International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301 & 209430 (December 8, 2015)
\nSupreme Court of the Philippines<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld a lower court decision invalidating an administrative order governing import and release of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in the Philippines.\u00a0The Court addressed a range of issues, from standing and mootness to application of the precautionary principle.\u00a0 On the procedural claims by the petitioners that the case was moot and \u201cacademic\u201d because all field trials had been suspended, the Supreme Court found the paramount public interest in the case and the fact that the legal issues were capable of repetition yet evading review justified the Court\u2019s review of the case.\u00a0 Page 38.\u00a0 The Court also noted the petitioners were warranted in seeking judicial review because the biotechnology administrative framework does not provide \u201ca speedy, or adequate remedy.\u201d Page 40.<\/p>\n
The decision explains the current controversy over GMOs and, in particular, genetically-modified food crops for human consumption.\u00a0 Drawing on research and case studies from around the world, and the testimony of expert witnesses, the Supreme Court found there to be no consensus on the safety of Bt talong to humans and the environment, stating \u201c[t]hese divergent views of local scientists reflect the continuing international debate on GMOs and the varying degrees of acceptance of GM technology by states . . . .\u201d Page 69.\u00a0 The Court also cautioned that the \u201cuncertainties generated by conflicting scientific findings or limited research [are] not diminished by extensive use at present of GM technology in agriculture.\u201d\u00a0 Page 70.<\/p>\n
Turning to the existing biosafety regulation in the Philippines, the Supreme Court found Administrative Order (DAO) 08-2002 deficient because it lacks provisions for meaningful, participatory, and transparent public consultation prior to field trials and contains no mechanisms requiring applicants seeking to import or release GMOs to comply with international biosafety standards.\u00a0 Pages 89-91.\u00a0 The Court also found that officials should have complied with environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures prior to approving release of Bt talong.\u00a0 Pages 91-92.<\/p>\n
Invoking the precautionary principle, the Supreme Court blocked further field trials of Bt talong until regulatory systems governing the import and release of GMOs are strengthened.\u00a0 \u201cWhen 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.\u201d Page 100.\u00a0 The Court proceeded to nullify DAO 08-2002 and enjoined applications for contained use, field testing, propagation and commercialization, and importation of any GMOs until a new administrative order is adopted.\u00a0 Page 102.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301 & 209430 (December 8, 2015) Supreme Court of the Philippines The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld a lower court decision invalidating an administrative order governing import and release of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in the Philippines.\u00a0The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","resource-topic":[42,73,2010,93,2043],"resource-type":[528],"resource-category":[30097],"content-for-websites":[30103],"region":[618,30247],"class_list":["post-12326","resource","type-resource","status-publish","hentry","resource-topic-biodiversity","resource-topic-genetically-modified-organisms-gmos","resource-topic-healthy-environment","resource-topic-precautionary-principle","resource-topic-right-to","resource-type-cases","resource-category-legal","content-for-websites-notable-cases","region-philippines","region-southeast-asia"],"blocksy_meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource\/12326","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/resource"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12326"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12326"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"resource-topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-topic?post=12326"},{"taxonomy":"resource-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-type?post=12326"},{"taxonomy":"resource-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-category?post=12326"},{"taxonomy":"content-for-websites","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/content-for-websites?post=12326"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=12326"}],"curies":[{"name":"gracias","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}