location-independent. It will help the
monopoly agribusiness and the expenses of monopolistic competition or cooperative organic farming. Hot
climate and rich biodiversity is detrimental towards the effectiveness of Bt constructs, and helpful towards
unintended gene flow. Moreover, the genetic manipulation is no way fail safe or exact. Shotgun techniques
are being adapted, aided by focused laboratory based screen of traits - rather than the host or the full
natural product. The GM labeling is avoided to cover up this major fault.
The tendency to avoid the available risk assessment, and test is very clear in the GM agribusiness. Before
going ahead with spread of this technology, even in a batter form, the foremost task is to establish rigorous
test and assessment procedures. There are excellent available tools of preteomics, transcriptomics, and
metabolomics for detailed compositional analysis in our hand to do this. Please ask, why they are not being
employed? In fact, there is not a single centre to test GM products on behalf of the corporate GM
Agribusiness house. Thus, low level, long term toxicity of GM foods are yet to be tested. I believe the time
has come to establish a standardization facility to carry out such test facility in any country before giving
permission to GM trial or cultivation.94 ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary
The relevant portions of the "hot-tub" hearing held on November 20, 2012, are herein reproduced:
Dr. Cario:chanRoble svirtual Lawli bra ry
x x x This is to clarify something with the BT Talong and the BT Talong has its substance. It is not supposed
to be consumed at the moment still under field trial, so it is not supposed to be eaten at the moment. It has
not been released for food nor for feed and so in the context of a confined field test, it has supposed to have
it out in the field in a very controlled manner and any produce that comes out from that area is supposed to
be destroyed or kept from further safety and analysis only.
Chairperson: chanRoble svirtual Lawlib rary
So, actually, there is no full scientific certainty that it does not cause any harm pertaining to health?
BT Talong per se, has hot been fully evaluated yet that is why it is undergoing trials. If reporting of
the BT toxin in BT Talong is CrylAcc, there are numerous studies that had been actually published on relative
safety of CrylAcc protein and it is actually considered as an additional protein and the various reviews can be
seen in the OECD Digest of risk assessments on CrylAcc protein. Alternatively, if you are looking at the
possibility of harm coming from the introduced protein as yet, we have not done a full blown assessment of
it as of the moment. But we look at the protein sequence and with a comparison of its sequence with other
sequences in the data basis to see if it is similar to this amino acid sequence of other known toxins and, so
far, I have actually ... in my affidavit, I have actually seen personally that it is not closely related to any of
the known toxins that are found into its system.
So, in effect, we can not really say that BT Talong is perfectly safe for human consumption?
Right now it is not meant to be consumed by human at this point. Let me just clarify one point. When any
GM material is supposed to be introduced for food and for feed and before it is actually utilized for life skill
production, it goes through several steps. The first step is actually the "lab", laboratory work and it is
actually tested in this clean-houses, rolled-out confined limited field test and then it goes to butyl abyss of
field tests where it is like generating more and more informations. We are still early on in this pathway, so
we are only in the confined field test and, at the moment, the thing is that it is still being tested. The focus
is on its efficacy after doing a preliminary assessment of the possible pathological and ecological effect, and
that is the pathway that has been recommended by so many academics as well as scientific institutions as
well. And, that has been a tract followed by almost all the genetically modified crops that is being introduced
in the market today, but at the moment BT Talong is not yet a commodity. It is not yet being evaluated as a
commodity.
So, no one in this country has yet eaten this BT Talong?
No, it has not been eaten, as far as I know. Even in India it has not been consumed by human beings
because it has not been introduced as a commodity.
But what is the ultimate purpose of growing BT Talong? It is not for human consumption, of course?
If it passes the safety assessments. That there is always a peak condition that, if it would not to be
evaluated in a step of the way much like to evaluate any new product that is coming into the market
evaluation, goes on a step-by-step and at least day-to-day basis.
Dr. Davies: chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry
Your Honor, may I interject, may I suggest with your permission? I would just like to make a little bit of
explanation.
Proceed.
I would like to address "BT" as a compound which is distinct from a plain in "Talong". First of all, I think of
the name BT toxin is very fortunate. It is really a protein. A protein is an essential constituent of life. It is an
essential constituent of our food. In the human body, and in the body of other animals, this protein is under
the same as any other protein in food. It has no effect on the human body. This has been shown for many,
many years, knowing BT Talong but BT has been a constituent of "maize" in commercial production for 16
years.
xxxx
x x x So it has been in corn for 16 years after substantial trials. It has been consumed by Americans in corn
products and by any other people who in[g]est American maize corn products x x x. There is not a single
case of illness or toxicity or allergenicity that can be or that has been associated with this protein and,
therefore, any food containing this protein has been declared by authorities in all the countries that was
mentioned by my colleagues, including the European Union and the United States x x x to be as safe as any
food derived from the same plant species not containing this gene. I hope that explains a little bit about
what it is.
Are you aware of a study, Dr. Davies, released on September 20 of this year, saying that Monsanto's
genetically modified corn is linked to cancer?
Yes. Are you referring, your Honor, to a publication by a French Scientist named Gilles-Eric Seralini? I think
this is one of the publications by Seralini's group. Dr. Seralini's work has been refuted by International
committees of scientists...
xxxx
Dr. Chakraborty: chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry
Your Honor, may I butt in? It is wrong that proteins can not be toxins. Think about the snake venoms. They
are poisons, so whether it is protein or not that is not the question. So proteins obviously venoms and
proteins and enzymes and they are poisons so protein can be a poison so that is now the point at all to be
considered. The second thing is, yeah, low level toxins long term in[g]estion of this BT toxin in human or in
any other animal have not been tested. So that is true so we do not know direct consumption of this,
because notice have been turned down, that is the objective fact. The third point is about the "American
Corn", and if I can give you such anecdotes, "American GM Corn" are not labelled, how do you know that?
What is its effect? What is its toxicity? And, obviously, there are more than a hundred of papers showing and
published in very good journals. I can give many references which have shown the detrimental effect
of BT Toxin.
xxxx
But before having this BT talong scheduled and allowed for field testing, is it not proper that it should be
first determined whether this food product is really safe for eating or not?
There is an initial assessment that is generally done and according to the Codex Alimentarius of the WHO,
the thing that you do at this early stage of development is to compare the sequence of the protein that is
being introduced with published sequence of allergens, as well as toxicants and toxins. So that has been
done. Then you have to look for instability under heat conditions because there is seldom do we heat grow
eggplants, so is it stable under heating. Is it stable in the presence of digestive juices? And, if the answer is
"yes", there is at least fair certainty, a fair assurance that it is likely to be safe but then you start thinking of
what other component not present in the product, does this. For example, any product that we consume
today has something that is bad for you, otherwise, you will not see it right now. Otherwise all the different
herbivores will be eating it up, right? It will be extinct if it does not have anything to protect itself and, so,
the thing is one, to quantify how much of that has changed when you lead the genetic modification. So
"Talong" has been known to have Solanine and glycoalkaloids whose level well have to quantify. We have
not done that yet. They have not submitted the data for that and this as secondary metabolize whose
relative concentration will change depending on the environment to which you actually place the system.
Dr. Chakraborty: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x In india, we have a very bad experience x x x in location field trial with the BT Cotton. You known
that BT Cotton was introduced in India through the back door black market entry. During the field trial,
some of those seeds were taken out and given to the farmers for commercial cultivation to black market.
Monsanto goes well, Monsanto's BT Cotton, like Monsanto, did not sue now apparently sue the company
and they compelled the government that farmers wanted those things and there was high ... how they
pressurized the government. Now, in case of BT cotton is one thing, but BT Eggplant is completely a
different thing. That is why [the] Supreme Court in India has taken a very strong stand and, now, the
parliamentary committee in India. The Supreme Court has also taken steps stand with the field trial. The
first thing in field trial we had to see that whether there is a definite need of this kind of intervention,
because the eggplant is a very common vegetable in this part of the world. There are so many hundreds of
varieties here, these are the origins of these varieties of this kind of vegetable. It is cheap. It is available
everyday. So why you go on changing if there is no crisis in cultivating the eggplants at present. Therefore,
when you give it to this patented seeds technology, its prices will increase, lot of restrictions had to be deal.
So, who will consume this high price eggplant. Many will be exported, that was why the proponents are
looking into it. But, basically, that is the thing that in case of BT Brinjal, neighbor partisan is being given.
There is a moratorium in India from the Supreme Court and from the government side on field trial
of BT Brinjal. Now, if x x x the BT Eggplant is being taken to the Philippines, we guess, to get in as a bypass,
and who will guarantee that it will not go to the farmers?
xxxx
Justice Antonio-Valenzuela: chanRobl esvirt ual Lawlib rary
And, I was wondering in the conduct of the tests, the field testing x x x what would be the effect of the
planting .... of the existence of the genetically modified organism, for example, on insects, on the soil, on
the air? And then I was thinking, does this have this particular protein that result[s] due to the genetic
modification? Is it ... how is it expelled, for example how does it go into the environment? Or, on the other
hand, how does it go inside and out of human system so that does it disintegrate or is it just there forever? I
am very curious, sir. You have to educate me.
Dr. Davies:chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry
x x x Okay, the DNA is in every cell of the eggplant and, so, a very small amount to protein produced by
each cell will be this BT protein. It does not get into the environment in general. A very small amount might
be in the pollen or in the leaves that fall to the ground but it has been shown to be broken down in the soil
by organisms so it will not exist in the environment. The only way that it is going to get into animals or
insects is if they eat the fruit and this is what an insect that the "talong" fruit and shoot borer will be trying
to. But, if it eats it, it reacts with its intestine so that they become toxic to the caterpillar but this is very
specific to the digestive system of the caterpillar. It does not affect bees. It does not affect animals. It does
not affect humans.
xxxx
At the scientific level, it gets changed by alkalinity of the insect gut and reacts with specific receptors of the
cells of the walls of the insect gut. But, this is very specific to the gut of these insects namely the
"Lepidoptera" and some "coleoptera" which are the butterflies and the beetles but it will only affect if they
try to eat the plant. Now, you are asking us if what is the effect on the environment. x x x I would like to
cite x x x a recent paper published in the journal "Nature" x x x the most prestigious scientific journal in the
world, x x x published in "Nature" in June this year and this is the result of a study of "insects" in BT Cotton
fields in China in 17 locations for 14 years of a long period study. And these scientists revolt that they show
a marked increase in the abundance of three types of generalist arthropod predators (ladywings, lacewings
and spiders) and a decrease in abundance of aphid pests associated with widespread adoption of Bt cotton.
And they are referring to China and they conclude that such crops, x x x BT crops, can promote beneficial
control services in agricultural landscapes. And, it also showed that these effects extend beyond the field.
So, essentially x x x they found that there were more insects than in conventionally grown cotton and the
insect diversity was greater surrounded than being detrimental to an agriculture ecosystem such BT cotton
falls beneficial.
Dr. Chakraborty: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
May I interject, your Honor. Now he is citing one paper they are. But in "Nature," there was another news
article, "Battlefield". One stream ecologist in United States itself, in a university, she has studied the effect
of growing BT Corn in the field and what is the effect on the stream ecology, the west water, what is
happening to other insects, insects in which it is getting that BT toxin will not go. Yes, she has found
that stream ecology...
xxxx
Why was it published in "Nature" when that stream ecologist from Loyola University Chicago in Illinois
published that paper, published that article in PNAS or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a
prestigious journal? Now, they have to desert her. She was abused, so her file was taken out. So people
started e-mailing, threatening her. So "Nature" has to publish that. How dirty the field has become so they
entitled it "Battelfield." If anybody produces any evidence that BT Toxin or GM Technology is doing any harm
to the environment then it will be battered by the entire English lobby so there is worst the situation. But
National Academy of Sciences in United States has taken a strong decision and, in last year, there were six
publications that published where strong evidences are being produced about the environmental and
ecological damage cause[d] by this technology. So, that is the case.
Can I respond to that, your Honors?
Dr. Malayang: chanRoblesvi rtual Lawl ibra ry
I think Filipinos should be able to talk also here.
Can we give a chance to Dr. Malayang?
x x x My concern is on the process and participants in vetting the safety of GM crops, not necessarily the
intricacies of the science involved in genetic modification per se which, I think our international friends,
would like to focus on. x x x
One, I am concerned with the fallibility of technology, x x x even if it is much founded on or produced from
the most robust sciences, a technology could fail to be as useful as it was intended or its use lead to an
[unintended harm to humans and the environment. This is so because science, by nature, as many scientists
will agree, is very probabilistic rather than absolutist. Many cases of common knowledge illustrate this point.
May I just refer, for the Court's notice for, First, the Nuclear Power Plants in Japan x x x. The best science
and the best technology did not necessarily translate to absolute safety.
Second example, the Union Carbide Plant in Bhopal, India. It was among the most advanced production ton
at its time, yet, we know what happened. x x x Union Carbide's [hurry] to set up a plant to take advantage
of a large pesticide market in India to help the country's farmers led to a massive and deadly safety failure.
The Third example is the green revolution, x x x involves, however, the wide [use] of synthetic chemicals for
fertilizer and pesticides that were [at] the time hailed as wonder technologies. Many scientists in the world
at that time argued for their wider use but they later turned out to harm people, soils and water. They prove
good then bad, so bad that scientists today are using their ill effects as justification for adopting alternative
technologies to get us out of the synthetic chemical regime in agriculture.
And finally, the most common example would be the unintended effects of medicine. x x x Medicines are
technologies intended to do good but, with even the best science and the vetting processes using rigid
safety and risk assessment methods, they still could cause side effects entirely undesired and many of which
can cause chronic or acute threats to human life. This includes the use of "DDT" that was used to control lice
among soldiers after the II World War which, after all, proved to be very bad.
x x x I am also concerned with the fragility, fragility of the Philippine environment as the place and context,
the particular place and context of the introduction of BT crops like BT talong. x x x the Philippines is among
the world's biologically rich countries. x x x So, many of our insects are not even fully known. We do not
know how they all behave to influence the transfer of genetic materials from plants to other plants. We do
not fully know what we do not know about the intricate interactions between plants and between insects and
other living things that define the universe of our healthful and balanced ecology. The universe of our
healthful and balanced ecology certainly go beyond specific crops. I am concerned that, absent a full as
against partial understanding of the intricate web of genetic flows and interactions among plants, animals
and other living things in our wet and tropical ecosystems, it will require extraordinary care to tamper with
any one element of this swirl of interrelationships. This is notwithstanding the seeming preponderance of
evidence of safety in other countries and environment that are certainly not the same as ours. x x x we
must be extra careful because the effects might be irreversible. Introducing a genetically modified plant x x
x could cause a string of changes across many plants that, like the green revolution or in the case of
medicine and the two other cases cited above, could turn out and only to be realized much later to be
harmful to humans and the environment more than they were intended to be useful. x x x let us ensure that
we adopt in the country a biosafety vetting protocol that is: (1) sensitive to our high biodiversity this is a
particular condition in the Philippines; and (2) tested for error levels that are acceptable to or which can be
tolerated by our people. My affidavit states a three-stage approach to this. x x x the tests that we will be
doing is a test process acceptable to all as well rather than merely concocted or designed by just a few
people x x x must be a product of wider citizens' participation and reflect both scientific and traditional
knowledge and cultural sensitivity of our people. It is in the NBF after all, x x x introducing BT Talong in the
Philippines must be decided on the grounds of both science and public policy and public policy, in this case,
must involve full public disclosure and participation in accepting both the potential gains and possible pains
of BT Talong. The stakes, both positive and negative, are so high that I believe BT Talong would require
more public scrutiny and wider democratic decision making beyond the [realm] of science. x x x for the sake
of our country and our rich biodiversity x x x prudence requires that maximum efforts be exerted to ensure
its safety beyond the parameters of science and into the sphere of public policy. For to fail in doing so what
might be highly anticipated to be beneficial may in some twist of failure or precaution and prudence and
failure for due diligence to establish the safety of Bt Talong beyond reasonable doubt, the BT Talong may
turn out to be harmful after all. This we certainly do not want to do. I submit these views to the Court.
xxxx
x x x another thing I would like to point out to the Court is, if you come into a market in the Philippines and
you see nice Talong, it has probably been treated with various insecticides. So, there has been insecticide
spray on your tips in your crops which are going to be harm on your farmers, your farmer's children, the
insect populations and also dangerous to the consumers as well. By contrast, Bt Talong, if it is adopted,
the BT has been shown to be beneficial to the insects and the environment and also has been shown not to
be toxic in food. Therefore, we are changing a highly toxic chemical application for a much more benign
modern technique that is beneficial to the environment and beneficial to the consumers. That is my
comment with the views just made by my Filipino colleagues, your Honors.
x x x You know, in ecology and, I am sure you are aware of this, an expansion of anyone population or a
reduction of that population it would still be both not beneficial to the healthful and balanced ecological
health of the ecosystem. So to say that because the population of insects are exploded and the diversity of
insects exploded as a result of this particular intervention is not necessarily good. That is my first point. The
second one, you mentioned x x x the "talong" is laden with pesticide. The same pesticide were advised by
scientists from the USAID before for us to use in this country because this is how to expand our production
of food. This was part of the green revolution, the systemic use of pesticides and fertilizer. Now, of course,
they were misused, I can guarantee that but, again, if that be the case, in the case of pesticide why can it
not be in the case of BT that it can also be misused? x x x we are talking here not of the science or of the
technology but on the policy aspect of the adoption of the technology. As I said, I am talking about the
bakery not of a baked-bread.
Dr. Saturnina Halos: chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry
Well, the use of pesticide in the eggplant, right now, is very much abused. x x x In terms of the use of Bt
Talong, then, that kind of misuse is not going to happen x x x. Now, in the Philippines, we have a very strict
highly monitored field testing and I think Dr. Malayang knows about that because he was one of those who
prepared the guidelines for the field testing. So that is not going to happen, it is a very strict regulatory
system. We are known for that, actually, and...
xxxx
Dr. Saturnina Halos: chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry
No, no. It does not happen because we have a risk management plan x x x.
xxxx
Dr. Halos:chanRoblesv irt ual Lawlib rary
x x x As far as do we know what is happening after we have given approval, yes, we are monitoring. We are
monitoring as far as BT corn is concerned. We are monitoring, continuously monitoring, not only for the
beneficial insects but also the effects that is continuing, we are also continuing to monitor the weeds, weed
population. In weed we decide to spray...
And why is this, ma'am, why are we monitoring? Because they could be harmful?
No we have to know what is happening.
Yes, why? Because if you are sure that they are safe, if you are sure that they are safe, why monitor?
Well, we are going to give you the data for that because you keep on asking, you know, you asked for a
long term and we are going to give you that complete data.
xxxx
Dr. Medina: chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry
I would like to raise several issues because I feel they are misleading sometimes. Dr. Davies mentioned that
the BT protein is a protein, therefore, it is safe. Are you sure that all proteins are safe, Dr. Davies? Are you
aware of anti-nutrients and allergens and other kinds of protein x x x it is a misleading generalization.
Secondly, I would like to say also that, when you say that BT crops is beneficial to insect population but,
how about humans? But, let me tell and inform the Honorable Justices also that, in agriculture, there can be,
the pests are there to reduce the yield. There are also diseases so, that this Bt is only controlling one kind of
pest and, in my monitoring of BT corn as an example to this 2 years after the commercialization in 2003, at
first planting in 2003, the corn is attacked by about a dozen insect pests and six major diseases. The Bt corn
was attacked a "stem rot", a fungal disease. And, in this case in eggplant, there are many fungal diseases,
"phomopsis" x x x So in that case it is not field safe that you will not be using pesticide anymore
with BT eggplant. When you use the BTeggplant, assuming that there is no more insect pests x x x There
are many other methods of control and, therefore, do not assume that you do not use pesticide therefore,
BT is the only solution. That is also a risky and wrong generalization or statement, x x x Dr. Halos x x x says
that field tests are safe. I intend to disagree with that. Safe to what? Especially to contamination. If I may
use this picture of the field testing of the Bt eggplant x x x it was encircled with cyclone wire with a diameter
of something like approximately 10 cm. by 7 cm. hole. While bees that can pollinate that, the size is about 1
cm. in length and .5 cm. in diameter of the insect. The bees and, in that case, they can easily get in and get
out and when they settle into the flowers and snip nectars and the fall of the pollen then they can bring out
the pollen to contaminate outside that. In fact, even assuming that the fence is very small in size of the
mess, the holes, still the insects can fly above that fence because the fence is only about 5 feet in height.
So, in that case it is not safe. Some arguments say that "well the pollen will be dead" but, according to this
technical manual of the Training Workshop On Data Collection for Researchers And Collaborators of Multi-
Location Trials of Fruit and Shoot Borers Resistant Eggplant, that is the Bt Eggplant produced by the
Institute of Plant Breeding in UPLB who is one of the main researchers the datas, here say according to
"Rasco", cited by Dr. Narciso, is that the pollen can live 8 to 10 days pollen by ability at 20 to 22 degrees
centigrade, with a relative humidity of 50 to 55. x x x Meaning to say, that pollen can survive. This can fly
as fast as something like 60 kilometers per hours so it just take may be 3 minutes and it can travel 4
kilometers and 4 kilometers is the effective flying distance of a bee in their normal foraging.
xxxx
x x x There is no data on the contamination so how come they argue, how can they conclude that it is safe
when they have not monitored any potential pollen flow by insect mitigated or insect mediated flow pollen?
So, in that case, the conclusion or the statement is really beyond what their data may be is if their data is
about safety.
xxxx
Dr. Ebora:chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry
xxxx
x x x I hope that we will be able to look at the experimental design and you will see that all the things are
properly addressed, our risk assessment was done step by step, x x x I beg to disagree with my friend Dr.
Medina because it is becoming ... we are confusing 2 things. We are not referring to contained trial. We are
referring to confined field trial and in the design of this particular experiment, you have your BT eggplant,
your non-BT eggplant so that you can compare the performance with the 2 crops. And, on design, you have
5 rows of plant BTeggplants that will serve as a pollen trap. When we say pollen trap is that it just open the
pollen from the transgenic. It is going to be trapped by those plants, 5 rows, and then, after that, you have
a space of 200 meters surrounding the field which is the isolation distance. That means no eggplant should
be present in that particular distance because that is the isolation distance that is found to be safe, x x x we
know that Bt protein is very specific x x x effective only against caterpillar x x x if they are eaten by other
organism, they are not affected because it is very specific. The gut of the larva is very alkaline while the gut
of other insects is likely acidic and, in that case, it does not have any harmful effect, x x x So another thing
is we are saying that it seems to be ridiculous that you are saying that honeybee is going to fly from the
fence and the size were even indicated. I would like to indicate that, that is not the purpose of the fence. It
is not to contain the insects. It is to prevent vandalism which is quite, unfortunately, being done by other
groups who are against the technology. x x x We should be able to have our own space, our own time,
considering the given regulation. Follow them. But our experimentation not be destroyed because it is only
then that we will be able to get the valuable data that is needed for an informed decision. Without that we
will not be able to proceed and I hope we can discuss this based on the merits of the field trial, not from any
other concern because the writ of kalikasan is about the effect of field trial in the environment.
Mr. Justice, can I give this immediate counteract to the one statement of Dr. [Ebora]? He said that the
"CrylAcc" is specific to caterpillars and, in fact, only some kinds of caterpillar, some species, if you can read
by chemical and by physical research communications this is Volume 271, pages 54-58, authored by
Vasquez Pardonnet, published in 2000, publication under letter (b), "CrylAcc protoxin" binds to the mucosal
surface of the mouse small intestine. Small intestine ay mammal po iyan so, meaning, it is a proxy animal
for safety [testing] to humans because we are also mammals so, the mice are usually the mammals 12
years ago, the data has been already there that there is binding site, therefore it is not only specific to
insects but also to mammals. x x x he is saying that, by working on the natural BT is the same as the
transformed BT it is not true because the natural BT has 1155 "base pairs" of nucleic acids. And the
transformed GM Crop contains a fragment of that BT gene which is only half of that. And the mechanism, by
the way, x x x the natural toxin is broken into smaller pieces inside the intestine of the insects because it is
alkaline in terms of its system "ph" and for humans acidic. So it does not work. But, because the
transformed BT is already half, almost half of the normal or natural[ly] occurring BT protein, it is already
activated and, in that case, that is the reason why there is a test and immediate effect to non-insect,
meaning, to mammal, so that is the explanation of scientist doing studies on that aspect.
x x xx
The scientists have 3 problems: One, the sparks, we have a tunnel vision; the second, fear vision; x x x I
will give some example. Yes, BTtoxin, was it really good biological control agent? But it is a completely
different gene when you produce it into an edible plant inside genetically. So, these are 2 different things.
What will happen? We are scared that the efficacy, the use of BT toxin as a spray, as biological control
agent, will be vanished because now there will be resistance against those in BT toxin, x x x resistance is
coming very quickly, just like antibiotic resistance, x x x The second thing, I have asked many plant
biologists this simple question, simple honest question. Do you know any plant that can kill a bee or a moth?
No! There is no way, why? Because those are the "pollinators". Plant never kills a bee or a moth that goes
against nature, x x x So, nature, for thousands of years, farmers help select or adopt edible non-toxic
plants. And, now, with the high science we are converting them, non-toxic edible plant into a toxic plant. So
not only toxic for the human, for the root microorganisms, x x x Those eggplants are not only for humans to
consume. So human effect, we do not know but what will be the effect? Who will mind the effect? Is it the
animal which goes through it? x x x in India, x x x farmers x x x while growing BT cotton x x x the leaves
and other they use to attract animals to eat. x x x they found suddenly one thing that the BT cotton plants
are not touched by those buffalos, those cows, those [boars], but they can distinguish which is BT and non-
BT. x x x and when their animals started dying in some cases, they always blame, it is this animal which has
eaten that BT? x x x these are [going] against nature. Only few edible seed plants are there and we are
converting one safest plant into a poisonous and toxic plant and what is the effect on the root
microorganisms on the degrading animals and other? We do not know. That hard thing is the tunnel vision,
the confined field trial, x x x why implement this confined field trial? Is this safe? Why do they have to do
this x x x these things do good for a normal hybrid that is something but for the gene concept we cannot
follow the same separation rules, same rules? So those are used, those separation distincts, those
parameters are used not for the gene. So, which is the safe field trial protocol for the gene plants? We do
not know. So there goes against [the] writ of kalikasan.
xxxx
Justice Antonio-Valenzuela: chanRobl esvirt ual Lawlib rary
How much is the increase in crop yield? x x x
x x x The average increase yield is about 24% and that is for corn. And this data is actually taken by our
own Filipino scientists, Dr. Lluroge and Dr. Gonzales.
xxxx
x x x my question is for Ma'am Nina. I have not been up to date lately on the production of corn so, you
mean to say that corn production in the country has gone up and, because of that, you are saying that 24%
and the income of farmers had gone up as well? Do you mean to say that the price of com had also gone up
as a result of the increase in the volume of com production in the Philippines?
Well, the price is dictated by the market.
Dr.Malayang: chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry
That is precisely the point.
Yes.

x x x I am just bringing, hopefully to the attention of the Court, that, when you talk of a technology such as
GM Com or GM Talong affecting market there is also not only the regulatory but economic regime that is
attendant to it that makes adjustments. So it may not be harmful to humans because we will not come out
when we eat it but it might be harmful to the economy of a particular agricultural crop. x x x
xxxx
Dr. Ebora: chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry
x x x there are a lot of local studies being conducted now by entomologists from [UPLB] and those are
independent studies. And, precisely, this is to determine the effect on natural enemies and the different
insects x x x and some of those are already available, x x x you will be able to protect the environment only
if you know how to have a proper information in making the decision. So, again, I am saying that, in field
trial, you will be generating a lot of information that you will be able to use in making a wise decision and
informed decision.
x x x I would like to correct the impression lodged by the statement of Dr. Chakraborty regarding butterflies
and moths. Because they are not affected by BT because they are adult insects. The only one that is
affected are actually the larva, not even the pupa. So, we would like that to be clear because it might create
confusion.
The other thing in resistance, x x x even conventionally bred plant [loses] resistance after sometime and
that is the reason why we have a continuous breeding program. So, it is a natural mechanism by an
organism as mode of ad[a]potation. x x x are you telling us that we are going to stop our breeding work
because, anyway, they are going to develop resistance. I think it is a wrong message x x x.
The other thing is in terms of the study cited by Dr. Medina regarding the "binding." In toxicology, you can
have the effect if you have, for example, the insects, you have a receptor. The toxin will bind into the
receptor. Toxin has to fall and then the toxin has re-insert into the membrane. If you eliminate one of those
steps you do not have any toxicity. So, that means binding by itself will not be toxicity. It is a wrong
impression that, since you have binding, there will be toxicity. It is simply wrong because, the actuality that
it should bind, it should fall then, it should insert, and it is a very common x x x. To say that binding is
equivalent to toxicity is simply not true.
The other one is natural BT toxin and activated toxin. When you were saying protoxin, protoxin is basically
the entire crystal protein. If it is already inside the gut of the insect it has to be clipped by
the purchase coming from the gut and you have it activated and you have the toxin. So what you have in
plant is already the toxin since the anther and the toxin, and the toxin in microorganisms, the anther which
are already clipped by a purchase are the same. So, to say that they are different is actually wrong. You are
comparing protoxin and toxin.
x x x regarding the protein, x x x do you know a lot of proteins of another characteristics and that is why
you have to characterize them and you have to separate the protein that are causing problem and protein
that are not causing problem. That is why you have allergen and, as explained by Dr. Cario, you have to
check the sequence. x x x
xxxx
x x x the field trial wanted to basically go to the protocol. This is the efficacy, the efficiency of the production
not that much into the safety. You have to look into it carefully that how much will get this efficacy, not the
safety to that extent x x x. Second point x x x there is this already mentioned that European Union there is
no consensus, x x x they have published and submitted the systemic list of genetically modified crop need
for new approach in risk assessment. So that is what is needed. There is another article, how does scientific
risk assessment of GM crop fit within wider risk analysis, x x x This is genetic engineering. The production
process is very precise in selecting the inserted gene but not in its enhancement, x x x they are never
looking into it. The second thing, they do not look into that from the laboratory condition to what is the real
life situation. They do not take that into account x x x so this assessment protocol has to be modified or
changed, x x x in the IAASTD or International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology for Development. There is a supreme body, so many nations, so many experts, scientists x x
x. Only sustainable agricultural practice and that is the only alternative. This GM technology is not going to
help them x x x In my country also, when the BT toxin evaluation was there, everybody was telling that this
is pro-poor, this is scale neutral so, everybody will be benefitted by that. So, we started questioning, x x x
"What are the actual economic analysis indeed? Just show me". Then, they come up with an answer. Scale
neutral means that even small farmers initially wanted BT cotton and big farmers also wanted BT cotton.
They are partisans. It is not the economic benefit because, economically, it is not going to be beneficial so it
is very much scale dependent its benefit. So, only the big farmers, large farmers and x x x the vegetable
field you never can give separation. Chances you never can give refuge. The 1/5 of the land given for
growing pests so that you cannot do. So it cannot help technology. They have developed this technology for
partisan large scale farming to completely automated for BT technology where no label will be there. But the
failed experiments, the contracts whose patent will be over within 2-3 years, they are testing them in our
country. So that is the bottom line.
xxxx
Let us put, probably, a close to this hot tub proceeding now.
The issue that the Court is really interested to resolve is whether or not the conduct of the field trial
of BT Talong by the respondents has violated or has threatened to violate the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology. Is there absolute certainty that it has not so violated such right. Because
that is the requirement for applying or not applying the precautionary principle, x x x
Yes. The answer to that is we have not violated, you know, the right of the people...
But there is no absolute certainty?
Well, quite certain, your Honor, because we have placed all the necessary measures and they did not show
us, you know, there is no evidence of harm that has been shown to this Court. There is no evidence at all.
That is your opinion.95 ChanRoblesVirtualawli bra ry
As shown by the foregoing, the hot tub hearing has not yielded any consensus on the points of contention
between the expert witnesses, i.e., the safety of Bt talong to humans and the environment. Evidently, their
opinions are based on contrasting findings in hundreds of scientific studies conducted from the
time Bt technology was deployed in crop farming. These divergent views of local scientists reflect the
continuing international debate on GMOs and the varying degrees of acceptance of GM technology by states
especially the developed countries (USA, EU, Japan, China, Australia, etc.).
Before proceeding to the current state of global GMO research, we briefly address the strong objection of
petitioners to the CA's reliance on the research conducted by Prof. Seralini, the French scientist whose study
was published in September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology, which was criticized as a "controversial
feeding study." Seralini studied rats consuming Monsanto's Roundup Ready treated corn for two years
(using the same kind of rats prone to tumors used by Monsanto in obtaining original approval for its product
and the same methodologies, but did it for 2 years which is longer than the 90-day experiment period done
by Monsanto). The rats formed massive cancerous tumors. All three test groups of rats, with 10 rats in each
group, died more frequently, suffered from liver problems, and had a pronounced number of tumors
specifically with grotesque mammary and testicular tumors.96
Seralini's findings created an uproar and the study was expunged from the publication in November 2013
even though the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data.
Seralini stood by his work and further conducted similar laboratory experiments. Critics faulted the
experimental method, saying the number of rats studied was too small and their diet was skewed when
compared with their natural food intake. But over 300 scientists condemned the retraction, they said that
the retraction lacked scientific integrity and requested to reinstate the study. Last June 2014, Seralini's
controversial study was republished and has passed a third peer review arranged by the journal that is
republishing the study, Environmental Sciences Europe. The republished version contains extra material
addressing criticisms of the original publication and the raw data underlying the study's findings, and
accompanied by a separate commentary by Prof. Seralini's team describing the lobbying efforts of GMO crop
supporters to force the editor of the Food and Chemical Toxicology to retract the original publication.97
The aforesaid incident serves to underscore the crucial role of scientists in providing relevant information for
effective regulation of GMOs. There can be no argument that "[s]ince scientific advice plays a key role in
GMO regulations, scientists have a responsibility to address and communicate uncertainty to policy makers
and the public."98
GMOs: The Global Debate
The uncertainties generated by conflicting scientific findings or limited research is not diminished by
extensive use at present of GM technology in agriculture. The global area of GM crops has reached over 175
million hectares in 2013, more than a hundredfold increase from 1.7 million hectares in 1996.99 However,
the worldwide debate on safety issues involving GM foods continues.
It has been pointed out that the crux of the controversy surrounding GMOs lies in the very nature of the
technology itself. The process of combining inter-species genes, which is called recombinant DNA
technology, does not have the checks and balances that are imposed by nature in traditional breeding.
Because of this there is a risk of genetic instability. This means that no one can make any accurate
predictions about the long-term effects of GMOs on human beings and the environment. Extensive testing in
this regard is either very expensive or impractical, and there is still a great deal about the process that
scientists do not understand.100
The basic concepts for the safety assessment of foods derived from GMOs have been developed in close
collaboration under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
and the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The
OECD's group of experts on biosafety recommended conducting the safety assessment of a GM food on
case-by-case basis through comparison to an existing food with a long history of safe use. Thus, the concept
of substantial equivalence was developed that is widely used by national and international agencies,
including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the WHO, OECD and the FAO.101
"Substantial equivalence embodies the concept that if a new food or food component is found to be
substantially equivalent to an existing food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with
respect to safety (i.e., the food or food component can be concluded to be as safe as the conventional food
or food component)."102 The safety assessment of a genetically modified food is directed by the results of a
comparison between the genetically modified food and its conventional counterpart. It follows a stepwise
process aided by a series of structured questions. Factors taken into account in the safety assessment
include:
identity;
source;
composition;
effects of processing/cooking;
transformation process;
the recombinant DNA (e.g. stability of insertion, potential for gene transfer);
protein expression product of the novel DNA:

effects on function;
potential toxicity;
potential allergenicity;
possible secondary effects from gene expression or the disruption of the host DNA or metabolic pathways,
including composition of critical macro, micro-nutrients, anti-nutrients, endogenous toxicants, allergens, and
physiologically active substances; and,
potential intake and dietary impact of the introduction of the genetically modified food.103
ChanRobles Vi rtua lawlib rary
The above factors are particularly pertinent to the assessment of foods derived from genetically modified
plants.104 However, the concept of substantial equivalence as the starting point of risk assessment was
criticized for being "unscientific and arbitrary" and "intentionally vague and ill-defined to be as flexible,
malleable, and open to interpretation as possible." It is likewise argued that "comparisons are designed to
conceal significant changes resulting from genetic modifications," "the principle is weak and misleading even
when it does not apply, effectively giving producers carte blanche", and that there is insufficiency of
background information for assessing substantial equivalence. A paper presented at a WHO workshop
pointed out that the main difficulty associated with the biosafety assessment of transgenic crops is the
unpredictable nature of transformation. This unpredictability raises the concern that transgenic plants will
behave in an inconsistent manner when grown commercially.105
The method of testing GM foods was further described as inadequate, as currently the testing procedures
consist almost exclusively of specific chemical and biochemical analytical procedures designed to quantitate
a specific nutrient or a specific toxin or allergen. It was noted that in actual practice, the investigator
compares only selected characteristics of the genetically engineered food to those of its non-genetically
engineered counterpart. These testing schemes are viewed as completely incapable of detecting
unsuspected or unanticipated health risks that are generated by the process of genetic engineering itself.
Hence, clinical tests are recommended because only such tests have the broad specificity and relevance to
human physiology needed to detect the wide range of allergens and toxins that might result from
unexpected side-effects of the genetic engineering process.106
In another review article, it was pointed out that since a genetic modification is aimed at introducing new
traits into organisms, the result will always be a different composition of genes and proteins. The most
reasonable interpretation therefore is that a food derived from a GMO is considered substantially equivalent
to its traditional counterpart if the genetic modification has not resulted in intended or unintended
alterations in the composition of relevant nutrients and inherent toxicants of the organism, and that the new
genes and proteins have no adverse impact on the dietary value of the food and do not therefore pose any
harm to the consumer or the environment. It was thus concluded that establishing substantial equivalence is
not a safety assessment in itself, but is a pragmatic tool to analyze the safety of a new food, and hence in
the testing of new foods, the latest scientific methods have to be used. All conceivable efforts to protect
consumers from health risks should thus be made, and at the same time, consumers should be adequately
informed about the real extent of risks and hazards.107
The GMO global debate has so intensified that each side has accused the other camp of mounting "paid
advocacy" and criticizing studies adverse to their respective positions as flawed or unscientific. Both the
agri-business industry, and groups opposed to GMOs including the organic farming industry, had utilized
enormous resources and funds for lobbying and media campaigns locally and internationally.
What appears to be highlighted in the promotion of GM crop production is the marked reduction in the use of
harmful chemical pesticides.108 The resulting increase in crop yields grown on relatively small parcels of land
is also regarded as a solution to the problem of feeding a fast growing world population. Proponents of GM
biotechnology insist that GM foods are safe to humans and the environment based on scientific studies. On
the other hand, anti-GM activists disseminate adverse results of recent studies confirming the health and
environmental hazards of genetically engineered crop farming. Also, some countries have maintained a firm
stance against genetically engineered crops or GM foods, such as France and Austria. Over the years,
however, accumulated evidence of the dangers of GMOs, as well as unrealized socio-economic benefits, has
been increasingly recognized by the scientific community.
That GE farming increases crop yield has been debunked by new studies proving the contrary. In the article,
"GM Crops Do Not Increase Yield Potential," the Institute for Responsible Technology cited reports from
actual field studies in different countries revealing downward figures for Bt crops, as summarized below:
Bt corn took longer to reach maturity and produced up to 12% lower yields than non-GM counterparts.
Evidence for the "yield drag" of Roundup Ready soybeans has been known for over a decade - with the
disruptive effect of the GM transformation process accounting for approximately half the drop in yield.
Based on a comprehensive evaluation of yield since the introduction of commercial GM crops, the
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (IAASTD) noted that GM crop
yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined".
The Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield, based on published peer-reviewed studies
conducted by academic scientists using adequate controls, concluded that genetically engineered herbicide
tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields while insect-resistant corn has only
marginally improved yields. Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.
In developing countries, crop failure can have severe consequences as illustrated in India, where a large
number of cotton farmers, unable to pay back high interest loans, have committed suicide. Several
investigations have implicated the unreliable performance of Bt cotton as a major contributor.
Bt cotton was overrun by pests in Indonesia and China. In South Africa, farmers faced pest problems and
no increase in yield. The 100,000 hectares planted in 1998 dropped 80% to 22,500 by 2002. As of 2004,
85% of the original Bt cotton farmers had given up while those remaining had to be subsidized by the
government. Similarly in the US, Bt cotton yields are not necessarily consistent or more profitable.109 C hanRobles Vi rt ualawlib ra ry
GM technology is thus seen as a failure in terms of addressing food security; rather, it supports corporate
control and impedes common persons' access to adequate food. The root cause of hunger is not a lack of
food, GM critics say, but a lack of access to food. The poor lack money to buy food and lack of land on which
to grow it. It is essential to follow sustainable traditional farming practices that keeps food production in the
hands of small-scale farmers, thereby reducing corporate control.110
As regards the existing uncertainties of potential long-term effects of the release into the environment of
GMOs, the BEETLE (Biological and Ecological Evaluation towards Long-term Effects) study of 2009,111 made
for the European Commission, analyzed more than 700 scientific publications from all over the world about
GMOs and their potential effects on environment including biodiversity, and received contributions to online
surveys from 100 to 167 invited environmental experts. This study declared the following uncertainties:
increased fitness of GM plants;
outbreeding depression after hybridization with wild relatives;
outcrossing between related species and the fate of a transferred GM trait;
altered flower phenology;
altered fecundity, increasing seed (gene) flow;
increased frequency of horizontal gene flow;
resistance development of pests;
effects on non-target organisms;
effects on non-target organisms due to altered nutritional composition of the GM plant;
effects on non-target organisms due to accumulation of toxic compounds;
effects on rhizo sphere microbiota;
effects on symbiotic non-target organisms;
changes in soil functions caused by GM traits;
effects on biological control;
altered use of agrochemicals;
indirect changes in susceptibility of crops against pathogens;
adverse effects on agro-biodiversity;
indirect effects in fertilizer use;
potential changes in landscape structure;

increased production of greenhouse gases;
increased mineral nutrient erosion and fertilizer leaching;
altered chemical attributes of soil fraction;
emerging of stacked events;
the necessity of regional differentiation of risk assessments.112

ChanRobles Virtualawl ibra ry
A critical observation was made on the argument that there is not enough evidence to reject the hypothesis
that GMO and GM food is safe. The fact emphasized was that experiments designed to clarify potential
adverse effects on health or the environment are nearly absent in peer-reviewed journals. Scientific
uncertainty, omitted research areas, and lack of basic knowledge crucial to risk assessments have become
apparent. The present uncertainty warrants further research and it has been demonstrated that there is a
risk of bias relying on hypotheses that dominate mainstream science. There is therefore a need for
independent research that is without prejudice and unbiased by economic and professional interests.113 In
another article it was noted that the clinical trials carried out to ensure that negative externalities do not
affect humans and the environment are conducted by the same private firms that created the products,
raising conflict of interest concerns.114
While existing literature on health effects of GM foods indicates that they are generally safe, and similar
conclusions have been drawn by government agencies and scientific organizations such as FAO/WHO and
Society of Toxicology, a growing number of independent scientists have spoken strongly against such
generalizations from limited research mostly sponsored by biotech companies.
In 1999, the Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments signed by 815 scientists from 82
countries expressed that they are extremely concerned about the hazards of GMOs to biodiversity, food
safety, human and animal health, and demanded a moratorium on environmental releases in accordance
with the precautionary principle. They are opposed to GM crops that will intensify corporate monopoly,
exacerbate inequality and prevent the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can provide food security
and health around the world, and called a ban on patents of life forms and living processes which threaten
food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources and violate basic human
rights and dignity.115
On May 10, 2003, dozens of prominent scientists from various disciplines banded together as an
Independent Science Panel on GM at a public conference in London. On June 15, 2003, they released a Final
Report116 as their contribution to the National GM Debate in UK. In a summary117 of the final report, these
scientists declared the following:
The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World - A Summary
Why GM-Free?
1. GM crops failed to deliver promised benefits
o No increase in yields or significant reduction in herbicide and pesticide use
o United States lost an estimated $12 billion over GM crops amid worldwide rejection
o Massive crop failures of up to 100% reported in India
o High risk future for agbiotech: "Monsanto could be another disaster waiting to happen for investors"
2. GM crops posing escalating problems on the farm
o Transgenic lines unstable: "most cases of transgene inactivation never reach the literature"
o Triple herbicide-tolerant volunteers and weeds emerged in North America
o Glyphosate-tolerant weeds plague GM cotton and soya fields, atrazine back in use
o Bt biopesticide traits threatening to create superweeds and bt-resistant pests

3. Extensive transgenic contamination unavoidable
o Extensive transgenic contamination found in maize landraces in remote regions of Mexico
o 32 out of 33 commercial seed stocks found contaminated in Canada
o Pollen remains airborne for hours, and a 35 mile per hour wind speed is unexceptional
o There can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM crops
4. GM crops not safe
o GM crops have not been proven safe: regulation was fatally flawed from the start
o The principle of 'substantial equivalence', vague and ill defined, gave companies complete licence in
claiming GM products 'substantially equivalent' to non-GM, and hence 'safe'
5. GM food raises serious safety concerns
o Despite the paucity of credible studies, existing findings raise serious safety concerns
o 'Growth-factor-like' effects in the stomach and small intestine of young rats were attributed to the
transgenic process or the transgenic construct, and may hence be general to all GM food
6. Dangerous gene products are incorporated into food crops
o Bt proteins, incorporated into 25% of all GM crops worldwide, are harmful to many non-target insects, and
some are potent immunogens and allergens for humans and other mammals
o Food crops are increasingly used to produce pharmaceuticals and drugs, including cytokines known to
suppress the immune system, or linked to dementia, neurotoxicity and mood and cognitive side effects;
vaccines and viral sequences such as the 'spike' protein gene of the pig coronavirus, in the same family as
the SARS virus linked to the current epidemic; and glycoprotein gene gpl20 of the AIDS virus that could
interfere with the immune system and recombine with viruses and bacteria to generate new and
unpredictable pathogens.
7. Terminator crops spread male sterility
o Crops engineered with 'suicide' genes for male sterility, promoted as a means of preventing the spread of
transgenes, actually spread both male sterility and herbicide tolerance traits via pollen.
8. Broad-spectrum herbicides highly toxic to humans and other species
o Glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate, used with herbicide tolerant GM crops that currently account for
75% of all GM crops worldwide, are both systemic metabolic poisons
o Glufosinate ammonium is linked to neurological, respiratory, gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities,

and birth defects in humans and mammals; also toxic to butterflies and a number of beneficial insects, to
larvae of clams and oysters, Daphniaand some freshwater fish, especially the rainbow trout; it inhibits
beneficial soil bacteria and fungi, especially those that fix nitrogen.
o Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints and poisoning in the UK, and disturbances to many
body functions have been reported after exposures at normal use levels; glyphosate exposure nearly
doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortion, and children born to users of glyphosate had elevated
neurobehavioral defects; glyphosate retards development of the foetal skeleton in laboratory rats, inhibits
the synthesis of steroids, and is genotoxic in mammals, fish and frogs; field dose exposure of earthworms
caused at least 50 percent mortality and significant intestinal damage among surviving worms; Roundup
(Monsanto's formulation of glyphosate) caused cell division dysfunction that may be linked to human
cancers.
9. Genetic engineering creates super-viruses

o The most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are inherent to the process; it greatly enhances the
scope and probability of horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating viruses and
bacteria that cause disease epidemics.
o Newer techniques, such as DNA shuffling, allow geneticists to create in a matter of minutes in the
laboratory millions of recombinant viruses that have never existed in billions of years of evolution
o Disease-causing viruses and bacteria and their genetic material are the predominant materials and tools of
genetic engineering, as much as for the intentional creation of bio-weapons.
10. Transgenic DNA in food taken up by bacteria in human gut
o Transgenic DNA from plants has been taken up by bacteria both in the soil and in the gut of human
volunteers; antibiotic resistance marker genes can spread from transgenic food to pathogenic bacteria,
making infections very difficult to treat.
11. Transgenic DNA and cancer
o Transgenic DNA known to survive digestion in the gut and to jump into the genome of mammalian cells,
raising the possibility for triggering cancer
o Feeding GM products such as maize to animals may carry risks, not just for the animals but also for
human beings consuming the animal products
12. CaMV 35S promoter increases horizontal gene transfer
o Evidence suggests that transgenic constructs with the CaMV 35S promoter could be especially unstable
and prone to horizontal gene transfer and recombination, with all the attendant hazards: gene mutations
due to random insertion, cancer, re-activation of dormant viruses and generation of new viruses.
13. A history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence
o There has been a history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence, especially on
horizontal gene transfer. Key experiments failed to be performed, or were performed badly and then
misrepresented. Many experiments were not followed up, including investigations on whether the CaMV 35S
promoter is responsible for the 'growth-factor-like' effects observed in young rats fed GM potatoes.
GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits and are posing escalating problems on the
farm. Transgenic contamination is now widely acknowledged to be unavoidable, and hence there
can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM agriculture. Most important of all, GM crops have not
been proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has emerged to raise serious safety
concerns, that if ignored could result in irreversible damage to health and the environment. GM
crops should therefore be firmly rejected now.
The ISP further concluded that "[s]ustainable agricultural practices have proven beneficial in all aspects
relevant to health and the environment. In addition, they bring food security and social and cultural well
being to local communities everywhere. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive global shift to all
forms of sustainable agriculture.118
In 2008, a Global Report119 was released by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science
and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a three-year international collaborative effort (2005-2007)
developed out of a consultative process involving 900 participants and 110 countries from all over the world.
This global initiative assessed agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST) in relation to meeting
development and sustainability goals of (1) reducing hunger and poverty; (2) improving nutrition, health
and rural livelihoods; and (3) facilitating social and environmental sustainability. The report concluded that a
radical transformation of the world's food and farming systems - especially the policies and institutions that
affect them - is necessary if we are to overcome converging economic and environmental crises and feed
the world sustainably. It also warned that technologies such as high-yielding crop varieties, agrochemicals
and mechanization have primarily benefited the better-resourced groups in society and transnational
corporations, rather than the most vulnerable ones. In general, the IAASTD found little evidence to support
a conclusion that modern biotechnologies are well suited to meeting the needs of small-scale and
subsistence farmers, particularly under the increasingly unpredictable environmental and economic
conditions tha they face.120
More recently, in 2013, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility
(ENSSER), an international group of more than 90 scientists, academics and physicians, released a
statement that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods and crops.121 The statement122is
herein reproduced:
10/21/13
Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety
As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and
safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we strongly reject claims by GM seed
developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a "scientific consensus" on GMO
safety and that the debate on this topic is "over".
We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The
claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the
broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of
complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially
endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.
Science and society do not proceed on the basis of a constructed consensus, as current knowledge is always
open to well-founded challenge and disagreement. We endorse the need for further independent scientific
inquiry and informed public discussion on GM product safety and urge GM proponents to do the same.
Some of our objections to the claim of scientific consensus are listed below.
1. There is no consensus on GM food safety
Regarding the safety of GM crops and foods for human and animal health, a comprehensive review of animal
feeding studies of GM crops found "An equilibrium in the number [of] research groups suggesting, on the
basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe
and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns". The
review also found that most studies concluding that GM foods were as safe and nutritious as those obtained
by conventional breeding were "performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also
responsible [for] commercializing these GM plants".
A separate review of animal feeding studies that is often cited as showing that GM foods are safe included
studies that found significant differences in the GM-fed animals. While the review authors dismissed these
findings as not biologically significant, the interpretation of these differences is the subject of continuing
scientific debate and no consensus exists on the topic.
Rigorous studies investigating the safety of GM crops and foods would normally involve animal feeding
studies in which one group of animals is fed GM food and another group is fed an equivalent non-GM diet.
Independent studies of this type are rare, but when such studies have been performed, some have revealed
toxic effects or signs of toxicity in the GM-fed animals. The concerns raised by these studies have not been
followed up by targeted research that could confirm or refute the initial findings.
The lack of scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods and crops is underlined by the recent research
calls of the European Union and the French government to investigate the long-term health impacts of GM
food consumption in the light of uncertainties raised by animal feeding studies. These official calls imply
recognition of the inadequacy of the relevant existing scientific research protocols. They call into question
the claim that existing research can be deemed conclusive and the scientific debate on biosafety closed.
2. There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on

human health
It is often claimed that "trillions of GM meals" have been eaten in the US with no ill effects. However, no
epidemiological studies in human populations have been carried out to establish whether there are any
health effects associated with GM food consumption. As GM foods are not labelled in North America, a major
producer and consumer of GM crops, it is scientifically impossible to trace, let alone study, patterns of
consumption and their impacts. Therefore, claims that GM foods are safe for human health based on the
experience of North American populations have no scientific basis.
3. Claims that scientific and governmental bodies endorse GMO safety are exaggerated or
inaccurate
Claims that there is a consensus among scientific and governmental bodies that GM foods are safe, or that
they are no more risky than non-GM foods, are false.
For instance, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada issued a report that was highly critical of the
regulatory system for GM foods and crops in that country. The report declared that it is "scientifically
unjustifiable" to presume that GM foods are safe without rigorous scientific testing and that the "default
prediction" for every GM food should be that the introduction of a new gene will cause "unanticipated
changes" in the expression of other genes, the pattern of proteins produced, and/or metabolic activities.
Possible outcomes of these changes identified in the report included the presence of new or unexpected
allergens.
A report by the British Medical Association concluded that with regard to the long-term effects of GM foods
on human health and the environment, "many unanswered questions remain" and that "safety concerns
cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available". The report called
for more research, especially on potential impacts on human health and the environment.
Moreover, the positions taken by other organizations have frequently been highly qualified, acknowledging
data gaps and potential risks, as well as potential benefits, of GM technology. For example, a statement by
the American Medical Association's Council on Science and Public Health acknowledged "a small potential for
adverse events ... due mainly to horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity" and recommended that
the current voluntary notification procedure practised in the US prior to market release of GM crops be made
mandatory. It should be noted that even a "small potential for adverse events" may turn out to be
significant, given the widespread exposure of human and animal populations to GM crops.
A statement by the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
affirming the safety of GM crops and opposing labelling cannot be assumed to represent the view of AAAS
members as a whole and was challenged in an open letter by a group of 21 scientists, including many long-
standing members of the AAAS. This episode underlined the lack of consensus among scientists about GMO
safety.
4. EU research project does not provide reliable evidence of GM food safety
An EU research project has been cited internationally as providing evidence for GM crop and food safety.
However, the report based on this project, "A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research", presents no data that
could provide such evidence, from long-term feeding studies in animals.
Indeed, the project was not designed to test the safety of any single GM food, but to focus on "the
development of safety assessment approaches". Only five published animal feeding studies are referenced in
the SAFOTEST section of the report, which is dedicated to GM food safety. None of these studies tested a
commercialised GM food; none tested the GM food for long-term effects beyond the subchronic period of 90
days; all found differences in the GM-fed animals, which in some cases were statistically significant; and
none concluded on the safety of the GM food tested, let alone on the safety of GM foods in general.
Therefore the EU research project provides no evidence for sweeping claims about the safety of any single
GM food or of GM crops in general.
5. List of several hundred studies does not show GM food safety
A frequently cited claim published on an Internet website that several hundred studies "document the
general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds" is misleading. Examination of the
studies listed reveals that many do not provide evidence of GM food safety and, in fact, some provide
evidence of a lack of safety. For example:chanRoble svi rtual Lawli bra ry
Many of the studies are not toxicological animal feeding studies of the type that can provide useful
information about health effects of GM food consumption. The list includes animal production studies that
examine parameters of interest to the food and agriculture industry, such as milk yield and weight gain;
studies on environmental effects of GM crops; and analytical studies of the composition or genetic makeup
of the crop.
Among the animal feeding studies and reviews of such studies in the list, a substantial number found toxic
effects and signs of toxicity in GM-fed animals compared with controls. Concerns raised by these studies
have not been satisfactorily addressed and the claim that the body of research shows a consensus over the
safety of GM crops and foods is false and irresponsible.
Many of the studies were conducted over short periods compared with the animal's total lifespan and
cannot detect long-term health effects.
We conclude that these studies, taken as a whole, are misrepresented on the Internet website as they do
not "document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds". Rather, some of
the studies give serious cause for concern and should be followed up by more detailed investigations over an
extended period of time.
6. There is no consensus on the environmental risks of GM crops
Environmental risks posed by GM crops include the effects of Bt insecticidal crops on non-target organisms
and effects of the herbicides used in tandem with herbicide-tolerant GM crops.
As with GM food safety, no scientific consensus exists regarding the environmental risks of GM crops. A
review of environmental risk assessment approaches for GM crops identified shortcomings in the procedures
used and found "no consensus" globally on the methodologies that should be applied, let alone on
standardized testing procedures.
Some reviews of the published data on Bt crops have found that they can have adverse effects on non-
target and beneficial organisms - effects that are widely neglected in regulatory assessments and by some
scientific commentators. Resistance to Bt toxins has emerged in target pests, and problems with secondary
(non-target) pests have been noted, for example, in Bt cotton in China.
Herbicide-tolerant GM crops have proved equally controversial. Some reviews and individual studies have
associated them with increased herbicide use, the rapid spread of herbicide-resistant weeds, and adverse
health effects in human and animal populations exposed to Roundup, the herbicide used on the majority of
GM crops.
As with GM food safety, disagreement among scientists on the environmental risks of GM crops may be
correlated with funding sources. A peer-reviewed survey of the views of 62 life scientists on the
environmental risks of GM crops found that funding and disciplinary training had a significant effect on
attitudes. Scientists with industry funding and/or those trained in molecular biology were very likely to have
a positive attitude to GM crops and to hold that they do not represent any unique risks, while publicly-
funded scientists working independently of GM crop developer companies and/or those trained in ecology
were more likely to hold a "moderately negative" attitude to GM crop safety and to emphasize the
uncertainty and ignorance involved. The review authors concluded, "The strong effects of training and
funding might justify certain institutional changes concerning how we organize science and how we make
public decisions when new technologies are to be evaluated."
7. International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GM foods and crops
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was negotiated over many years and implemented in 2003. The
Cartagena Protocol is an international agreement ratified by 166 governments worldwide that seeks to
protect biological diversity from the risks posed by GM technology. It embodies the Precautionary Principle in
that it allows signatory states to take precautionary measures to protect themselves against threats of
damage from GM crops and foods, even in case of a lack of scientific certainty.
Another international body, the UN's Codex Alimentarius, worked with scientific experts for seven years to
develop international guidelines for the assessment of GM foods and crops, because of concerns about the
risks they pose. These guidelines were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, of which over 160
nations are members, including major GM crop producers such as the United States.
The Cartagena Protocol and Codex share a precautionary approach to GM crops and foods, in that they
agree that genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be
required before GM organisms are used in food or released into the environment.
These agreements would never have been negotiated, and the implementation processes elaborating how
such safety assessments should be conducted would not currently be happening, without widespread
international recognition of the risks posed by GM crops and foods and the unresolved state of existing
scientific understanding.
Concerns about risks are well-founded, as has been demonstrated by studies on some GM crops and foods
that have shown adverse effects on animal health and non-target organisms, indicated above. Many of these
studies have, in fact, fed into the negotiation and/or implementation processes of the Cartagena Protocol
and Codex. We support the application of the Precautionary Principle with regard to the release and
transboundary movement of GM crops and foods.
Conclusion
In the scope of this document, we can only highlight a few examples to illustrate that the totality of scientific
research outcomes in the field of GM crop safety is nuanced, complex, often contradictory or inconclusive,
confounded by researchers' choices, assumptions, and funding sources, and in general, has raised more
questions than it has currently answered.
Whether to continue and expand the introduction of GM crops and foods into the human food and animal
feed supply, and whether the identified risks are acceptable or not, are decisions that involve socioeconomic
considerations beyond the scope of a narrow scientific debate and the currently unresolved biosafety
research agendas. These decisions must therefore involve the broader society. They should, however, be
supported by strong scientific evidence on the long-term safety of GM crops and foods for human and animal
health and the environment, obtained in a manner that is honest, ethical, rigorous, independent,
transparent, and sufficiently diversified to compensate for bias.
Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative
claims that a "scientific consensus" exists on GMO safety.123 ChanRobles Vi rtua lawlib rary
One of the most serious concerns raised against GM crops is that expressed by one of our political analysts
now serving in Congress, viz:
x x x patented GMO seeds concentrate power in the hands of a few biotech corporations and marginalize
small farmers. As the statement x x x of the 81 members of the World Future Council put it, "While
profitable to the few companies producing them, GMO seeds reinforce a model of farming that undermines
sustainability of cash-poor farmers, who make up most of the world's hungry. GMO seeds continue farmers'
dependency on purchased seed and chemical inputs. The most dramatic impact of such dependency is in
India, where 270,000 farmers, many trapped in debt for buying seeds and chemicals, committed suicide
between 1995 and 2012."124 ChanRobles Vi rtua lawlib rary
In sum, current scientific research indicates that the biotech industry has not sufficiently addressed the
uncertainties over the safety of GM foods and crops.
Bt Brinjal Controversy in India
Brinjal (eggplant) is a major crop and a popular component of food diet in India, an important ingredient in
Ayurvedic medicine, and is of special value for the treatment of diabetes and liver problems. The attempted
commercial propagation of Bt brinjal spawned intense debate and suffered obstacles due to sustained
opposition from local scientists, academicians and non-government organizations in India.
As in the case of the Philippines, proponents of Bt brinjal in India, believed to be the origin of eggplant's
diversity, said that if the new technology is adopted, decrease in the use of insecticides, substantial increase
in crop yields and greater food availability, can be expected. But opponents argued, alongside food safety
concerns, that there is a potential for toxic effects on populations of non-target invertebrates, and potential
replacement of traditional landraces as farmers may move towards cultivation of a restricted number of GE
forms. In addition to these issues, there was the additional concern raised over the transfer of Bt transgenes
to non-GE brinjal or its wild relatives, and the consequences for plant biodiversity.125
Writ petitions were lodged before the Supreme Court of India to stop the release into the environment of Bt
brinjal (Aruna Rodrigues and Ors, etc. vs. Union of India). The Court formed a Technical Evaluation
Committee (TEC) composed of experts nominated by the parties to undertake a comprehensive evaluation
of the feasibility of allowing the open field trials of Bt brinjal and submit a final report, and in the event the
TEC is unable to submit said final report, it was directed instead to submit an interim report within the
period set by the Court on the following issue: Whether there should or should not be any ban, partial or
otherwise, upon conducting of open field tests of the GMOs? In the event open field trials are permitted,
what protocol should be followed and conditions, if any, that may be imposed by the Court for
implementation of open field trials." The Court also directed that the TEC would be free to review report or
studies authored by national and international scientists if it was necessary.
In its Interim Report dated October 17, 2012, the TEC recommended that, in view of its findings, all field
trials should be stopped until certain conditions have been met. A Final Report126 was eventually submitted
to the Court which noted weaknesses in the conditions imposed by the regulatory agencies for conduct of
field trials, as follows: 1) post-release monitoring, an important aspect of environmental and health safety
(if the GE crop is consumed as food) is not given adequate attention; 2) the importance of need and socio-
economic impact assessment of GM products as one of the criteria that should be applied in the evaluation
at an early stage; and 3) need for additional tests not currently done such as long-term feeding studies for
assessment of chronic and intergeneration toxicity in small animals, genomewide expression analysis in the
toxicity studies to screen for possible unintended effects on host physiology. It was recommended that a
moratorium on field trials of herbicide tolerant crops until the issue had been examined by an independent
committee, and also noted that said technology may not be suitable in the Indian socio-economic context
due to possible impact of extensive use of broad spectrum herbicides on the environmental biodiversity and
smaller average farm size. Examination of the safety dossier of Bt brinjal indicated certain concerns on the
data, which had not been addressed in the course of regulatory testing leading to approval due to lack of
full-time qualified personnel for the purpose. Overall, it was found that the quality of information in several
of the applications is far below what would be expected and required for rigorous evaluation by a regulatory
body and is unlikely to meet international regulatory guidelines.
On the mechanism of CrylAc proteins, the TEC cited studies showing that it is possible under certain
conditions for CrylAc protein to kill insects that lack the cadherin receptor. Also, while it is generally believed
that Cry toxins do not exert an effect on vertebrates as vertebrates lack the receptor for Cry toxins, two
studies (one in mice and the other in cows) have provided evidence that Cry proteins can bind to
mammalian intestinal epithelial cells. The report also discussed the emergence of resistance in insect pests,
health and food safety of Bt transgenics, and herbicide tolerant crops and their effect on biodiversity and the
environment. Specific recommendations were made to address the foregoing issues and the report
concluded that:
The release of a GM crop into its area of origin or diversity has far greater ramifications and potential for
negative impact than for other species. To justify this, there needs to be extraordinarily compelling reasons
and only when other choices are not available. GM crops that offer incremental advantages or solutions to
specific and limited problems are not sufficient reasons to justify such release. The TEC did not find any such
compelling reasons under the present conditions. The fact is that unlike the situation in 1960s there is no
desperate shortage of food and in fact India is in a reasonably secure position. The TEC therefore
recommends that release of GM crops for which India is a centre of origin or diversity should not be
allowed.127ChanRob les Virtualawl ibra ry
In 2010, responding to large-scale opposition to Bt brinjal's introduction in India, former environment

minister Jairam Ramesh placed an indefinite moratorium on its further field testing. This was done after
discussions with scientists, both pro and anti-GM crops, activists and farmers across the country.
GMO Field Trials in the Philippines
As earlier mentioned, the conduct of field trials for GE plants and crops in our country is governed primarily
by DAO 08-2002 and implemented by the DA through the BPI. Petitioners EMB, BPI and FPA all maintain
there was no unlawful deviation from its provisions and that respondents so far failed to present evidence to
prove their claim that Bt talong field trials violated environmental laws and rules.
Within the DA-BPI, it is the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) which, as an advisory body, was
tasked to "evaluate the potential risks of the proposed activity to human health and the environment based
on available scientific and technical information." Under DA Special Order 241 and 384 (2002) the STRP
membership was expanded to include "an independent pool of experts...tapped by the [BPI] to evaluate the
potential risks of the proposed release of GMOs for field testing, propagation, food, feed to human health
and the environment based on available scientific and technical information."
DAO 08-2002 supplements the existing guidelines on the importation and release into the environment of
products of modern biotechnology by institutionalizing existing operational arrangements between DA-BPI
and the NCBP. Effective July 2003, applications for field test are received and processed by DA-BPI, but the
approval process for projects on contained use remains under the supervision of NCBP. A mandatory risk
assessment of GM plant and plant products is required prior to importation or release into the environment.
Experiments must first be conducted under contained conditions, then the products are tested in field trials
the product is reviewed for commercial release. Risk assessment is done according to the principles provided
for by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Risk assessment is science-based, carried out on a case by case
manner, targets a specific crop and its transformation event, adopts the concept of substantial equivalence
in identifying risk, allows review, and provides that the absence of scientific information or consensus should
not be interpreted to indicate the absence or presence and level of risk.128
Greenpeace, however, claims there is actually only a committee of three to five members which conducts
the risk assessment, and is aided by an informal group, the DA's Biotech Advisory Team (BAT), of
representatives from government biotech regulatory agencies: BPI, BAI, FPA, DENR, DOH and DOST. It also
assails the government regulatory agencies for their refusal to open to scrutiny the names and qualifications
of those incharge of regulation and risk assessment, and for allowing the entry and use of all GMO
applications requested by multinational companies.129
It must be stressed that DAO 08-2002 and related DA orders are not the only legal bases for regulating field
trials of GM plants and plant products. EO 514130 establishing the National Biosafety Framework (NBF)
clearly provides that the NBF shall apply 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.131 The objective of the NBF is to "[e]nhance the decision-making system on the application of
products of modern biotechnology to make it more efficient, predictable, effective, balanced, culturally
appropriate, ethical, transparent and participatory".132 Thus, "the socio-economic, ethical, and cultural
benefit and risks of modern biotechnology to the Philippines and its citizens, and in particular on small
farmers, indigenous peoples, women, small and medium enterprises and the domestic scientific community,
shall be taken into account in implementing the NBF."133 The NBF also mandates that decisions shall be
arrived at in a transparent and participatory manner, recognizing that biosafety issues are best handled with
the participation of all relevant stakeholders and organizations who shall have appropriate access to
information and the opportunity to participate responsibly and in an accountable manner in biosafety
decision-making process.134
Most important, 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 Articles 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;
The NBF 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 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.135
As to the conduct of risk assessment to identify and evaluate the risks to human health and the
environment, these shall be guided by the following:
5.2.1 Principles of Risk Assessment. - The following principles shall be followed when performing a RA to
determine whether a regulated article poses significant risks to human health and the environment: chanRob lesvi rtua lLawl ib rary
5.2.1.1 The RA shall be carried out in a scientifically sound and transparent

manner based on available scientific and technical information. The
expert advice of and guidelines developed by, relevant
international organizations, including intergovernmental
bodies, and regulatory authorities of countries with
significant experience in the regulatory supervision of the
regulated article shall be taken into account in the conduct
of risk assessment;
5.2.1.2 Lack of scientific knowledge or scientific consensus shall not

be interpreted as indicating a particular level of risk, an absence of
risk, or an acceptable risk;
5.2.1.3 The identified characteristics of a regulated article and its use which
have the potential to pose significant risks to human health and the
environment shall be compared to those presented by the non-
modified organism from which it is derived and its use under the
same conditions;
5.2.1.4 The RA shall be carried out case-by-case and on the basis of

transformation event. The required information may vary in nature
and level of detail from case to case depending on the regulated
article concerned, its intended use and the receiving environment;
and,
5.2.1.5 If new information on the regulated article and its effects on human
health and the environment becomes available, and such
information is relevant and significant, the RA shall be readdressed
to determine whether the risk has changed or whether there is a
need to amend the risk management strategies accordingly.
5.2.2 Risk Assessment Guidelines. - The conduct of RA by concerned departments and agencies shall be
in accordance with the policies and standards on RA issued by the NCBP. Annex III of the Cartagena Protocol
shall also guide RA. As appropriate, such department and agencies may issue their own respective
administrative issuances establishing the appropriate RA under their particular jurisdictions.
5.3 Role of Environmental Impact Assessment. - The application of the EIA System to biosafety
decisions shall be determined by concerned departments and agencies subject to the
requirements of law and the standards set by the NCBP. Where applicable and under the coordination
of the NCBP, concerned departments and agencies shall issue joint guidelines on the matter. (Emphasis
supplied)
Considering the above minimum requirements under the most comprehensive national biosafety regulation
to date, compliance by the petitioners with DAO 08-2002 is not sufficient. Notably, Section 7 of the 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 08-2002.
SECTION 7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The concerned government departments and agencies, in developing and adopting biosafety policies,
guidelines and measures and in making biosafety decisions, shall promote, facilitate, and conduct public
awareness, education, meaningful, responsible and accountable participation. They shall incorporate into
their respective administrative issuances and processes best practices and mechanisms on public
participation in accordance with the following guidelines:
chanRoble svirtual Lawli bra ry
7.1 Scope of Public Participation. - Public participation shall apply to all stages of the biosafety
decision-making process from the time the application is received. For applications on biotechnology
activities related to research and development, limited primarily for contained use, notice of the filing of
such application with the NCBP shall be sufficient, unless the NCBP deems that public interest and welfare
requires otherwise.
7.2 Minimum Requirements of Public Participation. - In conducting public participation processes, the
following minimum requirements shall be followed: chanRob lesvi rtual Lawli bra ry
7.2.1 Notice to all concerned stakeholders, in a language understood by them and through media to which
they have access. Such notice must be adequate, timely, and effective and posted prominently in public
places in the areas affected, and in the case of commercial releases, in the national print media; in all cases,
such notices must be posted electronically in the internet;
7.2.2 Adequate and reasonable time frames for public participation procedures. Such procedures should
allow relevant stakeholders to understand and analyze the benefits and risks, consult with independent
experts, and make timely interventions. Concerned departments and agencies shall include in their
appropriate rules and regulations specific time frames for their respective public participation processes,
including setting a minimum time frame as may be appropriate;
7.2.3 Public consultations, as a way to secure wide input into the decisions that are to be made. These could
include formal hearings in certain cases, or solicitation of public comments, particularly where there is public
controversy about the proposed activities. Public consultations shall encourage exchanges of information
between applicants and the public before the application is acted upon. Dialogue and consensus-building
among all stakeholders shall be encouraged. Concerned departments and agencies shall specify in their
appropriate rules and regulations the stages when public consultations are appropriate, the specific time
frames for such consultations, and the circumstances when formal hearings will be required, including
guidelines to ensure orderly proceedings. The networks of agricultural and fisheries councils,
indigenous peoples and community-based organizations in affected areas shall be utilized;
7.2.4 Written submissions. Procedures for public participation shall include mechanisms that allow public
participation in writing or through public hearings, as appropriate, and which allow the
submission of any positions, comments, information, analyses or opinions. Concerned departments
and agencies shall include in their appropriate rules and regulations the stages when and the process to be
followed for submitting written comments; and,
7.2.5 Consideration of public concerns in the decision-making phase following consultation and submission
of written comments. Public concerns as reflected through the procedures for public participation shall be
considered in making the decision. The public shall be informed of the final decision promptly, have access
to the decision, and shall be provided with the reasons and considerations resulting in the decision, upon
request.
We find that petitioners simply adhered to the procedures laid down by DAO 08-2002 and no real effort was
made to operationalize the principles of the NBF in the conduct of field testing of Bt talong. The failure of
DAO 08-2002 to accommodate the NBF means that the Department of Agriculture lacks mechanisms to
mandate applicants to comply with international biosafety protocols. Greenpeace's claim that BPI had
approved nearly all of the applications for GMO field trials is confirmed by the data posted on their website.
For these reasons, the DAO 08-2002 should be declared invalid.
Significantly, while petitioners repeatedly argued that the subject field trials are not covered by the EIS law,
EO 514 clearly mandates that concerned departments and agencies, most particularly petitioners DENR-
EMB, BPI and FPA, 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 environment's impact
on their project." There are six stages in the regular EIA process. The proponent initiates the first three
stages while the EMB takes the lead in the last three stages. Public participation is enlisted in most
stages.136
Even without the issuance of EO 514, GMO field testing should have at least been considered for EIA under
existing regulations of petitioner 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.137 (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 the environment are required to prepare a detailed
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to undertaking such development activity.138 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."139 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.
During the hearing at the CA, Arty. Segui of the EMB was evasive in answering questions on whether his
office undertook the necessary evaluation on the possible environmental impact of Bt talong field trials
subject of this case 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. 2146140. Pertinent portions of his
testimony before the CA are herein quoted:
xxxx
ATTY. SORIANO: chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ib rary
Let us go back Mr. Witness to your answer in Question No. 5 regarding the list under the PEISS law.
Granting Mr. Witness that a certain project or undertaking is not classified as environmentally critical
project, how would you know that the BT talong field testing is not located in an environmentally critical
area this time?
ATTY. ACANTILADO: chanRoblesvirtual Lawli bra ry
Objection Your Honor, argumentative.
HON. J. DICDICAN: chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary
Witness may answer.
ATTY. SEGUI: chanRoblesvirtual Lawlib rary
As far as my recollection can serve me, in a reading of the Petition itself, somewhere along the Petition,
petitioners never alleged that the project, the subject matter rather of this instant petition, is within an
environmentally critical project.
Your Honor the Witness did not answer the question.
Please answer the question.
Personally I have conferred with our personnel from the Environmental Impact Assessment Division and
they intimated to me that the locations of the project, rather of this subject matter of the instant petition,
not within any declared environmentally critical area.
HON. J. BARRIOS: chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry
In other words, you are aware of the area where the BT Talong experiments are being conducted. Is that
the premise?

Judging from previous discussions we had . . . judging from the Petition, and showing it to the as I said
personnel from Environmental Impact Division at our office, as I said they intimated to me that it's not
within declared environmentally critical area.
That being the case, you did not act further? [You] did not make any further evaluation, on whether
the activity has an environmental impact? Is that the correct premise?
Well Your Honors I may be the Chief of the Legal Division of the EMB, I handle more of the legal aspects of
the Bureau's affairs. But when it comes to highly technical matters, I have to rely on our technical people
especially on environmentally impact assessment matters.
I will just ask him another question Your Honors. So did the Department of Agriculture Mr. Witness
coordinate with your Office with regard the field testing of BT Talong?
I'm sorry Your Honors I am not privy to that personally.
Mr. Witness, the question is did the Department of Agriculture coordinate with your Office with regard the
field testing of BT Talong as required under the law?
Already answered your Honor, objection.
The witness in effect said he does not know, he's not in a position to answer.
xxxx
Did the EMB Mr. Witness perform such evaluation in the case of BT Talong field testing?
ATTY. ACANTILADO: chanRoblesvirtual Lawli bra ry
Your Honor that is speculative, the witness has just answered a while ago that the EMB has not yet received
any project with respect to that Your Honor. So the witness would not be in a position to answer that Your
Honors.
Lay the basis first.
The earlier answer Your Honor of the witness is in general terms. My second question, my follow-up question
is specifically Your Honor the BT talong field testing.
Well from where I sit Your Honors, it would appear that it could be categorized as unclassified...
HON. J. VALENZUELA: chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary
Unclassified?
As the section will initially provide. But there must be prior ... may I continue to harp on that Your Honors.
There must be prior ... let's say conditions ... there must be prior evaluation and assessment just the same
by the EMB.
Prior to what Mr. Witness?
We will categorize it as unclassified but there must be ... (interrupted)
So initially you call it unclassified and then you say prior to...
I'm sorry Your Honors, may I reform.
Yes please.
Initially they will be considered/categorized as unclassified but there will be hopefully a subsequent
evaluation or assessment of the matter to see if we also have the resources and expertise if it can be finally
unclassified. I should say should fall within the fairview of the system, the EIA system. In other words, it's in
a sort of how do you say that it's in a state of limbo. So it's unclassified, that's the most we can do in the
meantime.
And Mr. Witness you also said that the agency the EMB is without the capability to evaluate the projects
such as this one in particular?
Yes, Your Honors as of now.
So therefore, when you say initially it's unclassified and then you're saying afterwards the EMB
needs evaluation but then you're saying the EMB is without any capability to evaluate then what
happens?
Well Your Honors, I did not draft the regulation myself. As the Chief of the Legal of the EMB that's how we
interpret it. But the truth of the matter is with all pragmatism we don't have the resources as of
now and expertise to do just that.

So in other words you admit that the EMB is without any competence to make a categorical or
initial examination of this uncategorized activity, is that what you mean?
It would appear, yes.
What do you think would prompt your office to make such initial examination?
Well executive fee at the usual dictates ... the Secretary of the DENR probably even by request of the
parties concerned.
So that means you are waiting for a request? Are you not? Proactive in this activity in performing your
obligations and duties?
Well Your Honors, the national budget if I may ... I attend budget hearings myself. The budget for the
environment is hardly ... the ratio is ... if we want to protect indeed the environment as we
profess, with all due respect if Congress speaks otherwise.
May I interrupt, can we go into specifics. From what I have read so far, under No. 2 of your Judicial
Affidavit, [you] are saying that the EMB is tasked in advising the DENR on matters related to environmental
management, conservation and pollution control, right?
Yes.
Thereafter you stated that you are tasked mainly with PD 1586 which refers to Environmental Critical Areas
of Projects and more specifically focused on Proclamation No. 2146. With respect to this BT Talong, you
mentioned that this is at first is uncategorized, it's not within?
It's not within Proclamation 2146 Your Honor.
But you did mention that under the rules and regulations, even in an uncategorized activity, pertaining to
the environment, your Office has the mandate and then you later say that your Office is without
competence, do I follow your line of standing?
Yes, precisely it will be categorized as per section 7 as unclassified because it doesn't fall as of now within
Proclamation 2146.
Yes, but under the implementing rules your Office has the mandate to act on other unclassified activities and
you answered that your Office has no competence.
Proclamation 2146 executed by then Pres. Marcos, the IRR pointed to was executed by I believe the
Secretary of DENR. We need an amendment of 2146.141 (Emphasis supplied)
The foregoing stance of the EMB's Chief of the Legal Division is an indication of the DENR-EMB's lack of
serious attention to their mandate under the law in the implementation of the NBF, as provided in the
following sections of EO 514:
4.9 Mandate of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. - As the primary government
agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's
environment and natural resources, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) shall
ensure that environmental assessments are done and impacts identified in biosafety decisions. It
shall also take the lead in evaluating and monitoring regulated articles intended for bioremediation, the
improvement of forest genetic resources, and wildlife genetic resources.
xxxx
4.12 Focal Point and Competent National Authorities.
4.12.1 For purposes of Article 19 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the national focal point responsible
for liaison with the Secretariat shall be the Department of Foreign Affairs. The competent national
authorities, responsible for performing the administrative functions required by the Protocol, shall be,
depending on the particular genetically modified organisms in question, the following: chanRob lesvi rtual Lawl ibra ry
xxxx
4.12.1.4 The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, for biosafety decisions covered by the
Protocol that concernregulated organisms intended for bioremediation, the improvement of forest genetic
resources, and wildlife genetic resources, and applications of modern biotechnology with potential
impact on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. (Emphasis supplied)
On the supposed absence of budget mentioned by Atty. Segui, EO 514 itself directed the concerned agencies
to ensure that there will be funding for the implementation of the NBF as it was intended to be a multi-
disciplinary effort involving the different government departments and agencies.
SEC. 6. Funding. - The DOST, DENR, DA, and DOH shall allocate funds from their present budgets to
implement the NBF, including support to the operations of the NCBP and its Secretariat. Starting 2006 and
thereafter, the funding requirements shall be included in the General Appropriations Bill submitted by each
of said departments to Congress.
These concerned departments shall enter into agreement on the sharing of financial and technical resources
to support the NCBP and its Secretariat.
All told, petitioners government agencies clearly failed to fulfil their mandates in the implementation of the
NBF.
Application of the Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle originated in Germany in the 1960s, expressing the normative idea that
governments are obligated to "foresee and forestall" harm to the environment. In the following decades, the
precautionary principle has served as the normative guideline for policymaking by many national
governments.142 The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the outcome of the 1992 United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, defines the rights of the people
to be involved in the development of their economies, and the responsibilities of human beings to safeguard
the common environment. It states that the long term economic progress is only ensured if it is linked with
the protection of the environment.143 For the first time, the precautionary approach was codified under
Principle 15, which reads:
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according
to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Principle 15 codified for the first time at the global level the precautionary approach, which indicates that
lack of scientific certainty is no reason to postpone action to avoid potentially serious or irreversible harm to
the environment. It has been incorporated in various international legal instruments.144The Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, finalized and adopted in Montreal on January
29, 2000, establishes an international regime primarily aimed at regulating trade in GMOs intended for
release into the environment, in accordance with Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development. The Protocol thus provides:
Article
10
DECISION PROCEDURE
xxxx
6. Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the
extent of the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism on the conservation and sustainable use
of biological diversity in the Party of import, taking also into account risks to human health, shall not
prevent that Party from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified
organism in question as referred to in paragraph 3 above, in order to avoid or minimize such potential
adverse effects.
xxxx
Article
11
PROCEDURE FOR LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS
INTENDED FOR DIRECT USE AS FOOD OR FEED,
OR FOR PROCESSING
8. Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the
extent of the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism on the conservation and sustainable use
of biological diversity in the Party of import, taking also into account risks to human health, shall not
prevent that Party from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of that living modified
organism intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing, in order to avoid or minimize such
potential adverse effects.
xxxx
Annex III
RISK ASSESSMENT
General principles
xxxx
4. Lack of scientific knowledge or scientific consensus should not necessarily be interpreted as indicating a
particular level of risk, an absence of risk, or an acceptable risk.
The precautionary principle applies when the following conditions are met145:
there exist considerable scientific uncertainties;
there exist scenarios (or models) of possible harm that are scientifically reasonable (that is
based on some scientifically plausible reasoning);
uncertainties cannot be reduced in the short term without at the same time increasing
ignorance of other relevant factors by higher levels of abstraction and idealization;
the potential harm is sufficiently serious or even irreversible for present or future
generations or otherwise morally unacceptable;
there is a need to act now, since effective counteraction later will be made significantly
more difficult or costly at any later time.
The Rules likewise incorporated the principle in Part V, Rule 20, which states:
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
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.
Under this Rule, the precautionary principle finds direct application in the evaluation of evidence in cases
before the courts. The precautionary principle bridges the gap in cases where scientific certainty in factual
findings cannot be achieved. By applying the precautionary principle, the court may construe a set of facts
as warranting either judicial action or inaction, with the goal of preserving and protecting the environment.
This may be further evinced from the second paragraph where bias is created in favor of the constitutional
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. In effect, the precautionary principle shifts the
burden of evidence of harm away from those likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to change the
status quo. An application of the precautionary principle to the rules on evidence will enable courts to tackle
future environmental problems before ironclad scientific consensus emerges.146
For purposes of evidence, the precautionary principle should be treated as a principle of last resort, where
application of the regular Rules of Evidence would cause in an inequitable result for the environmental
plaintiff
(a) settings in which the risks of harm are uncertain; (b) settings in which harm might be irreversible and
what is lost is irreplaceable; and (c) settings in which the harm that might result would be serious. 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. Parenthetically, judicial adjudication is one of the
strongest fora in which the precautionary principle may find applicability.147
Assessing the evidence on record, as well as the current state of GMO research worldwide, the Court finds
all the three conditions present in this case - uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm and the
possibility of serious harm.
Eggplants (talong) are a staple vegetable in the country and grown by small-scale farmers, majority of
whom are poor and marginalized. While the goal of increasing crop yields to raise farm incomes is laudable,
independent scientific studies revealed uncertainties due to unfulfilled economic benefits from Btcrops and
plants, adverse effects on the environment associated with 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 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.
We have found the experience of India in the Bt brinjal field trials - for which an indefinite moratorium was
recommended by a Supreme Court-appointed committee till the government fixes regulatory and safety
aspects - as relevant because majority of Filipino farmers are also small-scale farmers. Further, the
precautionary approach entailed inputs from all stakeholders, including the marginalized farmers, 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.148 For scientific research
alone will not resolve all the problems, but participation of different stakeholders from scientists to industry,
NGOs, farmers and the public will provide a needed variety of perspective foci, and knowledge.149
Finally, while the drafters of the NBF saw the need for a law to specifically address the concern for biosafety
arising from the use of modern biotechnology, which is deemed necessary to provide more permanent rules,
institutions, and funding to adequately deal with this challenge,150 the matter is within the exclusive
prerogative of the legislative branch.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The Decision dated May 17, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 00013 is hereby MODIFIED, as follows: chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry
1. The conduct of the assailed field testing for Bt talong is hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED;
2. Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 08, series of 2002 is declared NULL AND VOID; and
3. Consequently, any application for contained use, field testing, propagation and commercialization, and
importation of genetically modified organisms is TEMPORARILY ENJOINED until a new administrative
order is promulgated in accordance with law.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. chanroblesvi rtua llawli bra ry
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, and Perlas-
Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Carpio, J., no part prior inhibition.
Velasco, Jr., J., pls. see Concurring Opinion.
Brion, J., on official leave.
Leonen, J., see separate concurring opinion.
Jardeleza, J., no part.
SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
EN BANC
G.R. No. 180771 April 21, 2015
RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED SEASCAPE TAON STRAIT, e.g.,

TOOTHED WHALES, DOLPHINS, PORPOISES, AND OTHER CETACEAN SPECIES, Joined in
and Represented herein by Human Beings Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-
Osorio, In Their Capacity as Legal Guardians of the Lesser Life-Forms and as Responsible
Stewards of God's Creations, Petitioners,
vs.
SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy
(DOE), SECRETARY JOSE L. ATIENZA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), LEONARDO R. SIBBALUCA, DENR Regional
Director-Region VII and in his capacity as Chairperson of the Taon Strait Protected
Seascape Management Board, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR),
DIRECTOR MALCOLM J. SARMIENTO, JR., BFAR Regional Director for Region VII ANDRES
M. BOJOS, JAPAN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION CO., LTD. (JAPEX), as represented by its
Philippine Agent, SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES, INC. Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 181527
CENTRAL VISAYAS FISHERFOLK DEVELOPMENT CENTER (FIDEC), CERILO D. ENGARCIAL,

RAMON YANONG, FRANCISCO LABID, in their personal capacity and as representatives of
the SUBSISTENCE FISHERFOLKS OF THE MUNICIPALITIES OF ALOGUINSAN AND
PINAMUNGAJAN, CEBU, AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND THE PRESENT AND FUTURE
GENERATIONS OF FILIPINOS WHOSE RIGHTS ARE SIMILARLY AFFECTED, Petitioners,
vs.
SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy
(DOE), JOSE L. ATIENZA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), LEONARDO R. SIBBALUCA, in his capacity as DENR Regional
Director-Region VII and as Chairperson of the Taon Strait Protected Seascape Management
Board, ALAN ARRANGUEZ, in his capacity as Director - Environmental Management Bureau-
Region VII, DOE Regional Director for Region VIII1 ANTONIO LABIOS, JAPAN PETROLEUM
EXPLORATION CO., LTD. (JAPEX), as represented by its Philippine Agent, SUPPLY OILFIELD
SERVICES, INC., Respondents.
CONCURRING OPINION
"Until one has loved an animal,

a part of one 's soul remains unawakened."
Anatole France
LEONEN, J.:
I concur in the result, with the following additional reasons.
In G.R. No. 180771, petitioners Resident Marine Mammals allegedly bring their case in their
personal capacity, alleging that they stand to benefit or be injured from the judgment on the issues.
The human petitioners implead themselves in a representative capacity "as legal guardians of the
lesser life-forms and as responsible stewards of God's Creations."1 They use Oposa v. Factoran,
Jr.2 as basis for their claim, asserting their right to enforce international and domestic environmental
laws enacted for their benefit under the concept of stipulation pour autrui.3As the representatives of
Resident Marine Mammals, the human petitioners assert that they have the obligation to build
awareness among the affected residents of Taon Strait as well as to protect the environment,
especially in light of the government's failure, as primary steward, to do its duty under the doctrine of
public trust.4
Resident Marine Mammals and the human petitioners also assert that through this case, this court
will have the opportunity to lower the threshold for locus standi as an exercise of "epistolary
jurisdiction."5
The zeal of the human petitioners to pursue their desire to protect the environment and to continue
to define environmental rights in the context of actual cases is commendable. However, the space
for legal creativity usually required for advocacy of issues of the public interest is not so unlimited
that it should be allowed to undermine the other values protected by current substantive and
procedural laws. Even rules of procedure as currently formulated set the balance between
competing interests. We cannot abandon these rules when the necessity is not clearly and
convincingly presented.
The human petitioners, in G.R. No. 180771, want us to create substantive and procedural rights for
animals through their allegation that they can speak for them. Obviously, we are asked to accept the
premises that (a) they were chosen by the Resident Marine Mammals of Taon Strait; (b) they were
chosen by a representative group of all the species of the Resident Marine Mammals; (c) they were
able to communicate with them; and (d) they received clear consent from their animal principals that
they would wish to use human legal institutions to pursue their interests. Alternatively, they ask us to
acknowledge through judicial notice that the interests that they, the human petitioners, assert are
identical to what the Resident Marine Mammals would assert had they been humans and the legal
strategies that they invoked are the strategies that they agree with.
In the alternative, they want us to accept through judicial notice that there is a relationship of
guardianship between them and all the resident mammals in the affected ecology.
Fundamental judicial doctrines that may significantly change substantive and procedural law cannot
be founded on feigned representation.
Instead, I agree that the human petitioners should only speak for themselves and already have legal
standing to sue with respect to the issue raised in their pleading. The rules on standing have already
been liberalized to take into consideration the difficulties in the assertion of environmental rights.
When standing becomes too liberal, this can be the occasion for abuse.
II
Rule 3, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, in part, provides:
SECTION 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. - Only natural or juridical persons, or
entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.
The Rules provide that parties may only be natural or juridical persons or entities that may be
authorized by statute to be parties in a civil action.
Basic is the concept of natural and juridical persons in our Civil Code:
ARTICLE 37. Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is inherent in
every natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts
with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost.
Article 40 further defines natural persons in the following manner:
ARTICLE 40. Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for all
purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the conditions specified 'in the
following article.
Article 44, on the other hand, enumerates the concept of a juridical person:
ARTICLE 44. The following are juridical persons:
(1) The State and its political subdivisions;
(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created by law;
their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted according to law;
(3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to which the
law grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder, partner
or member.
Petitioners in G.R. No. 180771 implicitly suggest that we amend, rather than simply construe, the
provisions of the Rules of Court as well as substantive law to accommodate Resident Marine
Mammals or animals. This we cannot do.
Rule 3, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure further defines real party in interest:
SEC. 2. Parties in interest.-A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured
by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized
by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest. (2a)6
A litigant who stands to benefit or sustain an injury from the judgment of a case is a real party in
interest.7 When a case is brought to the courts, the real party in interest must show that another
party's act or omission has caused a direct injury, making his or her interest both material and based
on an enforceable legal right.8
Representatives as parties, on the other hand, are parties acting in representation of the real party in
interest, as defined in Rule 3, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:
SEC. 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a
representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title
of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of
an express rust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these
Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or
be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the
principal.(3a)9
The rule is two-pronged. First, it defines .a representative as a party who is not bound to directly or
actually benefit or suffer from the judgment, but instead brings a case in favor of an identified real
party in interest.10 The representative is an outsider to the cause of action. Second, the rule provides
a list of who may be considered as "representatives." It is not an exhaustive list, but the rule limits
the coverage only to those authorized by law or the Rules of Court.11
These requirements should apply even in cases involving the environment, which means that for the
Petition of the human petitioners to prosper, they must show that (a) the Resident Marine Mammals
are real parties in interest; and (b) that the human petitioners are authorized by law or the Rules to
act in a representative capacity.
The Resident Marine Mammals are comprised of "toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other
cetacean species inhabiting Taon Strait."12 While relatively new in Philippine jurisdiction, the issue
of whether animals have legal standing before courts has been the subject of academic discourse in
light of the emergence of animal and environmental rights.
In the United States, anim4l rights advocates have managed to establish a system which Hogan
explains as the "guardianship model for nonhuman animals":13
Despite Animal Lovers, there exists a well-established system by which nonhuman animals may
obtain judicial review to enforce their statutory rights and protections: guardianships. With court
approval, animal advocacy organizations may bring suit on behalf of nonhuman animals in the same
way court-appointed guardians bring suit on behalf of mentally-challenged humans who possess an
enforceable right but lack the ability to enforce it themselves.
In the controversial but pivotal Should Trees Have Standing?-Toward Legal Rights for Natural
Objects, Christopher D. Stone asserts that the environment should possess the right to seek judicial
redress even though it is incapable of representing itself. While asserting the rights of
speechless entities such as the environment or nonhuman animals certainly poses legitimate
challenges - such as identifying the proper spokesman -the American legal system is already well-
equipped with a reliable mechanism by which nonhumans may obtain standing via a judicially
established guardianship. Stone notes that other speechless - and nonhuman - entities such as
corporations, states, estates, and municipalities have standing to bring suit on their own behalf.
There is little reason to fear abuses under this regime as procedures for removal and substitution,
avoiding conflicts of interest, and termination of a guardianship are well established.
In fact, the opinion in Animal Lovers suggests that such an arrangement is indeed possible. The
court indicated that AL VA might have obtained standing in its own right if it had an established
history of dedication to the cause of the humane treatment of animals. It noted that the Fund for
Animals had standing and indicated that another more well-known advocacy organization might
have had standing as well. The court further concluded that an organization's standing is more than
a derivative of its history, but history is a relevant consideration where organizations are not well-
established prior to commencing legal action. ALVA was not the proper plaintiff because it could not
identify previous activities demonstrating its recognized activism for and commitment to the dispute
independent of its desire to pursue legal action. The court's analysis suggests that a qualified
organization with a demonstrated commitment to a cause could indeed bring suit on behalf of the
speechless in the form of a court-sanctioned guardianship.
This Comment advocates a shift in contemporary standing doctrine to empower non-profit

organizations with an established history of dedication to the cause and relevant expertise to serve
as official guardians ad !item on behalf of nonhuman animals interests. The American legal system
has numerous mechanisms for representing the rights and interests of nonhumans; any challenges
inherent in extending these pre-existing mechanisms to nonhuman animals are minimal compared to
an interest in the proper administration of justice. To adequately protect the statutory rights of
nonhuman animals, the legal system must recognize those statutory rights independent of humans
and provide a viable means of enforcement. Moreover, the idea of a guardianship for speechless
plaintiffs is not new and has been urged on behalf of the natural environment. 'Such a model is even
more compelling as applied to nonhuman animals, because they are sentient beings with the ability
to feel pain and exercise rational thought. Thus, animals are qualitatively different from other legally
protected nonhumans and therefore have interests deserving direct legal protection.
Furthermore, the difficulty of enforcing the statutory rights of nonhuman animals threatens the
integrity of the federal statutes designed to protect them, essentially rendering them meaningless.
Sensing that laws protecting nonhuman animals would be difficult to enforce, Congress provided for
citizen suit provisions: the most well-known example is found in the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Such provisions are evidence of legislative intent to encourage civic participation on behalf of
nonhuman animals. Our law of standing should reflect this intent and its implication that humans are
suitable representatives of the natural environment, which includes nonhuman animals.14 (Emphasis
supplied, citation omitted)
When a court allows guardianship as a basis of representation, animals are considered as similarly
situated as individuals who have enforceable rights but, for a legitimate reason (e.g., cognitive
disability), are unable to bring suit for themselves. They are also similar to entities that by their very
nature are incapable of speaking for themselves (e.g., corporations, states, and others).
In our jurisdiction, persons and entities are recognized both in law and the Rules of Court as having
standing to sue and, therefore, may be properly represented as real parties in interest. The same
cannot be said about animals.
Animals play an important role in households, communities, and the environment. While we, as
humans, may feel the need to nurture and protect them, we cannot go as far as saying we represent
their best interests and can, therefore, speak for them before the courts. As humans, we cannot be
so arrogant as to argue that we know the suffering of animals and that we know what remedy they
need in the face of an injury.
Even in Hogan's discussion, she points out that in a case before the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Animal Lovers Volunteer Ass'n v. Weinberger,15 the court held that
an emotional response to what humans perceive to be an injury inflicted on an animal is not within
the "zone-of-interest" protected by law.16Such sympathy cannot stand independent of or as a
substitute for an actual injury suffered by the claimant.17 The ability to represent animals was further
limited in that case by the need to prove "genuine dedication" to asserting and protecting animal
rights:
What ultimately proved fatal to ALVA 's claim, however, was the court's assertion that standing
doctrine further required ALVA to differentiate its genuine dedication to the humane treatment of
animals from the general disdain for animal cruelty shared by the public at large. In doing so, the
court found ALVA 's asserted organizational injury to be abstract and thus relegated ALVA to the
ranks of the "concerned bystander. "
....
In fact, the opinion in Animal Lovers suggests that such an arrangement is indeed possible. The
court indicated that ALVA might have obtained standing in its own right if it had an established
history of dedication to the cause of the humane treatment of animals. It noted that the Fund for
Animals had standing and indicated that another more well-known advocacy organization might
have had standing as well. The court further concluded that an organization's standing is more than
a derivative of its history, but history is a relevant consideration where organizations are not well-
established prior to commencing legal action. ALVA was not the proper plaintiff because it could not
identify previous activities demonstrating its recognized activism for and commitment to the dispute
independent of its desire to pursue legal action. The court's analysis suggests that a qualified
organization with a demonstrated commitment to a cause could indeed bring suit on behalf of the
speechless in the form of a court-sanctioned guardianship.18(Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
What may be argued as being parallel to this concept of guardianship is the principle of human
stewardship over the environment in a citizen suit under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases. A citizen suit allows any Filipino to act as a representative of a party who has enforceable
rights under environmental laws before Philippine courts, and is defined in Section 5: .
SEC. 5. Citizen suit. - Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or generations
yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon the
filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of the
cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to
intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order
once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays
copies of said order.
There is no valid reason in law or the practical requirements of this case to implead and feign
representation on behalf of animals. To have done so betrays a very anthropocentric view of
environmental advocacy. There is no way that we, humans, can claim to speak for animals let alone
present that they would wish to use our court system, which is designed to ensure that humans
seriously carry their responsibility including ensuring a viable ecology for themselves, which of
course includes compassion for all living things.
Our rules on standing are sufficient and need not be further relaxed.
In Arigo v. Swift,19 I posed the possibility of further reviewing the broad interpretation we have given
to the rule on standing. While representatives are not required to establish direct injury on their part,
they should only be allowed to represent after complying with the following: [I]t is imperative for them
to indicate with certainty the injured parties on whose behalf they bring the suit. Furthermore, the
interest of those they represent must be based upon concrete legal rights. It is not sufficient to draw
out a perceived interest from a general, nebulous idea of a potential "injury."20
I reiterate my position in Arigo v. Swift and in Paje v. Casio21 regarding this rule alongside the
appreciation of legal standing in Oposa v. Factoran22 for environmental cases. In Arigo, I opined that
procedural liberality, especially in cases brought by representatives, should be used with great
caution:
Perhaps it is time to revisit the ruling in Oposa v. Factoran.
That case was significant in that, at that time, there was need to call attention to environmental
concerns in light of emerging international legal principles. While "intergenerational responsibility" is
a noble principle, it should not be used to obtain judgments that would preclude future generations
from making their own assessment based on their actual concerns. The present generation must
restrain itself from assuming that it can speak best for those who will exist at a different time, under a
different set of circumstances. In essence, the unbridled resort to representative suit will inevitably
result in preventing future generations from protecting their own rights and pursuing their own
interests and decisions. It reduces the autonomy of our children and our children 's children. Even
before they are born, we again restricted their ability to make their own arguments.
It is my opinion that, at best, the use of the Oposa doctrine in environmental cases should be
allowed only when a) there is a clear legal basis for the representative suit; b) there are actual
concerns based squarely upon an existing legal right; c) there is no possibility of any countervailing
interests existing within the population represented or those that are yet to be born; and d) there is
an absolute necessity for such standing because there is a threat of catastrophe so imminent that an
immediate protective measure is necessary. Better still, in the light of its costs and risks, we
abandon the precedent all together.23 (Emphasis in the original)
Similarly, in Paje:
A person cannot invoke the court's jurisdiction if he or she has no right or interest to protect. He or
she who invokes the court's jurisdiction must be the "owner of the right sought to be enforced." In
other words, he or she must have a cause of action. An action may be dismissed on the ground of
lack of cause of action if the person who instituted it is not the real party in interest.24 The term
"interest" under the Rules of Court must refer to a material interest that is not merely a curiosity
about or an "interest in the question involved." The interest must be present and substantial. It is not
a mere expectancy or a future, contingent interest.
A person who is not a real party in interest may institute an action if he or she is suing as
representative of a .real party in interest. When an action is prosecuted or defended by a
representative, that representative is not and does not become the real party in interest. The person
represented is deemed the real party in interest. The representative remains to be a third party to the
action instituted on behalf of another.
....
To sue under this rule, two elements must be present: "(a) the suit is brought on behalf of an
identified party whose right has been violated, resulting in some form of damage, and (b) the
representative authorized by law or the Rules of Court to represent the victim."
The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allows filing of a citizen's suit. A citizen's suit under
this rule allows any Filipino citizen to file an action for the enforcement of environmental law on
behalf of minors or generations yet unborn. It is essentially a representative suit that allows persons
who are not real parties in interest to institute actions on behalf of the real party in interest.
The expansion of what constitutes "real party in interest" to include minors and generations yet
unborn is a recognition of this court's ruling in Oposa v. Factoran. This court recognized the capacity
of minors (represented by their parents) to file a class suit on behalf of succeeding generations
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility to ensure the future generation's access to
and enjoyment of [the] country's natural resources.
To allow citizen's suits to enforce environmental rights of others, including future generations, is
dangerous for three reasons:
First, they run the risk of foreclosing arguments of others who are unable to take part in the suit,
putting into. question its representativeness. Second, varying interests may potentially result in
arguments that are bordering on political issues, the resolutions of which do not fall upon this court.
Third, automatically allowing a class or citizen's suit on behalf of minors and generations yet unborn
may result in the oversimplification of what may be a complex issue, especially in light of the
impossibility of determining future generation's true interests on the matter.
In citizen's suits, persons who may have no interest in the case may file suits for others.
Uninterested persons will argue for the persons they represent, and the court will decide based on
their evidence and arguments. Any decision by the court will be binding upon the beneficiaries,
which in this case are the minors and the future generations. The court's decision will be res judicata
upon them and conclusive upon the issues presented.25
The danger in invoking Oposa v. Factoran to justify all kinds of environmental claims lies in its
potential to diminish the value of legitimate environmental rights. Extending the application of "real
party in interest" to the Resident Marine Mammals, or animals in general, through a judicial
pronouncement will potentially result in allowing petitions based on mere concern rather than an
actual enforcement of a right. It is impossible for animals to tell humans what their concerns are. At
best, humans can only surmise the extent of injury inflicted, if there be any. Petitions invoking a right
and seeking legal redress before this court cannot be a product of guesswork, and representatives
have the responsibility to ensure that they bring "reasonably cogent, rational, scientific, well-founded
arguments"26 on behalf of those they represent.
Creative approaches to fundamental problems should be welcome. However, they should be

considered carefully so that no unintended or unwarranted consequences should follow. I concur
with the approach of Madame Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro in her brilliant ponencia as it
carefully narrows down the doctrine in terms of standing. Resident Marine Mammals and the human
petitioners have no legal standing to file any kind of petition.
However, I agree that petitioners in G.R. No. 181527, namely, Central Visayas Fisherfolk
Development Center,. Engarcial, Yanong, and Labid, have standing both as real parties in interest
and as representatives of subsistence fisherfolks of the Municipalities of Aloguinsan and
Pinamungahan, Cebu, and their families, and the present and future generations of Filipinos whose
rights are similarly affected. The activities undertaken under Service Contract 46 (SC-46) directly
affected their source of livelihood, primarily felt through the significant reduction of their fish
harvest.27 The actual, direct, and material damage they suffered, which has potential long-term
effects transcending generations, is a proper subject of a legal suit.
III
In our jurisdiction, there is neither reason nor any legal basis for the concept of implied petitioners,
most especially when the implied petitioner was a sitting President of the Republic of the Philippines.
In G.R. No. 180771, apart from adjudicating unto themselves the status of "legal guardians" of
whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other cetacean species, human petitioners also impleaded Former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as "unwilling co-petitioner" for "her express declaration and
undertaking in the ASEAN Charter to protect Taon Strait."28
No person may implead any other person as a co-plaintiff or co-petitioner without his or her consent.
In our jurisdiction, only when there is a party that should have been a necessary party but was
unwilling to join would there be an allegation as to why that party has been omitted. In Rule 3,
Section 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:
SEC. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. -Whenever in any pleading in which a claim
is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall
state why he is omitted. Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order
the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a
waiver of the claim against such party.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and
the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.29
A party who should have been a plaintiff or petitioner but whose consent cannot be obtained should
be impleaded as a defendant in the nature of an unwilling co-plaintiff under Rule 3, Section 10 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:
SEC. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. - If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff can not
be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint.30
The reason for this rule is plain: Indispensable party plaintiffs who should be part of the action but
who do not consent should be put within the jurisdiction of the court through summons or other court
processes. Petitioners. should not take it upon themselves to simply imp lead any party who does
not consent as a petitioner. This places the unwilling co-petitioner at the risk of being denied due
process.
Besides, Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo cannot be a party to this suit. As a co-equal
constitutional department, we cannot assume that the President needs to enforce policy directions
by suing his or her alter-egos. The procedural situation caused by petitioners may have gained
public attention, but its legal absurdity borders on the contemptuous. The Former President's name
should be stricken out of the title of this case.
IV
I also concur with the conclusion that SC-46 is both. illegal and unconstitutional.
SC-46 is illegal because it violates Republic Act No. 7586 or the National Integrated Protected
Areas System Act of 1992, and Presidential Decree No. 1234,31 which declared Taon Strait as a
protected seascape. It is unconstitutional because it violates the fourth paragraph of Article XII,
Section 2 of the Constitution.
Petitioner Central Visayas Fisherfolk Development Center asserts that SC-46 violated Article XII,
Section 2, paragraph 1 of the .1987 Constitution because Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd.
(JAPEX) is 100% Japanese-owned.32 It further asserts that SC-46 cannot be validly classified as a
technical and financial assistance agreement executed under Article XII, Section 2, paragraph 4 of
the 1987 Constitution.33 Public respondents counter that SC-46 does not fall under the coverage of
paragraph 1, but is a validly executed contract under paragraph 4.34 Public respondents further aver
that SC-46 neither granted exclusive fishing rights to JAPEX nor violated Central Visayas Fisherfolk
Development Center's right to preferential use of communal marine and fishing resources.35
VI
Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution states:
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils,
all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
resources are owned by the State. With the exception. of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources
shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such
activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with
Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned
by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable
for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by
law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and
exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as
well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish-workers in rivers,
lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical
or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law,
based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical
resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this
provision, within thirty days from its execution. (Emphasis supplied)
I agree that fully foreign-owned corporations may participate in the exploration, development, and
use of natural resources, but only through either financial agreements or technical ones. This is the
clear import of the words "either financial or technical assistance agreements." This is also
the clear result if we compare the 1987 constitutional provision with the versions in the 1973 and
1935 Constitution:
1973 CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE XIV
THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND THE PATRIMONY OF THE NATION
SEC. 9. The disposition, exploration, development, of exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural
resources of the Philippines shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or
association at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The Batasang
Pambansa, in the national interest, may allow such citizens, corporations, or associations to enter
into service contracts for financial, technical, management, or other forms of assistance with any
foreign person or entity for the exploitation, development, exploitation, or utilization of any of the
natural resources. Existing valid and binding service contracts for financial, the technical,
management, or other forms of assistance are hereby recognized as such. (Emphasis supplied)
1935 CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE XIII
CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
SECTION 1. All agricultural timber, and mineral. lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, and other natural resources of the
Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be
limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of
the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or
concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution.
Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no
license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural
resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-
five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other
than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and the
limit of the grant.
The clear text of the Constitution in light of its history prevails over any attempt to infer interpretation
from the Constitutional Commission deliberations. The constitutional texts are the product of a full
sovereign act: deliberations in a constituent assembly and ratification. Reliance on recorded
discussion of Constitutional Commissions, on the other hand, may result in dependence on
incomplete authorship; Besides, it opens judicial review to further subjectivity from those who spoke
during the Constitutional Commission deliberations who may not have predicted how their words will
be used. It is safer that we use the words already in the Constitution. The Constitution was their
product. Its words were read by those who ratified it. The Constitution is what society relies upon
even at present.
SC-46 is neither a financial assistance nor a technical assistance agreement.
Even supposing for the sake of argument that it is, it could not be declared valid in light of the
standards set forth in La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos:36
Such service contracts may be entered into only with respect to minerals, petroleum and other
mineral oils. The grant thereof is subject to several safeguards, among which are these
requirements:
(1) The service contract shall be crafted m accordance with a general law that will set
standard or uniform terms, conditions and requirements, presumably to attain a certain
uniformity in provisions and avoid the possible insertion of terms disadvantageous to the
country.
(2) The President shall be the signatory for the government because, supposedly before an
agreement is presented to the President for signature, it will have been vetted several times
over at different levels to ensure that it conforms to law and can withstand public scrutiny.
(3) Within thirty days of the executed agreement, the President shall report it to Congress to
give that branch of government an opportunity to look over the agreement and interpose
timely objections, if any.37 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
Based on the standards pronounced in La Bugal, SC-46' S validity must be tested against three
important points: (a) whether SC-46 was crafted in accordance with a general law that provides
standards, terms, and conditions; (b) whether SC-46 was signed by the President for and on behalf
of the government; and (c) whether it was reported by the President to Congress within 30 days of
execution.
VII
The general law referred to as a possible basis for SC-46's validity is Presidential Decree No. 87 or
the Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972. It is my opinion that this law is unconstitutional in
1wphi1
that it allows service contracts, contrary to Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution:
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical
or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law,
based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical
resources. (Emphasis supplied)
The deletion of service contracts from the enumeration of the kind of agreements the President may
enter into with foreign-owned corporations for exploration and utilization of resources means that
service contracts are no longer allowed by the Constitution. Pursuant to Article XVIII, Section 3 of
the 1987 Constitution,38 this inconsistency renders the law invalid and ineffective.
SC-46 suffers from the lack of a special law allowing its activities. The Main Opinion emphasizes an
important point, which is that SC-46 did not merely involve exploratory activities, but also provided
the rights and obligations of the parties should it be discovered that there is oil in commercial
quantities in the area. The Taon Strait being a protected seascape under Presidential Decree No.
123439 requires that the exploitation and utilization of energy resources from that area are explicitly
covered by a law passed by Congress specifically for that purpose, pursuant to Section 14 of
Republic Act No. 7586 or the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992:
SEC. 14. Survey for Energy R6'sources. - Consistent with the policies declared in Section 2, hereof,
protected areas, except strict nature reserves and natural parks, may be subjected to exploration
only for the purpose of gathering information on energy resources and only if such activity is carried
out with the least damage to surrounding areas. Surveys shall be conducted only in accordance with
a program approved by the DENR, and the result of such surveys shall be made available to the
public and submitted to the President for recommendation to Congress. Any exploitation and
utilization of energy resources found within NIP AS areas shall be allowed only through a law passed
by Congress.40 (Emphasis supplied)
No law was passed by Congress specifically providing the standards, terms, and conditions of an oil
exploration, extraction, and/or utilization for Taon Strait and, therefore, no such activities could
have been validly undertaken under SC-46. The National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of
1992 is clear that exploitation and utilization of energy resources in a protected seascape such as
Taon Strait shall only be allowed through a specific law.
VIII
Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was not the signatory to SC-46, contrary to the
requirement set by paragraph 4 of Article XII, Section 2 for service contracts involving the
exploration of petroleum. SC-46 was entered into by then Department of Energy Secretary Vicente
S. Perez, Jr., on behalf of the government. I agree with the Main Opinion that in cases where the
Constitution or law requires the President to act personally on the matter, the duty cannot be
delegated to another public official.41 La Bugal highlights the importance of the President's
involvement, being one of the constitutional safeguards against abuse and corruption, as not mere
formality:
At this point, we sum up the matters established, based on a careful reading of the ConCom
deliberations, as follows:
In their deliberations on what was to become paragraph 4, the framers used the term
service contracts in referring to agreements x x x involving either technical or financial
assistance. They spoke of service contracts as the concept was understood in the 1973
Constitution.
It was obvious from their discussions that they were not about to ban or eradicate service
contracts.
Instead, they were plainly crafting provisions to. put in place safeguards that would
eliminate or m minimize the abuses prevalent during the marital law regime.42 (Emphasis in
the original)
Public respondents failed to show that. Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was involved in
the signing or execution of SC-46. The failure to comply with this constitutional requirement renders
SC-46 null and void.
IX
Public respondents also failed to show that Congress was subsequently informed of the execution
and existence of SC-46. The reporting requirement is an equally important requisite to the validity of
any service contract involving the exploration, development, and utilization of Philippine petroleum.
Public respondents' failure to report to Congress about SC-46 effectively took away any opportunity
for the legislative branch to scrutinize its terms and conditions.
In sum, SC-46 was executed and implemented absent all the requirements provided under
paragraph 4 of Article XII, Section 2. It is, therefore, null and void.
I am of the view that SC-46, aside from not having complied with the 1987 Constitution, is also null
and void for being violative of environmental laws protecting Taon Strait. In particular, SC-46 was
implemented despite falling short of the requirements of the National Integrated Protected Areas
System Act of 1992.
As a protected seascape under Presidential Decree No. 1234,43 Taon Strait is covered by the
National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992. This law declares as a matter of policy:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. Cognizant of the profound impact of man's activities on all
components of the natural environment particularly the effect of increasing population, resource
exploitation and industrial advancement and recognizing the critical importance of protecting and
maintaining the natural biological and physical diversities of the environment notably on areas with
biologically unique features to sustain human life and development, as well as plant and animal life,
it is hereby declared the policy of the State to secure for the Filipino people of present and future
generations the perpetual existence of all native plants and animals through the establishment of a
comprehensive system of integrated protected areas within the classification of national park as
provided for in the Constitution.
It is hereby recognized that these areas, although distinct in features, possess common ecological
values that may be incorporated into a holistic plan representative of our natural heritage; that
effective administration of these areas is possible only through cooperation among national
government, local and concerned private organizations; that the use and enjoyment of these
protected areas must be consistent with the principles of biological diversity and sustainable
development.
To this end, there is hereby established a National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS),
which shall encompass outstanding remarkable areas and biologically important public lands that
are habitats of rare and endangered species of plants and animals, biogeographic zones and related
ecosystems, whether terrestrial, wetland or marine, all of which shall be designated as "protected
areas."44 (Emphasis supplied)
Pursuant to this law, any proposed activity in Taon Strait must undergo an Environmental Impact
Assessment:
SEC. 12. Environmental Impact Assessment. - Proposals for activities which are outside the scope
of the management plan for protected areas shall be subject to an environmental impact assessment
as required by law before they are adopted, and the results thereof shall be taken into consideration
in the decision-making process.45(Emphasis supplied)
The same provision further requires that an Environmental Compliance Certificate be secured under
the Philippine Environmental Impact Assessment System before arty project is implemented:
No actual implementation of such activities shall be allowed without the required Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) under the Philippine Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) system. In
instances where such activities are allowed to be undertaken, the proponent shall plan and carry
them out in such manner as will minimize any adverse effects and take preventive and remedial
action when appropriate. The proponent shall be liable for any damage due to lack of caution or
indiscretion.46 (Emphasis supplied)
In projects involving the exploration or utilization of energy resources, the National Integrated
Protected Areas System Act of 1992 additionally requires that a program be approved by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which shall be publicly accessible. The program
shall also be submitted to the President, who in turn will recommend the program to Congress.
Furthermore, Congress must enact a law specifically allowing the exploitation of energy resources
found within a protected area such as Taon Strait:
SEC. 14. Survey for Energy Resources. - Consistent with the policies declared in Section 2, hereof,
protected areas, except strict nature reserves and natural parks, may be subjected to exploration
only for the purpose of gathering information on energy resources and only if such activity is carried
out with the least damage to surrounding areas. Surveys shall be conducted only in accordance with
a program approved by the DENR, and the result of such surveys shall be made available to the
public and submitted to the President for recommendation to Congress. Any exploitation and
utilization of energy resources found within NIPAS areas shall be allowed only through a taw passed
by Congress.47 (Emphasis supplied)
Public respondents argue that SC-46 complied with the procedural requirements of obtaining an
Environmental Compliance Certificate.48 At any rate, they assert that the activities covered by SC-46
fell under Section 14 of the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992, which they
interpret to be an exception to Section 12. They argue that the Environmental Compliance Certificate
is not a strict requirement for the validity of SC-46 since (a) the Taon Strait is not a nature' reserve
or natural park; (b) the exploration was merely for gathering information; and ( c) measures were in
place to ensure that the exploration caused the least possible damage to the area.49
Section 14 is not an exception to Section 12, but instead provides additional requirements for cases
involving Philippine energy resources. The National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992
was enacted to recognize the importance of protecting the environment in light of resource
exploitation, among others.50 Systems are put in place to secure for Filipinos local resources under
the most favorable conditions. With the status of Taon Strait as a protected seascape, the
institution of additional legal safeguards is even more significant.
Public respondents did not validly obtain an Environmental Compliance Certificate for SC-46. Based
on the records, JAPEX commissioned an environmental impact evaluation only in the second
subphase of its project, with the Environmental Management .Bureau of Region
VII granting the project an Environmental Compliance Certificate on March 6, 2007.51
Despite its scale, the seismic surveys from May 9 to 18, 2005 were conducted without any
environmental assessment contrary to Section 12 of the National Integrated Protected Areas System
Act of 1992.
XI
Finally, we honor every living creature when we take care of our environment. As sentient species,
we do not lack in the wisdom or sensitivity to realize that we only borrow the resources that we use
to survive and to thrive. We are not incapable of mitigating the greed that is slowly causing the
demise of our planet. Thus, there is no need for us to feign representation of any other species or
some imagined unborn generation in filing any action in our courts of law to claim any of our
fundamental rights to a healthful ecology. In this way and with candor and courage, we fully shoulder
the responsibility deserving of the grace and power endowed on our species.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote:
(a) to DISMISS G.R. No. 180771 for lack of standing and STRIKE OUT the name of Former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from the title of this case;
(b) to GRANT G.R. No. 181527; and
(c) to DECLARE SERVICE CONTRACT 46 NULL AND VOID for violating the 1987
Constitution, Republic Act No. 7586, and Presidential Decree No. 1234.
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 206510 September 16, 2014
MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO, Vicar Apostolic of Puerto Princesa D.D.; MOST REV.
DEOGRACIAS S. INIGUEZ, JR., Bishop-Emeritus of Caloocan, FRANCES Q. QUIMPO,
CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, JR., Kalikasan-PNE, MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, RENATO M.
REYES, JR., Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, HON. NERI JAVIER COLMENARES, Bayan Muna
Partylist, ROLAND G. SIMBULAN, PH.D., Junk VF A Movement, TERESITA R. PEREZ, PH.D.,
HON. RAYMOND V. PALATINO, Kabataan Party-list, PETER SJ. GONZALES, Pamalakaya,
GIOVANNI A. TAPANG, PH. D., Agham, ELMER C. LABOG, Kilusang Mayo Uno, JOAN MAY E.
SALVADOR, Gabriela, JOSE ENRIQUE A. AFRICA, THERESA A. CONCEPCION, MARY JOAN
A. GUAN, NESTOR T. BAGUINON, PH.D., A. EDSEL F. TUPAZ, Petitioners,
vs.
SCOTT H. SWIFT in his capacity as Commander of the US. 7th Fleet, MARK A. RICE in his
capacity as Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian, PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III in
his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, HON. ALBERT F.
DEL ROSARIO, Secretary, pepartment of Foreign Affair.s, HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, JR.,
Executiv~.:Secretary, Office of the President, . HON. VOLTAIRE T. GAZMIN, Secretary,
Department of National Defense, HON. RAMON JESUS P. P AJE, Secretary, Department of
Environment and Natural Resoz!rces, VICE ADMIRAL JOSE LUIS M. ALANO, Philippine Navy
Flag Officer in Command, Armed Forces of the Philippines, ADMIRAL RODOLFO D. ISO
RENA, Commandant, Philippine Coast Guard, COMMODORE ENRICO EFREN EVANGELISTA,
Philippine Coast Guard Palawan, MAJOR GEN. VIRGILIO 0. DOMINGO, Commandant of
Armed Forces of the Philippines Command and LT. GEN. TERRY G. ROBLING, US Marine
Corps Forces. Pacific and Balikatan 2013 Exercise Co-Director, Respondents.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR, J.:
Before us is a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer for the issuance of a
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise
known as the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules), involving violations of
environmental laws and regulations in relation to the grounding of the US military ship USS Guardian
over the Tubbataha Reefs.
Factual Background
The name "Tubbataha" came from the Samal (seafaring people of southern Philippines) language
which means "long reef exposed at low tide." Tubbataha is composed of two huge coral atolls - the
north atoll and the south atoll - and the Jessie Beazley Reef, a smaller coral structure about 20
kilometers north of the atolls. The reefs of Tubbataha and Jessie Beazley are considered part of
Cagayancillo, a remote island municipality of Palawan.1
In 1988, Tubbataha was declared a National Marine Park by virtue of Proclamation No. 306 issued
by President Corazon C. Aquino on August 11, 1988. Located in the middle of Central Sulu Sea, 150
kilometers southeast of Puerto Princesa City, Tubbataha lies at the heart of the Coral Triangle, the
global center of marine biodiversity.
In 1993, Tubbataha was inscribed by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) as a World Heritage Site. It was recognized as one of the Philippines'
oldest ecosystems, containing excellent examples of pristine reefs and a high diversity of marine life.
The 97,030-hectare protected marine park is also an important habitat for internationally threatened
and endangered marine species. UNESCO cited Tubbataha's outstanding universal value as an
important and significant natural habitat for in situ conservation of biological diversity; an example
representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes; and an area of exceptional
natural beauty and aesthetic importance.2
On April 6, 2010, Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067,3 otherwise known as the
"Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009" "to ensure the protection and conservation of
the globally significant economic, biological, sociocultural, educational and scientific values of the
Tubbataha Reefs into perpetuity for the enjoyment of present and future generations." Under the
"no-take" policy, entry into the waters of TRNP is strictly regulated and many human activities are
prohibited and penalized or fined, including fishing, gathering, destroying and disturbing the
resources within the TRNP. The law likewise created the Tubbataha Protected Area Management
Board (TPAMB) which shall be the sole policy-making and permit-granting body of the TRNP.
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."4 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. 1w phi 1
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 cine was injured in the incident, and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.
On January 20, 2013, U.S. 7th Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Scott Swift, expressed regret for the
incident in a press statement.5 Likewise, US Ambassador to the Philippines Harry K. Thomas, Jr., in
a meeting at the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on February 4, "reiterated his regrets over the
grounding incident and assured Foreign Affairs Secretazy Albert F. del Rosario that the United
States will provide appropriate compensation for damage to the reef caused by the ship."6 By March
30, 2013, the US Navy-led salvage team had finished removing the last piece of the grounded ship
from the coral reef.
On April 1 7, 2013, the above-named petitioners on their behalf and in representation of their
respective sector/organization and others, including minors or generations yet unborn, filed the
present petition agairtst Scott H. Swift in his capacity as Commander of the US 7th Fleet, Mark A.
Rice in his capacity as Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian and Lt. Gen. Terry G. Robling, US
Marine Corps Forces, Pacific and Balikatan 2013 Exercises Co-Director ("US respondents");
President Benigno S. Aquino III in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), DF A Secretary Albert F. Del Rosario, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr.,
Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin (Department of National Defense), Secretary Jesus P. Paje
(Department of Environment and Natural Resources), Vice-Admiral Jose Luis M. Alano (Philippine
Navy Flag Officer in Command, AFP), Admiral Rodolfo D. Isorena (Philippine Coast Guard
Commandant), Commodore Enrico Efren Evangelista (Philippine Coast Guard-Palawan), and Major
General Virgilio 0. Domingo (AFP Commandant), collectively the "Philippine respondents."
The Petition
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 Tawi-Tawi, which events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced
and healthful ecology. They also seek a directive from this Court for the institution of civil,
administrative and criminal suits for acts committed in violation of environmental laws and
regulations in connection with the grounding incident.
Specifically, petitioners cite the following violations committed by US respondents under R.A. No.
10067: unauthorized entry (Section 19); non-payment of conservation fees (Section 21 ); obstruction
of law enforcement officer (Section 30); damages to the reef (Section 20); and destroying and
disturbing resources (Section 26[g]). Furthermore, petitioners assail certain provisions of the Visiting
Forces Agreement (VFA) which they want this Court to nullify for being unconstitutional.
The numerous reliefs sought in this case are set forth in the final prayer of the petition, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Petitioners respectfully pray that the Honorable Court: 1.
Immediately issue upon the filing of this petition a Temporary Environmental Protection Order
(TEPO) and/or a Writ of Kalikasan, which shall, in particular,
a. Order Respondents and any person acting on their behalf, to cease and desist all
operations over the Guardian grounding incident;
b. Initially demarcating the metes and bounds of the damaged area as well as an additional
buffer zone;
c. Order Respondents to stop all port calls and war games under 'Balikatan' because of the
absence of clear guidelines, duties, and liability schemes for breaches of those duties, and
require Respondents to assume responsibility for prior and future environmental damage in
general, and environmental damage under the Visiting Forces Agreement in particular.
d. Temporarily define and describe allowable activities of ecotourism, diving, recreation, and
limited commercial activities by fisherfolk and indigenous communities near or around the
TRNP but away from the damaged site and an additional buffer zone;
2. After summary hearing, issue a Resolution extending the TEPO until further orders of the
Court;
3. After due proceedings, render a Decision which shall include, without limitation:
a. Order Respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs, following the dispositive portion of

Nicolas v. Romulo, "to forthwith negotiate with the United States representatives for the
appropriate agreement on [environmental guidelines and environmental accountability] under
Philippine authorities as provided in Art. V[] of the VFA ... "
b. Direct Respondents and appropriate agencies to commence administrative, civil, and

criminal proceedings against erring officers and individuals to the full extent of the law, and to
make such proceedings public;
c. Declare that Philippine authorities may exercise primary and exclusive criminal jurisdiction
over erring U.S. personnel under the circumstances of this case;
d. Require Respondents to pay just and reasonable compensation in the settlement of all
meritorious claims for damages caused to the Tubbataha Reef on terms and conditions no
less severe than those applicable to other States, and damages for personal injury or death,
if such had been the case;
e. Direct Respondents to cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and in the
collection and production of evidence, including seizure and delivery of objects connected
with the offenses related to the grounding of the Guardian;
f. Require the authorities of the Philippines and the United States to notify each other of the
disposition of all cases, wherever heard, related to the grounding of the Guardian;
g. Restrain Respondents from proceeding with any purported restoration, repair, salvage or
post salvage plan or plans, including cleanup plans covering the damaged area of the
Tubbataha Reef absent a just settlement approved by the Honorable Court;
h. Require Respondents to engage in stakeholder and LOU consultations in accordance with
the Local Government Code and R.A. 10067;
i. Require Respondent US officials and their representatives to place a deposit to the TRNP
Trust Fund defined under Section 17 of RA 10067 as a bona .fide gesture towards full
reparations;
j. Direct Respondents to undertake measures to rehabilitate the areas affected by the

grounding of the Guardian in light of Respondents' experience in the Port Royale grounding
in 2009, among other similar grounding incidents;
k. Require Respondents to regularly publish on a quarterly basis and in the name of

transparency and accountability such environmental damage assessment, valuation, and
valuation methods, in all stages of negotiation;
l. Convene a multisectoral technical working group to provide scientific and technical support
to the TPAMB;
m. Order the Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of National Defense, and the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources to review the Visiting Forces Agreement
and the Mutual Defense Treaty to consider whether their provisions allow for the exercise of
erga omnes rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and for damages which follow from
any violation of those rights;
n. Narrowly tailor the provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement for purposes of protecting
the damaged areas of TRNP;
o. Declare the grant of immunity found in Article V ("Criminal Jurisdiction") and Article VI of
the Visiting Forces Agreement unconstitutional for violating equal protection and/or for
violating the preemptory norm of nondiscrimination incorporated as part of the law of the land
under Section 2, Article II, of the Philippine Constitution;
p. Allow for continuing discovery measures;
q. Supervise marine wildlife rehabilitation in the Tubbataha Reefs in all other respects; and
4. Provide just and equitable environmental rehabilitation measures and such other reliefs as
are just and equitable under the premises.7 (Underscoring supplied.)
Since only the Philippine respondents filed their comment8 to the petition, petitioners also filed a
motion for early resolution and motion to proceed ex parte against the US respondents.9
Respondents' Consolidated Comment
In their consolidated comment with opposition to the application for a TEPO and ocular inspection
and production orders, respondents assert that: ( 1) the grounds relied upon for the issuance of a
TEPO or writ of Kalikasan have become fait accompli as the salvage operations on the USS
Guardian were already completed; (2) the petition is defective in form and substance; (3) the petition
improperly raises issues involving the VFA between the Republic of the Philippines and the United
States of America; and ( 4) the determination of the extent of responsibility of the US Government as
regards the damage to the Tubbataha Reefs rests exdusively with the executive branch.
The Court's Ruling
As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute on the legal standing of petitioners to file the present
petition.
Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."10 Specifically, it is "a
party's 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."11 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.12
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,13 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
1wphi1
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.14
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. Thus:
Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We
find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the
succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding
generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right
to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers
the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and
harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal
and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and
other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably
accessible to the present a:: well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a
responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full 1:njoyment of a balanced
and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the
protection of that right for the generations to come.15 (Emphasis supplied.)
The liberalization of standing first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to minors and generations
yet unborn, is now enshrined in the Rules which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental
cases. The provision on citizen suits in the Rules "collapses the traditional rule on personal and
direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature."16
Having settled the issue of locus standi, we shall address the more fundamental question of whether
this Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not submit any pleading or manifestation
in this case.
The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-
suability of the State,17is expressly provided in Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution which states:
Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
In United States of America v. Judge Guinto,18 we discussed the principle of state immunity from suit,
as follows:
The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now expressed in Article XVI, Section 3,
of the 1987 Constitution, is one of the generally accepted principles of international law that we have
adopted as part of the law of our land under Article II, Section 2. x x x.
Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted principles of
international law under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, as accepted by the majority
of states, such principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition
and consequence of its membership in the society of nations. Upon its admission to such society,
the state is automatically obligated to comply with these principles in its relations with other states.
As applied to the local state, the doctrine of state immunity is based on the justification given by
Justice Holmes that ''there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which
the right depends." [Kawanakoa v. Polybank, 205 U.S. 349] There are other practical reasons for the
enforcement of the doctrine. In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local
jurisdiction, the added inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. All
states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A contrary disposition
would, in the language of a celebrated case, "unduly vex the peace of nations." [De Haber v. Queen
of Portugal, 17 Q. B. 171]
While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also
applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the
discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state
itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same,. such as the appropriation of the amount
needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state
itself although it has not been formally impleaded. [Garcia v. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120] In such a
situation, the state may move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has been filed without its
consent.19 (Emphasis supplied.)
Under the American Constitution, the doctrine is expressed in the Eleventh Amendment which
reads:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by
Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
In the case of Minucher v. Court of Appeals,20 we further expounded on the immunity of foreign
states from the jurisdiction of local courts, as follows:
The precept that a State cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state is a long-standing rule of
customary international law then closely identified with the personal immunity of a foreign sovereign
from suit and, with the emergence of democratic states, made to attach not just to the person of the
head of state, or his representative, but also distinctly to the state itself in its sovereign capacity. If
the acts giving rise to a suit arc those of a foreign government done by its foreign agent, although
not necessarily a diplomatic personage, but acting in his official capacity, the complaint could be
barred by the immunity of the foreign sovereign from suit without its consent. Suing a representative
of a state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state itself. The proscription is not accorded for the
benefit of an individual but for the State, in whose service he is, under the maxim -par in parem, non
habet imperium -that all states are soverr~ign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one
another. The implication, in broad terms, is that if the judgment against an official would require the
state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the award, such as the appropriation of the amount
needed to pay the damages decreed against him, the suit must be regarded as being against the
state itself, although it has not been formally impleaded.21 (Emphasis supplied.)
In the same case we also mentioned that in the case of diplomatic immunity, the privilege is not an
immunity from the observance of the law of the territorial sovereign or from ensuing legal liability; it
is, rather, an immunity from the exercise of territorial jurisdiction.22
In United States of America v. Judge Guinto,23 one of the consolidated cases therein involved a
Filipino employed at Clark Air Base who was arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted by
two officers of the US Air Force, and was eventually dismissed from his employment when he was
charged in court for violation of R.A. No. 6425. In a complaint for damages filed by the said
employee against the military officers, the latter moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the
suit was against the US Government which had not given its consent. The RTC denied the motion
but on a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed before this Court, we reversed the RTC and
dismissed the complaint. We held that petitioners US military officers were acting in the exercise of
their official functions when they conducted the buy-bust operation against the complainant and
thereafter testified against him at his trial. It follows that for discharging their duties as agents of the
United States, they cannot be directly impleaded for acts imputable to their principal, which has not
given its consent to be sued.
This traditional rule of State immunity which exempts a State from being sued in the courts of
another State without the former's consent or waiver has evolved into a restrictive doctrine which
distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts (Jure imperil") from private, commercial and
proprietary acts (Jure gestionis). Under the restrictive rule of State immunity, State immunity extends
only to acts Jure imperii. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the
proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities
or economic affairs.24
In Shauf v. Court of Appeals,25 we discussed the limitations of the State immunity principle, thus:
It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts
contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff. As was clearly set forth by JustiGe Zaldivar in
Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications, et al. vs. Aligaen, etc., et al. : "Inasmuch as the State
authorizes only legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not
acts of the State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been
invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within
the rule of immunity of the State from suit. In the same tenor, it has been said that an action at law or
suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State department on the ground that, while
claiming to act for the State, he violates or invades the personal and property rights of the plaintiff,
under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not have, is not a
suit against the State within the constitutional provision that the State may not be sued without its
consent." The rationale for this ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice.
xxxx
The aforecited authorities are clear on the matter. They state that the doctrine of immunity from suit
will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official is being sued in his private and
personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of
the government is removed the moment they are sued in their individual capacity. This situation
usually arises where the public official acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in
him. It is a well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private
capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith, or
beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.26 (Emphasis supplied.) In this case, 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 we:re
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 latter's internal waters and the
territorial sea.
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, as can be gleaned from previous declarations by former
Presidents Reagan and Clinton, and the US judiciary in the case of United States v. Royal
Caribbean Cruise Lines, Ltd.27
The international law of the sea is generally defined as "a body of treaty rules arid customary norms
governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its resources, and the exercise of jurisdiction over
maritime regimes. It is a branch of public international law, regulating the relations of states with
respect to the uses of the oceans."28 The UNCLOS is a multilateral treaty which was opened for
signature on December 10, 1982 at Montego Bay, Jamaica. It was ratified by the Philippines in 1984
but came into force on November 16, 1994 upon the submission of the 60th ratification.
The UNCLOS is a product of international negotiation that seeks to balance State sovereignty (mare
clausum) and the principle of freedom of the high seas (mare liberum).29 The freedom to use the
world's marine waters is one of the oldest customary principles of international law.30 The UNCLOS
gives to the coastal State sovereign rights in varying degrees over the different zones of the sea
which are: 1) internal waters, 2) territorial sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive economic zone, and
5) the high seas. It also gives coastal States more or less jurisdiction over foreign vessels depending
on where the vessel is located.31
Insofar as the internal waters and territorial sea is concerned, the Coastal State exercises
sovereignty, subject to the UNCLOS and other rules of international law. Such sovereignty extends
to the air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil.32
In the case of warships,33 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 non-commercial 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. (Emphasis supplied.) A foreign warship's 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?
An overwhelming majority - over 80% -- of nation states are now members of UNCLOS, but despite
this the US, the world's leading maritime power, has not ratified it.
While the Reagan administration was instrumental in UNCLOS' negotiation and drafting, the U.S.
delegation ultimately voted against and refrained from signing it due to concerns over deep seabed
mining technology transfer provisions contained in Part XI. In a remarkable, multilateral effort to
induce U.S. membership, the bulk of UNCLOS member states cooperated over the succeeding
decade to revise the objection.able provisions. The revisions satisfied the Clinton administration,
which signed the revised Part XI implementing agreement in 1994. In the fall of 1994, President
Clinton transmitted UNCLOS and the Part XI implementing agreement to the Senate requesting its
advice and consent. Despite consistent support from President Clinton, each of his successors, and
an ideologically diverse array of stakeholders, the Senate has since withheld the consent required
for the President to internationally bind the United States to UNCLOS.
While UNCLOS cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) during the 108th and
110th Congresses, its progress continues to be hamstrung by significant pockets of political
ambivalence over U.S. participation in international institutions. Most recently, 111 th Congress
SFRC Chairman Senator John Kerry included "voting out" UNCLOS for full Senate consideration
among his highest priorities. This did not occur, and no Senate action has been taken on UNCLOS
by the 112th Congress.34
Justice Carpio invited our attention to the policy statement given by President Reagan on March 10,
1983 that the US will "recognize the rights of the other , states in the waters off their coasts, as
reflected in the convention [UNCLOS], so long as the rights and freedom of the United States and
others under international law are recognized by such coastal states", and President Clinton's
reiteration of the US policy "to act in a manner consistent with its [UNCLOS] provisions relating to
traditional uses of the oceans and to encourage other countries to do likewise." Since Article 31
relates to the "traditional uses of the oceans," and "if under its policy, the US 'recognize[s] the rights
of the other states in the waters off their coasts,"' Justice Carpio postulates that "there is more
reason to expect it to recognize the rights of other states in their internal waters, such as the Sulu
Sea in this case."
As to the non-ratification by the US, Justice Carpio emphasizes that "the US' refusal to join the UN
CLOS was centered on its disagreement with UN CLOS' 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."
It may be mentioned that even the US Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps publicly endorses the
ratification of the UNCLOS, as shown by the following statement posted on its official website:
The Convention is in the national interest of the United States because it establishes stable maritime
zones, including a maximum outer limit for territorial seas; codifies innocent passage, transit
passage, and archipelagic sea lanes passage rights; works against "jurisdictiomtl creep" by
preventing coastal nations from expanding their own maritime zones; and reaffirms sovereign
immunity of warships, auxiliaries anJ government aircraft.
xxxx
Economically, accession to the Convention would support our national interests by enhancing the
ability of the US to assert its sovereign rights over the resources of one of the largest continental
shelves in the world. Further, it is the Law of the Sea Convention that first established the concept of
a maritime Exclusive Economic Zone out to 200 nautical miles, and recognized the rights of coastal
states to conserve and manage the natural resources in this Zone.35
We fully concur with Justice Carpio's 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 country's 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, viz:
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.latter's territorial sea, the flag States shall be required to leave the territorial '::;ea
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 non-commercial
purposes under Article 31.
Petitioners argue that there is a waiver of immunity from suit found in the VFA. Likewise, they invoke
federal statutes in the US under which agencies of the US have statutorily waived their immunity to
any action. Even under the common law tort claims, petitioners asseverate that the US respondents
are liable for negligence, trespass and nuisance.
We are not persuaded.
The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops and personnel visiting
the Philippines to promote "common security interests" between the US and the Philippines in the
region. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military personnel, and further defines
the rights of the United States and the Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction,
movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and
supplies.36 The invocation of US federal tort laws and even common law is thus improper considering
that it is the VF A which governs disputes involving US military ships and crew navigating Philippine
waters in pursuance of the objectives of the agreement.
As it is, 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:
SEC. 17. Institution of separate actions.-The filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of
kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or administrative actions.
In any case, it is our considered view that a ruling on the application or non-application of criminal
jurisdiction provisions of the VF A 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. We also find it 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.37
Section 15, Rule 7 enumerates the reliefs which may be granted in a petition for issuance of a writ of
Kalikasan, to wit:
SEC. 15. Judgment.-Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision, the
court shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.
The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:
(a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts or neglecting
the performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental
destruction or damage;
(b) Directing the respondent public official, govemment agency, private person or entity to
protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;
(c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity to
monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders of the court;
(d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private person or entity to
make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment; and
(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment,
except the award of damages to individual petitioners. (Emphasis supplied.)
We agree with respondents (Philippine officials) in asserting that this petition has become moot in
the sense that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or restrained had already been
accomplished when petitioners sought recourse from this Court. But insofar as the directives to
Philippine respondents to protect and rehabilitate the coral reef stn icture and marine habitat
adversely affected by the grounding incident are concerned, petitioners are entitled to these reliefs
notwithstanding the completion of the removal of the USS Guardian from the coral reef. However,
we are mindful of the fact that the US and Philippine governments both expressed readiness to
negotiate and discuss the matter of compensation for the damage caused by the USS Guardian.
The US Embassy has also declared it is closely coordinating with local scientists and experts in
assessing the extent of the damage and appropriate methods of rehabilitation.
Exploring avenues for settlement of environmental cases is not proscribed by the Rules. As can be
gleaned from the following provisions, mediation and settlement are available for the consideration
of the parties, and which dispute resolution methods are encouraged by the court, to wit:
RULE3
xxxx
SEC. 3. Referral to mediation.-At the start of the pre-trial conference, the court shall inquire from the
parties if they have settled the dispute; otherwise, the court shall immediately refer the parties or
their counsel, if authorized by their clients, to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit for
purposes of mediation. If not available, the court shall refer the case to the clerk of court or legal
researcher for mediation.
Mediation must be conducted within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of notice
of referral to mediation.
The mediation report must be submitted within ten (10) days from the expiration of the 30-day
period.
SEC. 4. Preliminary conference.-If mediation fails, the court will schedule the continuance of the pre-
trial. Before the scheduled date of continuance, the court may refer the case to the branch clerk of
court for a preliminary conference for the following purposes:
(a) To assist the parties in reaching a settlement;
xxxx
SEC. 5. Pre-trial conference; consent decree.-The judge shall put the parties and their counsels
under oath, and they shall remain under oath in all pre-trial conferences.
The judge shall exert best efforts to persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement of the dispute. The
judge may issue a consent decree approving the agreement between the parties in accordance with
law, morals, public order and public policy to protect the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology.
xxxx
SEC. 10. Efforts to settle.- The court shall endeavor to make the parties to agree to compromise or
settle in accordance with law at any stage of the proceedings before rendition of judgment.
(Underscoring supplied.)
The Court takes judicial notice of a similar incident in 2009 when a guided-missile cruiser, the USS
Port Royal, ran aground about half a mile off the Honolulu Airport Reef Runway and remained stuck
for four days. After spending $6.5 million restoring the coral reef, the US government was reported to
have paid the State of Hawaii $8.5 million in settlement over coral reef damage caused by the
grounding.38
To underscore that the US government is prepared to pay appropriate compensation for the damage
caused by the USS Guardian grounding, the US Embassy in the Philippines has announced the
formation of a US interdisciplinary scientific team which will "initiate discussions with the Government
of the Philippines to review coral reef rehabilitation options in Tubbataha, based on assessments by
Philippine-based marine scientists." The US team intends to "help assess damage and remediation
options, in coordination with the Tubbataha Management Office, appropriate Philippine government
entities, non-governmental organizations, and scientific experts from Philippine universities."39
A rehabilitation or restoration program to be implemented at the cost of the violator is also a major
relief that may be obtained under a judgment rendered in a citizens' suit under the Rules, viz:
RULES
SECTION 1. Reliefs in a citizen suit.-If warranted, the court may grant to the plaintiff proper reliefs
which shall include the protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the environment and the payment
of attorney's fees, costs of suit and other litigation expenses. It may also require the violator to
submit a program of rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, the costs of which shall be
borne by the violator, or to contribute to a special trust fund for that purpose subject to the control of
the court.1w phi 1
In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of compensation
and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels. Resolution of these issues impinges on
our relations with another State in the context of common security interests under the VFA. It is
settled that "[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution
to the executive and legislative-"the political" --departments of the government, and the propriety of
what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision."40
On the other hand, we cannot grant the additional reliefs prayed for in the petition to order a review
of the VFA and to nullify certain immunity provisions thereof.
As held in BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Exec. Sec. Zamora,41 the VFA was duly
concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as
attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the United States government. The VF
A being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of international law to
abide by its terms and provisions.42 The present petition under the Rules is not the proper remedy to
assail the constitutionality of its provisions. WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of the
privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 158290 October 23, 2006
HILARION M. HENARES, JR., VICTOR C. AGUSTIN, ALFREDO L. HENARES, DANIEL L.

HENARES, ENRIQUE BELO HENARES, and CRISTINA BELO HENARES, petitioners,
vs.
LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD and DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, respondents.
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J.:
Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation
and Communications (DOTC) to require public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed natural gas
(CNG) as alternative fuel.
Citing statistics from the Metro Manila Transportation and Traffic Situation Study of 1996,1 the
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the National Capital Region,2 a study of the Asian
Development Bank,3 the Manila Observatory4 and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources5 (DENR) on the high growth and low turnover in vehicle ownership in the Philippines,
including diesel-powered vehicles, two-stroke engine powered motorcycles and their concomitant
emission of air pollutants, petitioners attempt to present a compelling case for judicial action against
the bane of air pollution and related environmental hazards.
Petitioners allege that the particulate matters (PM) complex mixtures of dust, dirt, smoke, and
liquid droplets, varying in sizes and compositions emitted into the air from various engine
combustions have caused detrimental effects on health, productivity, infrastructure and the overall
quality of life. Petitioners particularly cite the effects of certain fuel emissions from engine
combustion when these react to other pollutants. For instance, petitioners aver, with hydrocarbons,
oxide of nitrogen (NOx) creates smog; with sulfur dioxide, it creates acid rain; and with ammonia,
moisture and other compounds, it reacts to form nitric acid and harmful nitrates. Fuel emissions also
cause retardation and leaf bleaching in plants. According to petitioner, another emission, carbon
monoxide (CO), when not completely burned but emitted into the atmosphere and then inhaled can
disrupt the necessary oxygen in blood. With prolonged exposure, CO affects the nervous system
and can be lethal to people with weak hearts.6
Petitioners add that although much of the new power generated in the country will use natural gas
while a number of oil and coal-fired fuel stations are being phased-out, still with the projected
doubling of power generation over the next 10 years, and with the continuing high demand for motor
vehicles, the energy and transport sectors are likely to remain the major sources of harmful
emissions. Petitioners refer us to the study of the Philippine Environment Monitor 20027, stating that
in four of the country's major cities, Metro Manila, Davao, Cebu and Baguio, the exposure to PM10, a
finer PM which can penetrate deep into the lungs causing serious health problems, is estimated at
over US$430 million.8 The study also reports that the emissions of PMs have caused the following:
Over 2,000 people die prematurely. This loss is valued at about US$140 million.
Over 9,000 people suffer from chronic bronchitis, which is valued at about US$120 million.
Nearly 51 million cases of respiratory symptom days in Metro Manila (averaging twice a
year in Davao and Cebu, and five to six times in Metro Manila and Baguio), costs about
US$170 million. This is a 70 percent increase, over a decade, when compared with the
findings of a similar study done in 1992 for Metro Manila, which reported 33 million cases.9
Petitioners likewise cite the University of the Philippines' studies in 1990-91 and 1994 showing that
vehicular emissions in Metro Manila have resulted to the prevalence of chronic obstructive
pulmonary diseases (COPD); that pulmonary tuberculosis is highest among jeepney drivers; and
there is a 4.8 to 27.5 percent prevalence of respiratory symptoms among school children and 15.8 to
40.6 percent among child vendors. The studies also revealed that the children in Metro Manila
showed more compromised pulmonary function than their rural counterparts. Petitioners infer that
these are mostly due to the emissions of PUVs.
To counter the aforementioned detrimental effects of emissions from PUVs, petitioners propose the
use of CNG. According to petitioners, CNG is a natural gas comprised mostly of methane which
although containing small amounts of propane and butane,10 is colorless and odorless and
considered the cleanest fossil fuel because it produces much less pollutants than coal and
petroleum; produces up to 90 percent less CO compared to gasoline and diesel fuel; reduces
NOx emissions by 50 percent and cuts hydrocarbon emissions by half; emits 60 percent less PMs;
and releases virtually no sulfur dioxide. Although, according to petitioners, the only drawback of
CNG is that it produces more methane, one of the gases blamed for global warming.11
Asserting their right to clean air, petitioners contend that the bases for their petition for a writ of
mandamus to order the LTFRB to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel, lie in Section
16,12 Article II of the 1987 Constitution, our ruling in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,13 and Section 414 of
Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999."
Meantime, following a subsequent motion, the Court granted petitioners' motion to implead the
Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) as additional respondent.
In his Comment for respondents LTFRB and DOTC, the Solicitor General, cites Section 3, Rule 65 of
the Revised Rules of Court and explains that the writ of mandamus is not the correct remedy since
the writ may be issued only to command a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do an act that is
required to be done, when he or it unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or unlawfully excludes another
from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, there being no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.15 Further citing existing
jurisprudence, the Solicitor General explains that in contrast to a discretionary act, a ministerial act,
which a mandamus is, is one in which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a
prescribed manner, in obedience to a mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of
his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of an act done.
The Solicitor General also notes that nothing in Rep. Act No. 8749 that petitioners invoke, prohibits
the use of gasoline and diesel by owners of motor vehicles. Sadly too, according to the Solicitor
General, Rep. Act No. 8749 does not even mention the existence of CNG as alternative fuel and
avers that unless this law is amended to provide CNG as alternative fuel for PUVs, the respondents
cannot propose that PUVs use CNG as alternative fuel.
The Solicitor General also adds that it is the DENR that is tasked to implement Rep. Act No. 8749
and not the LTFRB nor the DOTC. Moreover, he says, it is the Department of Energy (DOE), under
Section 2616 of Rep. Act No. 8749, that is required to set the specifications for all types of fuel and
fuel-related products to improve fuel compositions for improved efficiency and reduced emissions.
He adds that under Section 2117 of the cited Republic Act, the DOTC is limited to implementing the
emission standards for motor vehicles, and the herein respondents cannot alter, change or modify
the emission standards. The Solicitor General opines that the Court should declare the instant
petition for mandamus without merit.
Petitioners, in their Reply, insist that the respondents possess the administrative and regulatory
powers to implement measures in accordance with the policies and principles mandated by Rep. Act
No. 8749, specifically Section 218 and Section 21.19 Petitioners state that under these laws and with
all the available information provided by the DOE on the benefits of CNG, respondents cannot ignore
the existence of CNG, and their failure to recognize CNG and compel its use by PUVs as alternative
fuel while air pollution brought about by the emissions of gasoline and diesel endanger the
environment and the people, is tantamount to neglect in the performance of a duty which the law
enjoins.
Lastly, petitioners aver that other than the writ applied for, they have no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioners insist that the writ in fact should be
issued pursuant to the very same Section 3, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court that the Solicitor
General invokes.
In their Memorandum, petitioners phrase the issues before us as follows:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS HAVE THE PERSONALITY TO BRING THE

PRESENT ACTION
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT ACTION IS SUPPORTED BY LAW
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE TO

IMPLEMENT THE SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE OF REQUIRING PUBLIC UTILITY
VEHICLES TO USE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG)
IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT CAN BE COMPELLED TO REQUIRE PUBLIC

UTILITY VEHICLES TO USE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS THROUGH A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS20
Briefly put, the issues are two-fold. First, Do petitioners have legal personality to bring this petition
before us? Second, Should mandamus issue against respondents to compel PUVs to use CNG as
alternative fuel?
According to petitioners, Section 16,21 Article II of the 1987 Constitution is the policy statement that
bestows on the people the right to breathe clean air in a healthy environment. This policy is
enunciated in Oposa.22 The implementation of this policy is articulated in Rep. Act No. 8749. These,
according to petitioners, are the bases for their standing to file the instant petition. They aver that
when there is an omission by the government to safeguard a right, in this case their right to clean air,
then, the citizens can resort to and exhaust all remedies to challenge this omission by the
government. This, they say, is embodied in Section 423 of Rep. Act No. 8749.
Petitioners insist that since it is the LTFRB and the DOTC that are the government agencies clothed
with power to regulate and control motor vehicles, particularly PUVs, and with the same agencies'
awareness and knowledge that the PUVs emit dangerous levels of air pollutants, then, the
responsibility to see that these are curbed falls under respondents' functions and a writ of
mandamus should issue against them.
The Solicitor General, for his part, reiterates his position that the respondent government agencies,
the DOTC and the LTFRB, are not in a position to compel the PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel.
The Solicitor General explains that the function of the DOTC is limited to implementing the emission
standards set forth in Rep. Act No. 8749 and the said law only goes as far as setting the maximum
limit for the emission of vehicles, but it does not recognize CNG as alternative engine fuel. The
Solicitor General avers that the petition should be addressed to Congress for it to come up with a
policy that would compel the use of CNG as alternative fuel.
Patently, this Court is being asked to resolve issues that are not only procedural. Petitioners
challenge this Court to decide if what petitioners propose could be done through a less circuitous,
speedy and unchartered course in an issue that Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in
his ponencia in the Oposa case,24 describes as "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-
generational justice."
Now, as to petitioners' standing. There is no dispute that petitioners have standing to bring their case
before this Court. Even respondents do not question their standing. This petition focuses on one
fundamental legal right of petitioners, their right to clean air. Moreover, as held previously, a party's
standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which may, in the exercise of the Court's
discretion, be set aside in view of the importance of the issue raised. We brush aside this issue of
technicality under the principle of the transcendental importance to the public, especially so if these
cases demand that they be settled promptly.
Undeniably, the right to clean air not only is an issue of paramount importance to petitioners for it
concerns the air they breathe, but it is also impressed with public interest. The consequences of the
counter-productive and retrogressive effects of a neglected environment due to emissions of motor
vehicles immeasurably affect the well-being of petitioners. On these considerations, the legal
standing of the petitioners deserves recognition.
Our next concern is whether the writ of mandamus is the proper remedy, and if the writ could issue
against respondents.
Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, mandamus lies under any of the following cases: (1)
against any tribunal which unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty; (2) in case any corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the performance
of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; and (3) in case any
tribunal, corporation, board or person unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a
right or office to which such other is legally entitled; and there is no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
In University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,25 we said,
It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused,

of a ministerial duty, this being its main objective. It does not lie to require anyone to
fulfill contractual obligations or to compel a course of conduct, nor to control or
review the exercise of discretion. On the part of the petitioner, it is essential to the
issuance of a writ of mandamus that he should have a clear legal right to the thing
demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act
required. It never issues in doubtful cases. While it may not be necessary that the
duty be absolutely expressed, it must however, be clear. The writ will not issue to
compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to
do, or give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law. The writ
neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command to exercise a
power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed. (Emphasis
supplied.)
In this petition the legal right which is sought to be recognized and enforced hinges on a
constitutional and a statutory policy already articulated in operational terms, e.g. in Rep. Act No.
8749, the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999. Paragraph (a), Section 21 of the Act specifically provides
that when PUVs are concerned, the responsibility of implementing the policy falls on respondent
DOTC. It provides as follows:
SEC 21. Pollution from Motor Vehicles. - a) The DOTC shall implement the emission
standards for motor vehicles set pursuant to and as provided in this Act. To further improve
the emission standards, the Department [DENR] shall review, revise and publish the
standards every two (2) years, or as the need arises. It shall consider the maximum limits for
all major pollutants to ensure substantial improvement in air quality for the health, safety and
welfare of the general public.
Paragraph (b) states:
b) The Department [DENR] in collaboration with the DOTC, DTI and LGUs, shall develop an
action plan for the control and management of air pollution from motor
vehicles consistent with the Integrated Air Quality Framework . . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
There is no dispute that under the Clean Air Act it is the DENR that is tasked to set the emission
standards for fuel use and the task of developing an action plan. As far as motor vehicles are
concerned, it devolves upon the DOTC and the line agency whose mandate is to oversee that motor
vehicles prepare an action plan and implement the emission standards for motor vehicles, namely
the LTFRB.
In Oposa26 we said, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the environment. We also said, it is clearly the duty of the responsible
government agencies to advance the said right.
Petitioners invoke the provisions of the Constitution and the Clean Air Act in their prayer for issuance
of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative
fuel. Although both are general mandates that do not specifically enjoin the use of any kind of fuel,
particularly the use of CNG, there is an executive order implementing a program on the use of CNG
by public vehicles. Executive Order No. 290, entitled Implementing the Natural Gas Vehicle Program
for Public Transport (NGVPPT), took effect on February 24, 2004. The program recognized, among
others, natural gas as a clean burning alternative fuel for vehicle which has the potential to produce
substantially lower pollutants; and the Malampaya Gas-to-Power Project as representing the
beginning of the natural gas industry of the Philippines. Paragraph 1.2, Section 1 of E.O. No. 290
cites as one of its objectives, the use of CNG as a clean alternative fuel for transport. Furthermore,
one of the components of the program is the development of CNG refueling stations and all related
facilities in strategic locations in the country to serve the needs of CNG-powered PUVs. Section 3 of
E.O. No. 290, consistent with E.O. No. 66, series of 2002, designated the DOE as the lead agency
(a) in developing the natural gas industry of the country with the DENR, through the EMB and (b) in
formulating emission standards for CNG. Most significantly, par. 4.5, Section 4 tasks the DOTC,
working with the DOE, to develop an implementation plan for "a gradual shift to CNG fuel utilization
in PUVs and promote NGVs [natural gas vehicles] in Metro Manila and Luzon through the issuance
of directives/orders providing preferential franchises in present day major routes and exclusive
franchises to NGVs in newly opened routes" A thorough reading of the executive order assures us
that implementation for a cleaner environment is being addressed. To a certain extent, the instant
petition had been mooted by the issuance of E.O. No. 290.
Regrettably, however, the plain, speedy and adequate remedy herein sought by petitioners, i.e., a
writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG, is unavailing.
Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty.
Here, there is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of
motor vehicles to use CNG. At most the LTFRB has been tasked by E.O. No. 290 in par. 4.5 (ii),
Section 4 "to grant preferential and exclusive Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) or franchises
to operators of NGVs based on the results of the DOTC surveys."
Further, mandamus will not generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate branch, for
the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other.27 The need for future changes in both
legislation and its implementation cannot be preempted by orders from this Court, especially when
what is prayed for is procedurally infirm. Besides, comity with and courtesy to a coequal branch
dictate that we give sufficient time and leeway for the coequal branches to address by themselves
the environmental problems raised in this petition.
In the same manner that we have associated the fundamental right to a balanced and healthful
ecology with the twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice"
in Oposa,28 where we upheld the right of future Filipinos to prevent the destruction of the rainforests,
so do we recognize, in this petition, the right of petitioners and the future generation to clean air.
In Oposa we said that if the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is now explicitly found in the
Constitution even if the right is "assumed to exist from the inception of humankind, it is because of
the well-founded fear of its framers [of the Constitution] that unless the rights to a balanced and
healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby
highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve
the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be
lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come. . ."29
It is the firm belief of this Court that in this case, it is timely to reaffirm the premium we have placed
on the protection of the environment in the landmark case of Oposa. Yet, as serious as the statistics
are on air pollution, with the present fuels deemed toxic as they are to the environment, as fatal as
these pollutants are to the health of the citizens, and urgently requiring resort to drastic measures to
reduce air pollutants emitted by motor vehicles, we must admit in particular that petitioners are
unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an indubitable legal duty on respondents that will justify a
grant of the writ of mandamus compelling the use of CNG for public utility vehicles. It appears to us
that more properly, the legislature should provide first the specific statutory remedy to the complex
environmental problems bared by herein petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus is
taken.
WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Morales, Tinga, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed OPOSA, minors, and
represented by their parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA NICOLE SADIUA,
minor, represented by her parents CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO, AMANDA SALUD
and PATRISHA, all surnamed FLORES, minors and represented by their parents ENRICO and
NIDA FLORES, GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN, minor, represented by her parents SIGRID and
DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA. CONCEPCION, all surnamed MISA, minors and
represented by their parents GEORGE and MYRA MISA, BENJAMIN ALAN V. PESIGAN,
minor, represented by his parents ANTONIO and ALICE PESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE ALFARO,
minor, represented by her parents JOSE and MARIA VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIA
CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, minor, represented by her parents FREDENIL and JANE CASTRO,
JOHANNA DESAMPARADO,
minor, represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELA DESAMPRADO, CARLO JOAQUIN T.
NARVASA, minor, represented by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE CHARITY
NARVASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA and MARIE GABRIELLE, all
surnamed SAENZ, minors, represented by their parents ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ,
KRISTINE, MARY ELLEN, MAY, GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all surnamed KING, minors,
represented by their parents MARIO and HAYDEE KING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and THERESE
VICTORIA, all surnamed ENDRIGA, minors, represented by their parents BALTAZAR and
TERESITA ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., all surnamed ABAYA, minors, represented
by their parents ANTONIO and MARICA ABAYA, MARILIN, MARIO, JR. and MARIETTE, all
surnamed CARDAMA, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and LINA CARDAMA,
CLARISSA, ANN MARIE, NAGEL, and IMEE LYN, all surnamed OPOSA, minors and
represented by their parents RICARDO and MARISSA OPOSA, PHILIP JOSEPH, STEPHEN
JOHN and ISAIAH JAMES, all surnamed QUIPIT, minors, represented by their parents JOSE
MAX and VILMI QUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO, CRISANTO, ANNA, DANIEL and FRANCISCO, all
surnamed BIBAL, minors, represented by their parents FRANCISCO, JR. and MILAGROS
BIBAL, and THE PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK, INC., petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U.
ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents.
Oposa Law Office for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology
which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of "inter-generational
responsibility" and "inter-generational justice." Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the
said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine
rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and
continued rape of Mother Earth."
The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed before Branch 66 (Makati,
Metro Manila) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region. The principal
plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and joined by their
respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc.
(PENI), a domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia,
engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources.
The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution in this petition by the
new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the
petitioners.1 The complaint2 was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit3 and alleges that the plaintiffs
"are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and
enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests." The same was
filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource
but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court." The minors further
asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn."4 Consequently,
it is prayed for that judgment be rendered:
. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his
behalf to
(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;
(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving
new timber license agreements.
and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises."5
The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine archipelago of 7,100 islands
has a land area of thirty million (30,000,000) hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant
rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of flora and fauna may be found; these
rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceable; they are also the
habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and flourished since time
immemorial; scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology,
the country's land area should be utilized on the basis of a ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest
cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and other uses;
the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a consequence of deforestation have resulted in a
host of environmental tragedies, such as (a) water shortages resulting from drying up of the water
table, otherwise known as the "aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks and streams, (b) salinization of
the water table as a result of the intrusion therein of salt water, incontrovertible examples of which
may be found in the island of Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion and
the consequential loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of soil eroded
estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters per annum approximately the size of the
entire island of Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and extinction of the country's unique, rare and
varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance and dislocation of cultural communities, including the
disappearance of the Filipino's indigenous cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers and seabeds and
consequential destruction of corals and other aquatic life leading to a critical reduction in marine
resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells of drought as is presently experienced by the entire
country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result from the absence of windbreakers, (i)
the floodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arising from the absence of the absorbent
mechanism of forests, (j) the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso dams
constructed and operated for the purpose of supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the
generation of electric power, and (k) the reduction of the earth's capacity to process carbon dioxide
gases which has led to perplexing and catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon of
global warming, otherwise known as the "greenhouse effect."
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and
deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a
matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present expert
witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial.
As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:
CAUSE OF ACTION
7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.
8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen (16) million hectares
of rainforests constituting roughly 53% of the country's land mass.
9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no more than 1.2 million
hectares of said rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of the country's land area.
10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin old-growth
rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the entire land mass of the Philippine archipelago
and about 3.0 million hectares of immature and uneconomical secondary growth
forests.
11. Public records reveal that the defendant's, predecessors have granted timber
license agreements ('TLA's') to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of 3.89
million hectares for commercial logging purposes.
A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas covered is hereto attached
as Annex "A".
12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares per annum or 25
hectares per hour nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included the
Philippines will be bereft of forest resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if
not earlier.
13. The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and irreparable
damage of this continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minor's generation and
to generations yet unborn are evident and incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, the
environmental damages enumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are already being felt,
experienced and suffered by the generation of plaintiff adults.
14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and deforest the
remaining forest stands will work great damage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs
especially plaintiff minors and their successors who may never see, use, benefit
from and enjoy this rare and unique natural resource treasure.
This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural

resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding
generations.
15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens patriae.
16. Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant's office.
On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final demand to cancel all
logging permits in the country.
A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990 is hereto attached as Annex "B".
17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing TLA's to the
continuing serious damage and extreme prejudice of plaintiffs.
18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the TLA's is an act
violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especially plaintiff minors who may be left with a
country that is desertified (sic), bare, barren and devoid of the wonderful flora, fauna
and indigenous cultures which the Philippines had been abundantly blessed with.
19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is manifestly contrary to

the public policy enunciated in the Philippine Environmental Policy which, in pertinent
part, states that it is the policy of the State
(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature
can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other;
(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future
generations of Filipinos and;
(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conductive to a life of

dignity and well-being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977)
20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's

is contradictory to the Constitutional policy of the State to
a. effect "a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth" and
"make full and efficient use of natural resources (sic)." (Section 1, Article XII of the
Constitution);
b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid);
c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and resources (sic)" (Section
14, Article XIV, id.);
d. "protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature." (Section 16, Article II, id.)
21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of humankind the natural
law and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation.
22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other than the
instant action to arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support
systems and continued rape of Mother Earth. 6
On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him
and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the
legislative or executive branches of Government. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion, the
petitioners maintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, (2) the
motion is dilatory and (3) the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's
abuse of discretion.
On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to
dismiss.7 In the said order, not only was the defendant's claim that the complaint states no cause
of action against him and that it raises a political question sustained, the respondent Judge further
ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is
prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the
respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the
plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children, but have also joined the latter in this case.8
On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to submit
their respective Memoranda after the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment in behalf
of the respondents and the petitioners filed a reply thereto.
Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of action as it
contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles 19, 20
and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations), Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating
the DENR, Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy),
Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the concept of man's
inalienable right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation embodied in natural law. Petitioners
likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard
the people's right to a healthful environment.
It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave abuse of discretion in
granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what is available
involves a judicial question.
Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-impairment clause,
petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs are not contracts. They
likewise submit that even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled
that they may still be revoked by the State when the public interest so requires.
On the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a
specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. They
see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an "environmental right"
which supposedly entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the state in its capacity as parens
patriae." Such allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. They then
reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging should be permitted in the country is a
political question which should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative branches of
Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners' resources is not to file an action to court, but
to lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban logging totally.
As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit that the same cannot be done
by the State without due process of law. Once issued, a TLA remains effective for a certain period of
time usually for twenty-five (25) years. During its effectivity, the same can neither be revised nor
cancelled unless the holder has been found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the terms
of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners' proposition to have all the TLAs
indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative of the requirements of due
process.
Before going any further, We must first focus on some procedural matters. Petitioners instituted Civil
Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant and the present respondents did not take
issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit.
The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all
citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes
impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We likewise declare that
the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all
concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule
3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the
latter being but an incident to the former.
This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that they represent
their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for
themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their
personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers
the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety.9 Such rhythm
and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management,
renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore
areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be
equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. 10Needless to say, every generation
has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a
balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the
protection of that right for the generations to come.
The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, We shall now proceed to the merits
of the petition.
After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a meticulous consideration and evaluation of
the issues raised and arguments adduced by the parties, We do not hesitate to find for the
petitioners and rule against the respondent Judge's challenged order for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent portions of the said order
reads as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court cannot help
but agree with the defendant. For although we believe that plaintiffs have but the
noblest of all intentions, it (sic) fell short of alleging, with sufficient definiteness, a
specific legal right they are seeking to enforce and protect, or a specific legal wrong
they are seeking to prevent and redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2, RRC). Furthermore, the
Court notes that the Complaint is replete with vague assumptions and vague
conclusions based on unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action
in its Complaint against the herein defendant.
Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter before it, being impressed with
political color and involving a matter of public policy, may not be taken cognizance of
by this Court without doing violence to the sacred principle of "Separation of Powers"
of the three (3) co-equal branches of the Government.
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our
jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing
timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to
do otherwise would amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the
fundamental law. 11
We do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient
definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and that the
complaint is replete with vague assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data. A reading of
the complaint itself belies these conclusions.
The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section
of the same article:
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and
instill health consciousness among them.
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles
and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any
of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of
rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation aptly and
fittingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement of which may even be said to predate all
governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly
mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that
unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by
the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a
solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too
far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come
generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment. During the debates on this right in one of the plenary sessions of the
1986 Constitutional Commission, the following exchange transpired between Commissioner Wilfrido
Villacorta and Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna who sponsored the section in question:
MR. VILLACORTA:
Does this section mandate the State to provide sanctions against all
forms of pollution air, water and noise pollution?
MR. AZCUNA:
Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic) environment

necessarily carries with it the correlative duty of not impairing the
same and, therefore, sanctions may be provided for impairment of
environmental balance. 12
The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and conservation of the
country's forests.
Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be irreversiby disrupted.
Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the right to health, as
well as the other related provisions of the Constitution concerning the conservation, development
and utilization of the country's natural resources, 13 then President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated
on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, 14 Section 4 of which expressly mandates that the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government agency responsible for the
conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's environment and natural
resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral, resources, including those in reservation
and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all
natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits
derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos." Section 3
thereof makes the following statement of policy:
Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure
the sustainable use, development, management, renewal, and conservation of the
country's forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas and other natural resources, including
the protection and enhancement of the quality of the environment, and equitable
access of the different segments of the population to the development and the use of
the country's natural resources, not only for the present generation but for future
generations as well. It is also the policy of the state to recognize and apply a true
value system including social and environmental cost implications relative to their
utilization, development and conservation of our natural resources.
This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of
1987,15specifically in Section 1 thereof which reads:
Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. (1) The State shall ensure, for the benefit of the
Filipino people, the full exploration and development as well as the judicious
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's
forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural
resources, consistent with the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance
and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment and the objective of
making the exploration, development and utilization of such natural resources
equitably accessible to the different segments of the present as well as future
generations.
(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value system that takes into
account social and environmental cost implications relative to the utilization,
development and conservation of our natural resources.
The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and
protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment." Section 2 of the same Title, on the other
hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR; however, it makes particular reference to the
fact of the agency's being subject to law and higher authority. Said section provides:
Sec. 2. Mandate. (1) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall
be primarily responsible for the implementation of the foregoing policy.
(2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying out the
State's constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development,
utilization, and conservation of the country's natural resources.
Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as
the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR.
It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific
statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental right" of the present and future
generations. On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152
(Philippine Environment Code) were issued. The former "declared a continuing policy of the State (a)
to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in
productive and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other
requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the attainment of an
environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well-being." 16 As its goal, it speaks of
the "responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding
generations." 17 The latter statute, on the other hand, gave flesh to the said policy.
Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is
as clear as the DENR's duty under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under
E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance the said right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or obligation to respect or
protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs,
which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed
or granted.
A cause of action is defined as:
. . . an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other;
and its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the
defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. 18
It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails
to state a cause of action, 19 the question submitted to the court for resolution involves the sufficiency
of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. No other matter should be considered; furthermore, the
truth of falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed hypothetically
admitted. The only issue to be resolved in such a case is: admitting such alleged facts to be true,
may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaint? 20 In Militante
vs. Edrosolano, 21 this Court laid down the rule that the judiciary should "exercise the utmost care
and circumspection in passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of the absence thereof
[cause of action] lest, by its failure to manifest a correct appreciation of the facts alleged and
deemed hypothetically admitted, what the law grants or recognizes is effectively nullified. If that
happens, there is a blot on the legal order. The law itself stands in disrepute."
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We find the statements under the introductory
affirmative allegations, as well as the specific averments under the sub-heading CAUSE OF
ACTION, to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights. On the
basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs prayed for. It bears stressing,
however, that insofar as the cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is the need to implead, as
party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties.
The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to raise a political question. Policy
formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of Government is not squarely
put in issue. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already
formulated and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political
question doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the
impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. The
second paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Political Law, 22 Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a
distinguished member of this Court, says:
The first part of the authority represents the traditional concept of judicial power,
involving the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred as law. The second part of
the authority represents a broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice
to review what was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the political
departments of the government.
As worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and particularly the Supreme
Court, the power to rule upon even the wisdom of the decisions of the executive and
the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction
because tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The catch, of course, is the meaning
of "grave abuse of discretion," which is a very elastic phrase that can expand or
contract according to the disposition of the judiciary.
In Daza vs. Singson, 23 Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this Court, noted:
In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less tenable
and decisive. The reason is that, even if we were to assume that the issue presented
before us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded from revolving it
under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases,
even the political question. Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly provides:
...
The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the non-impairment of
contracts clause found in the Constitution. The court a quo declared that:
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our
jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing
timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to
do otherwise would amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the
fundamental law. 24
We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed, if not shocked, by such a sweeping
pronouncement. In the first place, the respondent Secretary did not, for obvious reasons, even
invoke in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. If he had done so, he would have acted
with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing undue and unwarranted benefits and
advantages to the timber license holders because he would have forever bound the Government to
strictly respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions regardless of changes in
policy and the demands of public interest and welfare. He was aware that as correctly pointed out by
the petitioners, into every timber license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D.
No. 705) which provides:
. . . Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the President may amend,
modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit, licenses or any other
form of privilege granted herein . . .
Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not
a contract, property or a property right protested by the due process clause of the
Constitution. In Tan vs. Director of Forestry, 25 this Court held:
. . . A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the utilization and
disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A timber
license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is only a
license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public
interest or public welfare as in this case.
A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and

is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or municipal, granting it and
the person to whom it is granted; neither is it property or a property right, nor does it
create a vested right; nor is it taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this Court held that the
granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property
rights (People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576).
We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary: 26
. . . Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments by
which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end
that public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely
evidence a privilege granted by the State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the
latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the
forest products therein. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or
rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require. Thus, they are
not deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause
[See Sections 3(ee) and 20 of Pres. Decree No. 705, as amended. Also, Tan v.
Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302].
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, which reads:
Sec. 10. No law impairing, the obligation of contracts shall be passed. 27
cannot be invoked.
In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant case does
not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing
timber licenses. Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked. Nevertheless, granting
further that a law has actually been passed mandating cancellations or modifications, the same
cannot still be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because by its very
nature and purpose, such as law could have only been passed in the exercise of the police power of
the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology,
promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler
Corp. 28 this Court stated:
The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant to be

absolute. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation
aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words,
the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by
the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety,
moral and general welfare.
The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New York, 29 quoted in Philippine American
Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General,30 to wit:
Under our form of government the use of property and the making of contracts are
normally matters of private and not of public concern. The general rule is that both
shall be free of governmental interference. But neither property rights nor contract
rights are absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his
property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work
them harm. Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate
it in the common interest.
In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state. 31
Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-impairment clause could apply with
respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent Secretary from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber licenses for, save in cases of renewal, no contract would have as
of yet existed in the other instances. Moreover, with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it
as a matter of right.
WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the
challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby
set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders
or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ.,
concur.
Narvasa, C.J., Puno and Vitug, JJ., took no part.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 79538 October 18, 1990
FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO., INC., petitioner,

vs.
THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT and
TWIN PEAKS DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY CORPORATION, respondents.
Taada, Vivo & Tan for petitioner.
Antonio E. Escober and Jurado Law Office for respondent Twin Peaks Development Corporation.
COURTS, J.:
Soon after the change of government in February 1986, petitioner sent a letter dated March 17, 1986 to the Office of the President, and
another letter dated April 2, 1986 to Minister Ernesto Maceda of the Ministry of Natural Resources [MNR], seeking: (1) the reinstatement of
its timber license agreement which was cancelled in August 1983 during the Marcos administration; (2) the revocation of TLA No. 356 which
was issued to Twin Peaks Development and Realty Corporation without public bidding and in violation of forestry laws, rules and regulations;
and, (3) the issuance of an order allowing petitioner to take possession of all logs found in the concession area [Annexes "6" and "7" of the
Petition; Rollo, pp. 54-63].
Petitioner made the following allegations:

(a) That on October 12, 1965, it entered into a timber license agreement designated as TLA No. 87
with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, represented by then Secretary Jose
Feliciano, wherein it was issued an exclusive license to cut, collect and remove timber except
prohibited species within a specified portion of public forest land with an area of 54,920 hectares
located in the municipality of Maddela, province of Nueva Vizcaya * from October 12, 1965 until June 30, 1990;
(b) That on August 18, 1983, the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development [hereinafter referred
to as "Bureau"], Director Edmundo Cortes, issued a memorandum order stopping all logging
operations in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino provinces, and cancelling the logging concession of
petitioner and nine other forest concessionaires, pursuant to presidential instructions and a
memorandum order of the Minister of Natural Resources Teodoro Pena [Annex "5" of the Petition;
Rollo, p. 49];
(c) that on August 25, 1983, petitioner received a telegram from the Bureau, the contents of which
were as follows:
PURSUANT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT YOU ARE

REQUESTED TO STOP ALL LOGGING OPERATIONS TO CONSERVE
REMAINING FORESTS PLEASE CONDUCT THE ORDERLY PULL-OUT OF
LOGGING MACHINERIES AND EQUIPMENT AND COORDINATE WITH THE
RESPECTIVE DISTRICT FORESTERS FOR THE INVENTORY OF LOGS CUT
PRIOR TO THIS ORDER THE SUBMISSION OF A COMPLIANCE REPORT
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SHALL BE APPRECIATED [Annex "4" of the Petition;
Rollo, p. 48];
(d) That after the cancellation of its timber license agreement, it immediately sent a letter addressed
to then President Ferdinand Marcos which sought reconsideration of the Bureau's directive, citing in
support thereof its contributions to alleging that it was not given the forest conservation and
opportunity to be heard prior to the cancellation of its logging 531, but no operations (Annex "6" of
the Petition; Rollo, pp. 50 favorable action was taken on this letter;
(e) That barely one year thereafter, approximately one-half or 26,000 hectares of the area formerly
covered by TLA No. 87 was re-awarded to Twin Peaks Development and Reality Corporation under
TLA No. 356 which was set to expire on July 31, 2009, while the other half was allowed to be logged
by Filipinas Loggers, Inc. without the benefit of a formal award or license; and,
(f) That the latter entities were controlled or owned by relatives or cronies of deposed President
Ferdinand Marcos. Acting on petitioner's letter, the MNR through then Minister Ernesto Maceda
issued an order dated July 22, 1986 denying petitioner's request. The Ministry ruled that a timber
license was not a contract within the due process clause of the Constitution, but only a privilege
which could be withdrawn whenever public interest or welfare so demands, and that petitioner was
not discriminated against in view of the fact that it was among ten concessionaires whose licenses
were revoked in 1983. Moreover, emphasis was made of the total ban of logging operations in the
provinces of Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Ifugao imposed on April 2, 1986, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
It should be recalled that [petitioner's] earlier request for reinstatement has been
denied in view of the total ban of all logging operations in the provinces of Nueva
Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Ifugao which was imposed for reasons of
conservation and national security.
The Ministry imposed the ban because it realizes the great responsibility it bear [sic]
in respect to forest t considers itself the trustee thereof. This being the case, it has to
ensure the availability of forest resources not only for the present, but also for the
future generations of Filipinos.
On the other hand, the activities of the insurgents in these parts of the country are
well documented. Their financial demands on logging concessionaires are well
known. The government, therefore, is well within its right to deprive its enemy of
sources of funds in order to preserve itself, its established institutions and the liberty
and democratic way of life of its people.
xxx xxx xxx
[Annex "9" of the Petition, pp. 2-4; Rollo, pp. 65-67.]
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the aforestated order reiterating, among others. its request
that TLA No. 356 issued to private respondent be declared null and void. The MNR however denied
this motion in an order dated September 15, 1986. stating in part:
xxx xxx xxx
Regarding [petitioner's] request that the award of a 26,000 hectare portion of TLA
No. 87 to Twin Peaks Realty Development Corporation under TLA No. 356 be
declared null and void, suffice it to say that the Ministry is now in the process of
reviewing all contracts, permits or other form of privileges for the exploration,
development, exploitation, or utilization of natural resources entered into, granted,
issued or acquired before the issuance of Proclamation No. 3, otherwise known as
the Freedom Constitution for the purpose of amending, modifying or revoking them
when the national interest so requires.
xxx xxx xxx
The Ministry, through the Bureau of Forest Development, has jurisdiction and
authority over all forest lands. On the basis of this authority, the Ministry issued the
order banning all logging operations/activities in Quirino province, among others,
where movant's former concession area is located. Therefore, the issuance of an
order disallowing any person or entity from removing cut or uncut logs from the
portion of TLA No. 87, now under TLA No. 356, would constitute an unnecessary or
superfluous act on the part of the Ministry.
xxx xxx xxx
[Annex "11" of the Petition, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 77-78.]
On November 26, 1986, petitioner's supplemental motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Meanwhile, per MNR Administrative Order No. 54, series of 1986, issued on November 26, 1986,
the logging ban in the province of Quirino was lifted.
Petitioner subsequently appealed from the orders of the MNR to the Office of the President. In a
resolution dated July 6, 1987, the Office of the President, acting through then Deputy Executive
Secretary Catalino Macaraig, denied petitioner's appeal for lack of merit. The Office of the President
ruled that the appeal of petitioner was prematurely filed, the matter not having been terminated in the
MNR. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on August 14, 1987.
Hence, petitioner filed directly with this Court a petition for certiorari, with prayer for the issuance of a
restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction, on August 27, 1987. On October 13, 1987, it filed a
supplement to its petition for certiorari. Thereafter, public and private respondents submitted their
respective comments, and petitioner filed its consolidated reply thereto. In a resolution dated May
22, 1989, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition.
After a careful study of the circumstances in the case at bar, the Court finds several factors which
militate against the issuance of a writ of certiorari in favor of petitioner.
1. Firstly, the refusal of public respondents herein to reverse final and executory administrative
orders does not constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
It is an established doctrine in this jurisdiction that the decisions and orders of administrative
agencies have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview
of the doctrine of res judicata. These decisions and orders are as conclusive upon the rights of the
affected parties as though the same had been rendered by a court of general jurisdiction. The rule
of res judicata thus forbids the reopening of a matter once determined by competent authority acting
within their exclusive jurisdiction [See Brillantes v. Castro, 99 Phil. 497 (1956); Ipekdjian
Merchandising Co., Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-15430, September 30, 1963, 9 SCRA
72; San Luis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80160, June 26, 1989].
In the case at bar, petitioner's letters to the Office of the President and the MNR [now the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) dated March 17, 1986 and April 2,
1986, respectively, sought the reconsideration of a memorandum order issued by the Bureau of
Forest Development which cancelled its timber license agreement in 1983, as well as the revocation
of TLA No. 356 subsequently issued by the Bureau to private respondents in 1984.
But as gleaned from the record, petitioner did not avail of its remedies under the law, i.e. Section 8 of
Pres. Dec. No. 705 as amended, for attacking the validity of these administrative actions until after
1986. By the time petitioner sent its letter dated April 2, 1986 to the newly appointed Minister of the
MNR requesting reconsideration of the above Bureau actions, these were already settled matters as
far as petitioner was concerned [See Rueda v. Court of Agrarian Relations, 106 Phil. 300 (1959);
Danan v. Aspillera G.R. No. L-17305, November 28, 1962, 6 SCRA 609; Ocampo v. Arboleda G.R.
No. L-48190, August 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 374].
No particular significance can be attached to petitioner's letter dated September 19, 1983 which
petitioner claimed to have sent to then President Marcos [Annex "6" of Petition, Rollo, pp. 50-53],
seeking the reconsideration of the 1983 order issued by Director Cortes of the Bureau. It must be
pointed out that the averments in this letter are entirely different from the charges of fraud against
officials under the previous regime made by petitioner in its letters to public respondents herein. In
the letter to then President Marcos, petitioner simply contested its inclusion in the list of
concessionaires, whose licenses were cancelled, by defending its record of selective logging and
reforestation practices in the subject concession area. Yet, no other administrative steps appear to
have been taken by petitioner until 1986, despite the fact that the alleged fraudulent scheme became
apparent in 1984 as evidenced by the awarding of the subject timber concession area to other
entities in that year.
2. Moreover, petitioner is precluded from availing of the benefits of a writ of certiorari in the present
case because he failed to file his petition within a reasonable period.
The principal issue ostensibly presented for resolution in the instant petition is whether or not public
respondents herein acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in refusing to overturn administrative orders issued by their predecessors in the past regime. Yet,
what the petition ultimately seeks is the nullification of the Bureau orders cancelling TLA No. 87 and
granting TLA No. 356 to private respondent, which were issued way back in 1983 and 1984,
respectively.
Once again, the fact that petitioner failed to seasonably take judicial recourse to have the earlier
administrative actions reviewed by the courts through a petition for certiorari is prejudicial to its
cause. For although no specific time frame is fixed for the institution of a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, the same must nevertheless be done within a
"reasonable time". The yardstick to measure the timeliness of a petition for certiorari is the
"reasonableness of the length of time that had expired from the commission of the acts complained
of up to the institution of the proceeding to annul the same" [Toledo v. Pardo, G.R. No. 56761,
November 19, 1982, 118 SCRA 566, 571]. And failure to file the petition for certiorari within a
reasonable period of time renders the petitioner susceptible to the adverse legal consequences of
laches [Municipality of Carcar v. Court of First Instance of Cebu, G.R. No. L-31628, December 27,
1982, 119 SCRA 392).
Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do
that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, or to assert a right
within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either
abandoned it or declined to assert it [Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968, 23
SCRA 29; Seno v. Mangubat, G.R. No. L-44339, December 2, 1987, 156 SCRA 113]. The rule is
that unreasonable delay on the part of a plaintiff in seeking to enforce an alleged right may,
depending upon the circumstances, be destructive of the right itself. Verily, the laws aid those who
are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights (Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt)
[See Buenaventura v. David, 37 Phil. 435 (1918)].
In the case at bar, petitioner waited for at least three years before it finally filed a petition for
certiorari with the Court attacking the validity of the assailed Bureau actions in 1983 and 1984.
Considering that petitioner, throughout the period of its inaction, was not deprived of the opportunity
to seek relief from the courts which were normally operating at the time, its delay constitutes
unreasonable and inexcusable neglect, tantamount to laches. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari
requiring the reversal of these orders will not lie.
3. Finally, there is a more significant factor which bars the issuance of a writ of certiorari in favor of
petitioner and against public respondents herein. It is precisely this for which prevents the Court from
departing from the general application of the rules enunciated above.
A cursory reading of the assailed orders issued by public respondent Minister Maceda of the MNR
which were ed by the Office of the President, will disclose public policy consideration which
effectively forestall judicial interference in the case at bar,
Public respondents herein, upon whose shoulders rests the task of implementing the policy to
develop and conserve the country's natural resources, have indicated an ongoing department
evaluation of all timber license agreements entered into, and permits or licenses issued, under the
previous dispensation. In fact, both the executive and legislative departments of the incumbent
administration are presently taking stock of its environmental policies with regard to the utilization of
timber lands and developing an agenda for future programs for their conservation and rehabilitation.
The ongoing administrative reassessment is apparently in response to the renewed and growing
global concern over the despoliation of forest lands and the utter disregard of their crucial role in
sustaining a balanced ecological system. The legitimacy of such concern can hardly be disputed,
most especially in this country. The Court takes judicial notice of the profligate waste of the country's
forest resources which has not only resulted in the irreversible loss of flora and fauna peculiar to the
region, but has produced even more disastrous and lasting economic and social effects. The
delicate balance of nature having been upset, a vicious cycle of floods and droughts has been
triggered and the supply of food and energy resources required by the people seriously depleted.
While there is a desire to harness natural resources to amass profit and to meet the country's
immediate financial requirements, the more essential need to ensure future generations of Filipinos
of their survival in a viable environment demands effective and circumspect action from the
government to check further denudation of whatever remains of the forest lands. Nothing less is
expected of the government, in view of the clear constitutional command to maintain a balanced and
healthful ecology. Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides:
SEC. 16. The State shall protect and promote the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
Thus, while the administration grapples with the complex and multifarious problems caused by
unbridled exploitation of these resources, the judiciary will stand clear. A long line of cases establish
the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion
of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical
knowledge and training of such agencies [See Espinosa v. Makalintal, 79 Phil. 134 (1947); Coloso v.
Board of Accountancy, 92 Phil. 938 (1953); Pajo v. Ago, 108 Phil. 905 (1960); Suarez v. Reyes, G.R.
No. L-19828, February 28, 1963, 7 SCRA 461; Ganitano v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, G. R. No. L-21167, March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 543; Villegas v. Auditor General, G.R. No.
L-21352, November 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 877; Manuel v. Villena, G.R. No. L-28218, February 27,
1971, 37 SCRA 745; Lacuesta v. Herrera, G.R. No. L-33646, January 28, 1975, 62 SCRA 115;
Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. v. Enage, G.R. No. L-30637, July 16, 1987, 152 SCRA 80]. More so
where, as in the present case, the interests of a private logging company are pitted against that of
the public at large on the pressing public policy issue of forest conservation. For this Court
recognizes the wide latitude of discretion possessed by the government in determining the
appropriate actions to be taken to preserve and manage natural resources, and the proper parties
who should enjoy the privilege of utilizing these resources [Director of Forestry v. Munoz, G.R. No.
L-24796, June 28, 1968, 23 SCRA 1183; Lim, Sr. v. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, G.R. No. L-26990, August 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 751]. Timber licenses, permits and
license agreements are the principal instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and
disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly be
gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by the State to qualified entities, and do not
vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the forest
products therein. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief
Executive when national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed contracts within the
purview of the due process of law clause [See Sections 3 (ee) and 20 of Pres. Decree No. 705, as
amended. Also, Tan v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302].
In fine, the legal precepts highlighted in the foregoing discussion more than suffice to justify the
Court's refusal to interfere in the DENR evaluation of timber licenses and permits issued under the
previous regime, or to pre-empt the adoption of appropriate corrective measures by the department.
Nevertheless, the Court cannot help but express its concern regarding alleged irregularities in the
issuance of timber license agreements to a number of logging concessionaires.
The grant of licenses or permits to exploit the country's timber resources, if done in contravention of
the procedure outlined in the law, or as a result of fraud and undue influence exerted on department
officials, is indicative of an arbitrary and whimsical exercise of the State's power to regulate the use
and exploitation of forest resources. The alleged practice of bestowing "special favors" to preferred
individuals, regardless of merit, would be an abuse of this power. And this Court will not be a party to
a flagrant mockery of the avowed public policy of conservation enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.
Therefore, should the appropriate case be brought showing a clear grave abuse of discretion on the
part of officials in the DENR and related bureaus with respect to the implementation of this public
policy, the Court win not hesitate to step in and wield its authority, when invoked, in the exercise of
judicial powers under the Constitution [Section 1, Article VIII].
However, petitioner having failed to make out a case showing grave abuse of discretion on the part
of public respondents herein, the Court finds no basis to issue a writ of certiorari and to grant any of
the affirmative reliefs sought.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez Jr. and Bidin, JJ., concur.
Feliciano, J., is on leave.

FIRST DIVISION
EDUARDO F. HERNANDEZ, MA. G.R. No. 145328

ENCARNACION R. LEGASPI, JAIME
BLANCO, JR., ENRIQUE BELO,
CARLOS VIAPLANA, CARL FURER,
VIVENCIO TINIO, MICHAEL
BRIGGS, ROSA CARAM, FAUSTO
PREYSLER, ROBERT KUA,
GEORGE LEE, GUILLERMO Present:
LUCHANGCO, PETER DEE, LUISA PANGANIBAN, C.J.
MARQUEZ, ANGELITA LILLES, Chairperson,
JUAN CARLOS, HOMER GO, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
AMADEO VALENZUELA, EMILIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHING, ANTONIO CHAN, MURLI CALLEJO, SR., and
SABNANI, MARCOS ROCES, CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
RAYMUNDO FELICIANO, NORMA
GAFFUD, ALF HOLST, LOURDES P.
ROQUE, MANUEL DY, RAUL
FERNANDEZ, VICTORIA TENGCO,
CHI MO CHENG, BARANGAY
DASMARIAS, and HON. FRANCISCO
B. IBAY,
Petitioners,
Promulgated:
- versus -
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, March 23, 2006

Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Although Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits any court from issuing
injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends only
to the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders against administrative acts in
controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. On
issues clearly outside this dimension and involving questions of law, this Court
declared that courts could not be prevented from exercising their power to restrain
or prohibit administrative acts.[1] In such cases, let the hammer fall and let it fall
hard.
With health risks linked to exposure to electromagnetic radiation as their

battle cry, petitioners, all residents of Dasmarias Village, are clamoring for the
reversal of the decision[2]dated 3 May 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 57849 as well as the resolution dated 27 September 2000, denying their motion
for reconsideration.
The assailed decision[3] of the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati, issuing a writ of preliminary injunction against
respondent National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) to stay the latter from
energizing and transmitting high voltage electric current through its cables erected
from Sucat, Paraaque to Araneta Ave., Quezon City.
But, first, the facts:
Sometime in 1996, NAPOCOR began the construction of 29 decagon-

shaped steel poles or towers with a height of 53.4 meters to support overhead high
tension cables in connection with its 230 Kilovolt Sucat-Araneta-Balintawak
Power Transmission Project. Said transmission line passes through the Sergio
Osmea, Sr. Highway (South Superhighway), the perimeter of Fort Bonifacio,
and Dasmarias Village proximate to Tamarind Road, where petitioners homes are.
Said project later proved to be petitioners bane of existence.
Alarmed by the sight of the towering steel towers, petitioners scoured the
internet on the possible adverse effects that such a structure could cause to their
health and well-being. Petitioners got hold of published articles and studies linking
the incidence of a fecund of illnesses to exposure to electromagnetic fields. These
illnesses range from cancer to leukemia.
Petitioners left no stones unturned to address their malady. They aired this
growing concern to the NAPOCOR, which conducted a series of meetings with
them.
NAPOCOR received flak from Representative Francis Joseph G. Escudero,
who in his Privilege Speech dated 10 May 1999, denounced the cavalier manner
with which NAPOCORignored safety and consultation requirements in the
questioned project.
Petitioners brought their woes to the attention of Rep. Arnulfo Fuentebella,

Chairman of the House Committee on Energy, wherein NAPOCOR was asked to
shed light on the petitioners problem. In a letter dated 8 November
1999, NAPOCOR President Federico Puno stated that NAPOCOR was still in the
process of coming up with a win-win solution to the concerns of
the Dasmarias Village and Forbes Park residents.[4]
In a letter dated 10 August 1999 addressed to Congressman Arnulfo P.

Fuentebella, NAPOCORs President wrote:
We have discussed the matter with the Dasmarias and Forbes residents
and we have come up with four (4) options on how to address the problem, to wit:
Option Cost
Option 1: Transfer the line to Lawton Avenue P 111.84 million

(proposal of Dasmarias/Forbes)
Option 2: Maintain 12 meters distance along P 77.60 million

the village
Option 3: Construct an underground line P 482.00 million
Option 4: Reroute along C-5 and South Luzon P 1,018.83 million
Expressway (combination of overhead
and underground)[5]
Negotiations between petitioners and the NAPOCOR reached an impass,

with petitioners vying for the relocation of the transmission lines
to Fort Bonifacio on one hand, and the NAPOCOR insisting on a 12-meter
easement widening, on the other.[6]
Thus, petitioners, on 9 March 2000 filed a Complaint[7] for Damages with

Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction against NAPOCOR. Harping on the hazardous effects of
exposure to electromagnetic radiation to the health and safety to themselves and
their families, petitioners, through the instant case, sought what they had failed to
achieve through amicable means with NAPOCOR and prayed, inter alia, for
damages and the relocation of the transmission lines to Lawton
Avenue, FortBonifacio.
On 13 March 2000, Judge Francisco B. Ibay issued an order[8] in Civil Case

No. 00-352, which temporarily restrained the respondent from energizing and
transmitting high voltage electric current through the said project. The pertinent
portion of the said order reads:
Acting on the plaintiffs Urgent Omnibus Motion, it appearing that the subject area
will be energized by midnight tonight based on a report taken from Representative
Joker P. Arroyo by plaintiffs counsel, so as not to render moot and academic the
instant case, as prayed for, defendant National Power Corporation is ordered to
maintain the status quo and/or be enjoined from energizing and transmitting high
voltage electric current through its cables for forty eight (48) hours starting 4
oclock in the afternoon today and ending 4 oclock in the afternoon of 15 March
2000.[9]
By order[10] of 15 March 2000, the trial court extended the restraining order
for 18 more days.
NAPOCOR filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction with the Court of Appeals assailing
the above order by the trial court. Alluding to Presidential Decree No. 1818
(1981), "Prohibiting Courts from Issuing Restraining Orders or Preliminary
Injunctions in Cases Involving Infrastructure and Natural Resource Development
Projects of, and Public Utilities Operated by, the Government, particularly Sec. 1,
NAPOCOR stalwartly sought the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack
jurisdiction. Presidential Decree No. 1818 provides:
Section 1. No Court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any
restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in
any case, dispute, or controversy involving an infrastructure project, or a mining,
fishery, forest or other natural resource development project of the
government, or any public utility operated by the government, including among
otherpublic utilities for transport of the goods or commodities, stevedoring and
arrastre contracts, to prohibit any person or persons, entity or government official
from proceeding with or continuing the execution or implementation of any such
project, or the operation of such public utility or pursuing any lawful activity
necessary for such execution, implementation or operation.
In the interregnum, by order dated 3 April 2000, the trial court ordered the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against NAPOCOR.[11] The trial court
articulated that an injunction was necessary to stay respondent NAPOCORs
activation of its power lines due to the possible health risks posed to the
petitioners. Asserting its jurisdiction over the case, the trial court was of the view
that Presidential Decree No. 1818 and jurisprudence proscribing injunctions
against infrastructure projects do not find application in the case at bar because of
the health risks involved.
The trial court, thus, enjoined the NAPOCOR from further preparing and
installing high voltage cables to the steel pylons erected near petitioners homes and
from energizing and transmitting high voltage electric current through said cables
while the case is pending final adjudication, upon posting of the bond amounting
to P5,000,000.00 executed to the effect that petitioners will pay all the damages the
NAPOCOR may sustain by reason of the injunction if the Court should finally
decide that the petitioners are not entitled thereto.[12]
In light of the foregoing order of the trial court, the petition which
NAPOCOR filed with the Court of Appeals was later amended to include the
prayer for the nullification and injunction of the Order dated 3 April 2000 of the
trial court.
In the challenged decision of 3 May 2000, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial
courts order, with the following fallo:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for certiorari is

hereby GRANTED. The assailed orders of the respondent court, dated March 13,
2000 and April 3, 2000, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.[13]
In the Court of Appeals rationale, the proscription on injunctions against

infrastructure projects of the government is clearly mandated by the above-quoted
Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1818, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in
its Circulars No. 2-91 and No. 13-93, dated 15 March 1991 and 5 March 1993,
respectively.
As their motion for reconsideration was met with similar lack of success,
petitioners, in a last attempt at vindication, filed the present petition for review on
the following arguments:
I.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS AND PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIONS WERE PURPOSELY DESIGNED TO ADDRESS MATTERS
OF EXTREME URGENCY WHERE THERE IS PROBABILITY OF
GRAVE INJUSTICE AND IRREPARABLE INJURY.[14]
II.
THE RULE ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MERELY REQUIRES THAT

UNLESS RESTRAINED, THE ACT COMPLAINED OF WILL PROBABLY
WORK INJUSTICE TO THE APPLICANT OR PROBABLY VIOLATE HIS
RIGHTS AND TENDS TO RENDER THE JUDGMENT
[15]
INEFFECTUAL. (Emphasis in the original.)
Fundamental to the resolution of the instant petition is the issue of whether

or not the trial court may issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction to enjoin the construction and operation of the 29 decagon-shaped steel
poles or towers by the NAPOCOR, notwithstanding Presidential Decree No. 1818.
Petitioners clutch on their stand that Presidential Decree No. 1818 could not
be construed to apply to cases of extreme urgency as in the present case when no
less than the rights of the petitioners to health and safety hangs on the balance.
We find the petition to be imbued with merit.
Presidential Decree No. 1818 was issued on 16 January 1981, prohibiting

judges from issuing restraining orders against government infrastructure projects.
In part, the decree says, No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue
any restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary order, preliminary
mandatory injunction in any case, dispute or controversy involving an
infrastructure project. Realizing the importance of this decree, this Tribunal had
issued different circulars to implement this particular law.
Presidential Decree No. 1818[16] prohibits courts from issuing injunctions

against government infrastructure projects. In Garcia v. Burgos,[17] Presidential
Decree No. 1818 was held to prohibit courts from issuing an injunction against any
infrastructure project in order not to disrupt or hamper the pursuit of essential
government projects or frustrate the economic development effort of the nation.
While its sole provision would appear to encompass all cases involving the
implementation of projects and contracts on infrastructure, natural resource
development and public utilities, this rule, however, is not absolute as there are
actually instances when Presidential Decree No. 1818 should not find
application. In a spate of cases, this Court declared that although Presidential
Decree No. 1818 prohibits any court from issuing injunctions in cases involving
infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends only to the issuance of
injunctions or restraining orders against administrative acts in controversies
involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. On issues clearly
outside this dimension and involving questions of law, this Court declared that
courts could not be prevented from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit
administrative acts.[18]
In the case at bar, petitioners sought the issuance of a preliminary injunction

on the ground that the NAPOCOR Project impinged on their right to health as
enshrined in Article II, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill consciousness among them.
To boot, petitioners, moreover, harp on respondents failure to conduct prior

consultation with them, as the community affected by the project, in stark violation
of Section 27 of the Local Government Code which provides: no project or
program shall be implemented by government authorities unless the consultations
mentioned are complied with, and prior approval of the Sanggunian concerned is
observed.
From the foregoing, whether there is a violation of petitioners

constitutionally protected right to health and whether respondent NAPOCOR had
indeed violated the Local Government Code provision on prior consultation with
the affected communities are veritable questions of law that invested the trial court
with jurisdiction to issue a TRO and subsequently, a preliminary injunction. As
such, these questions of law divest the case from the protective mantle of
Presidential Decree No. 1818.
Moreover, the issuance by the trial court of a preliminary injunction finds

legal support in Section 3 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court which provides:
Sec. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. - A preliminary

injunction may be granted when it is established:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or
part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance
of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an
act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or

acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to
the applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is

attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or
acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the
subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment
ineffectual. (3a) (Emphasis supplied.)
The rule on preliminary injunction merely requires that unless restrained, the
act complained of will probably violate his rights and tend to render the judgment
ineffectual.
Here, there is adequate evidence on record to justify the conclusion that the
project of NAPOCOR probably imperils the health and safety of the petitioners so
as to justify the issuance by the trial court of a writ of preliminary injunction.
Petitioners adduced in evidence copies of studies linking the incidence of

illnesses such as cancer and leukemia to exposure to electromagnetic fields. The
records bear out, to boot, a copy of a brochure of NAPOCOR regarding its Quezon
Power Project from which will be supplying NAPOCOR with the power which
will pass through the towers subject of the controversy. The NAPOCOR brochure
provides that because of the danger concomitant with high voltage power,
Philippine laws mandate that the power lines should be located within safe
distances from residences. And the Quezon Power Project mandates an easement
of 20 meters to the right and 20 meters to the left which falls short of the 12-meter
easement that NAPOCOR was proposing to petitioners.
Likewise on record, are copies of letters of NAPOCOR President Federico

Puno to Rep. Arnulfo Fuentebella, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy,
stating updates on the negotiations being undertaken by the NAPOCOR and
the Dasmarias Village and Forbes Park residents. Also on file is the Privilege
Speech dated 10 May 1999 of Representative Francis Joseph G. Escudero, who
denounced the cavalier manner with which NAPOCOR ignored safety and
consultation requirements in the questioned project.
With a member of Congress denouncing the subject project of NAPOCOR

because of the very same health and safety ills that petitioners now hew to in this
petition, and with documents on record to show that NAPOCOR made
representations to petitioners that they are looking into the possibility of relocating
the project, added to the fact that there had been series of negotiations and
meetings between petitioners and NAPOCOR as well as related agencies, there is
ample indicia to suggest to the mind of the court that the health concerns of the
petitioners are, at the very least, far from imaginary.
Indeed, if there is no cause for concern, NAPOCOR would not have been
stirred to come up with options to address the woes of petitioners, nor would
Congressman Escudero have fired away those strong words of censure, assailing
what to Congressman Escudero smacks of a cavalier manner by which the
NAPOCOR has responded to earnest pleas for a review of its practice of installing
massive pylons supporting high tension cables in densely populated areas.[19]
True, the issue of whether or not the transmission lines are safe is essentially
evidentiary in nature, and pertains to the very merits of the action below. In fact,
petitioners recognize that the conclusiveness of their life, health and safety
concerns still needs to be proved in the main case below and they are prepared to
do so especially in the light of some studies cited by respondent that yield contrary
results in a disputed subject. Despite the parties conflicting results of studies made
on the issue, the possibility that the exposure to electromagnetic radiation causes
cancer and other disorders is still, indeed, within the realm of scientific scale of
probability.
Equally important, we take judicial notice that the area alluded to as location
of the NAPOCOR project is a fragile zone being proximate to local earthquake
faults, particularly the Marikina fault, among other zones. This is not to mention
the risks of falling structures caused by killer tornadoes and super typhoons,
the Philippines, especially Central Luzon, being situated along the typhoon belt.
Moreover, the Local Government Code, requires conference with the

affected communities of a government project. NAPOCOR, palpably, made a
shortcut to this requirement. In fact, there appears a lack of exhaustive feasibility
studies on NAPOCORs part before making a go with the project on hand;
otherwise, it should have anticipated the legal labyrinth it is now caught in.
These are facts, which the trial court could not ignore, and form as sufficient
basis to engender the cloud of doubt that the NAPOCOR project could, indeed,
endanger the lives of the petitioners. A preliminary injunction is likewise justified
prior to a final determination of the issues of whether or not NAPOCOR ignored
safety and consultation requirements in the questioned project. Indeed, the court
could, nay should, grant the writ of preliminary injunction if the purpose of the
other party is to shield a wrongdoing. A ruling to the contrary would amount to an
erosion of judicial discretion.
After all, for a writ of preliminary injunction to be issued, the Rules do not
require that the act complained of be in violation of the rights of the applicant.
Indeed, what the Rules require is that the act complained of be probably in
violation of the rights of the applicant. Under the Rules of Court, probability is
enough basis for injunction to issue as a provisional remedy, which is different
from injunction as a main action where one needs to establish absolute certainty as
basis for a final and permanent injunction.
Pending the final determination of the trial court on the main case for
damages, of whether or not the NAPOCOR Project infringes on petitioners
substantive right to health and pending determination of the question of whether
there was non-observance of the prior-consultation proviso under the Local
Government Code, it is prudent to preserve the status quo. In Phil. Ports Authority
v. Cipres Stevedoring & Arrastre, Inc.,[20] we held:
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action prior
to judgment of final order, requiring a party, court, agency, or person to refrain
from a particular act or acts. It is a preservative remedy to ensure the protection
of a partys substantive rights or interests pending the final judgment in the
principal action. A plea for an injunctive writ lies upon the existence of a claimed
emergency or extraordinary situation which should be avoided for otherwise, the
outcome of a litigation would be useless as far as the party applying for the writ is
concerned.
At times referred to as the Strong Arm of Equity, we have consistently

ruled that there is no power the exercise of which is more delicate and which calls
for greater circumspection than the issuance of an injunction. It should only be
extended in cases of great injury where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or
commensurate remedy in damages; in cases of extreme urgency; where the right
is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in
complainants favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiffs
right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one, and
where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to reestablish and maintain
a preexisting continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily
interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation. (Emphasis
supplied.)
What is more, contrary to respondents assertion, there is not a single syllable

in the circulars issued by this Court enjoining the observance of Presidential
Decree No. 1818, which altogether and absolutely, ties the hands of the courts
from issuing a writ of preliminary injunction. What Circular 2-91[21] dated 15
March 1991 seeks to enjoin is the indiscriminateissuance of court injunctions. The
same holds for Circular 13-93[22] dated 5 March 1993 and Circular 68-94.[23] And,
in Circular No. 7-99, judges are enjoined to observe utmost caution, prudence and
judiciousness in the issuance of temporary restraining order and in the grant of
writs of preliminary injunction to avoid any suspicion that its issuance or grant was
for consideration other than the strict merits of the case.[24]
There is not a hint from the foregoing circulars suggesting

an unbridled prohibition against the issuance of temporary restraining orders or
preliminary injunctions.
In sum, what Presidential Decree No. 1818 aims to avert is the untimely
frustration of government infrastructure projects, particularly by provisional
remedies, to the detriment of the greater good by disrupting the pursuit of essential
government projects or frustrate the economic development effort of the nation.
Presidential Decree No. 1818, however, was not meant to be a blanket prohibition
so as to disregard the fundamental right to health, safety and well-being of a
community guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land.[25]
Lest we be misconstrued, this decision does not undermine the purpose of

the NAPOCOR project which is aimed towards the common good of the people.
But, is the promotion of the general welfare at loggerheads with the preservation of
the rule of law? We submit that it is not.[26]
In the present case, the far-reaching irreversible effects to human safety

should be the primordial concerns over presumed economic benefits per se as
alleged by the NAPOCOR.
Not too long ago, the Court, in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority
(MMDA) v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.,[27] upheld the validity of the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals enjoining the
implementation of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authoritys proposed
action of opening of the Neptune Street to public vehicular traffic. We were
categorical -
Not infrequently, the government is tempted to take legal shortcuts to

solve urgent problems of the people. But even when government is armed with
the best of intention, we cannot allow it to run roughshod over the rule of law.
Again, we let the hammer fall and fall hard on the illegal attempt of the MMDA
to open for public use a private road in a private subdivision. While we hold that
the general welfare should be promoted, we stress that it should not be achieved at
the expense of the rule of law.[28]
In hindsight, if, after trial, it turns out that the health-related fears that
petitioners cleave on to have adequate confirmation in fact and in law, the
questioned project of NAPOCOR then suffers from a paucity of purpose, no matter
how noble the purpose may be. For what use will modernization serve if it proves
to be a scourge on an individuals fundamental right, not just to health and safety,
but, ostensibly, to life preservation itself, in all of its desired quality?
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision dated 3 May

2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57849 is REVERSED as well as
the resolution dated 27 September 2000. The Order dated 3 April 2000 of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati in Civil Case No. 00-352 is
hereby REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to costs
SO ORDERED.

Cases - NATRES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cases - NATRES

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cases - NATRES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

G.R No. 187167 August 16, 2011

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP. RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF.

We left unacted petitioners prayer for an injunctive writ.

The petition raises the following issues:

1. Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit; and

The Ruling of the Court

On the Threshold Issues

The Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition

RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional

Petitioners theory fails to persuade us.

RA 9522s Use of the Framework

b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal. (Emphasis supplied)

Statutory Claim Over Sabah under

UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not

Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the Constitution39 or as

1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the

Petitioners invocation of non-executory constitutional provisions in Article II (Declaration of

RA 9522 and the Philippines Maritime Zones

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

ARTURO D. BRION DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

ROBERTO A. ABAD MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

G.R. No. 209271, December 08, 2015

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS,

CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner-in-Intervention.

G.R. No. 209276

G.R. No. 209301

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BANOS FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE

G.R. No. 209430

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES),

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Respondent Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) is a coalition of local

The following reliefs are thus prayed for:

CA Proceedings and Judgment

SO ORDERED.26 ChanRoblesVi rtualaw lib rary

G.R. No. 209271

ISAAA advances the following arguments in support of its petition:

A. IN SEEKING TO COMPEL THE REGULATORY AGENCIES "TO SUBMIT AN ACCEPTABLE DRAFT

C. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN APPLYING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

G.R. No. 209276

GR. No. 209301

120. Global warming is likewise reduced as more crops can be grown.

122. Feeding on CrylAcc contaminated non-target herbivores does not

135. There is a 50 year history of safe use and consumption of agricultural

141. In a learned treatise by James Clive entitled "Global Status of

G.R. No. 209430

Respondents' Consolidated Comment

Drs. L. Moreno-Fierros, N. For Bt modified crops (like Bt talong), there

Lopez-Revilla, and RI allergenicity. CrylAcc (the gene inserted

Prof. Eric-Gilles Seralini His key findings showed statistical significant

Prof. David A. Andow The MAHYCO dossier is inadequate to

What happened Impact How did it occur

In 2009, unauthorised Canada lost exports to its In the late 1980s a

During 2004, the Thai Exports of papaya to GEpapaya is not

In the US in 2002, seeds Prodigene, the company Seeds from the