ISAAAI V GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA

Facts:

From 2007 to 2009, petitioner University of the Philippines Los Baiios (UPLB), the implementing institution of the field trials,
conducted a contained experiment on Bt talong under the supervision of the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines
(NCBP)

The NCBP, created under Executive Order No. (EO) 430,... is the regulatory body tasked to: (a) "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 (b) "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."

Upon the completion of the contained experiment, the NCBP issued a Certificate... therefor stating that all biosafety measures were
complied with, and no untoward incident had occurred

On March 16, 2010 and June 28, 2010, the Bureau of Plant Industries (BPI) issued two (2)-year Biosafety Permits... for field testing
of Bt talong

Consequently, field testing proceeded in approved trial sites in North Cotabato, Pangasinan, Camarines Sur, Davao City, and
Laguna.

On April 26, 2012, respondents Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines) (Greenpeace), Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa
Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG), and others (respondents) filed before the Court a Petition for Writ of Continuing
Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO)

(petition for Writ of Kalikasan) against herein petitioners... alleging that the Bt talong field trials violated their constitutional right to
health and a balanced ecology considering, among others, that: (a) the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), as required by
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1151,... was not secured prior to the field trials;... b) the required public consultations under the Local
Government Code (LGC) were not complied with;... and (c) as a regulated article under DAO 08-2002, Bt talong is presumed
harmful to human health and the environment, and that there is no independent, peer-reviewed study showing its safety for human
consumption and the environment

Further, they contended that since the scientific evidence as to the safety of Bt talong remained insufficient or uncertain, and that
preliminary scientific evaluation shows reasonable grounds for concern, the precautionary principle should be applied and, thereby,
the field trials be enjoined.

On May 2, 2012, the Court issued... a Writ of Kalikasan against petitioners (except UPLB

May 17, 2013, the CA ruled in favor of respondents and directed petitioners to permanently cease and desist from conducting the Bt
talong field trials.

Issues:

the case should have been dismissed for mootness in view of the completion and termination of the Bt talong field trials and the
expiration of the Biosafety Permits;... b) the Court should not have ruled on the validity of DAO 08-2002 as it was not raised as an
issue

Ruling:

The Proceedings Before the Court

Agreeing with the CA, the Court held that the precautionary principle applies in this case since the risk of harm from the field trials of
Bt talong remains uncertain and there exists a possibility of serious and irreversible harm. The Court observed that eggplants are a
staple vegetable in the country that is mostly grown by small-scale farmers who are poor and marginalized; thus, given the country's
rich biodiversity, the consequences of contamination and genetic pollution would be disastrous and irreversible.
The Court likewise agreed with the CA in not dismissing the case for being moot and academic despite the completion and
tennination of the Bt talong field trials, on account of the following exceptions to the mootness principle: (a) the exceptional character
of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; and (b) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

Thus, the Court permanently enjoined the field testing of Bt talong. In addition, it declared DAO 08-2002 null and void for failure to
consider the provisions of the NBF. The Court also temporarily enjoined any application for contained use, field testing, propagation,
commercialization, and importation of genetically modified organisms until a new administrative order is promulgated in accordance
with law.

The Court's Ruling

The Court grants the motions for reconsideration on the ground of mootness.

As a rule, the Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies.

Accordingly, the Court is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law
which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it. In other words, when a case is moot, it becomes non-
justiciable

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. There is nothing for the court to resolve as the determination
thereof has been overtaken by subsequent events

Nevertheless, case law states that the Court will decide cases, otherwise moot, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution;
second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest are 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

Thus, jurisprudence recognizes these four instances as exceptions to the mootness principle.

In the December 8, 2015 Decision of the Court, it was held that (a) the present case is of exceptional character and paramount
public interest is involved, and (b) it is likewise capable of repetition yet evading review. Hence, it was excepted from the mootness
principle

However, upon a closer scrutiny of the parties' arguments, the Court reconsiders its ruling and now finds merit in petitioners'
assertion that the case should have been dismissed for being moot and academic, and that the aforesaid exceptions to the said rule
should not have been applied.

I. On the paramount public interest exception.

However, a survey of cases would show that, as a common guidepost for application, there should be some perceivable benefit to
the public which demands the Court to proceed with the resolution of otherwise moot questions.

no perceivable benefit to the public - whether rational or practical - may be gained by resolving respondents' petition for Writ of
Kalikasan on the merits.

To recount, these cases, which stemmed from herein respondents petition for Writ of Kalikasan, were mooted by the undisputed
expiration of the Biosafety Permits issued by the BPI and the completion and tennination of the Bt talong field trials subject of the
same

These incidents effectively negated the necessity for the reliefs sought by respondents in their petition for Writ of Kalikasan as there
was no longer any field test to enjoin. Hence, at the time the CA rendered its Decision dated May 17, 2013, the reliefs petitioner
sought and granted by the CA were no longer capable of execution.

As the matter never went beyond the field testing phase, none of the foregoing tasks related to propagation were pursued or the
requirements therefor complied with. Thus, there are no guaranteed after-effects to the already concluded Bt talong field trials that
demand an adjudication from which the public may perceivably benefit. Any future threat to the right of herein respondents or the
public in general to a healthful and balanced ecology is therefore more imagined than real
In fact, it would appear to be more beneficial to the public to stay a verdict on the safeness of Bt talong - or GMOs, for that matter -
until an actual and justiciable case properly presents itself before the Court

II. The case is not one capable of repetition vet evading review.Likewise, contrary to the Court's earlier ruling... these cases do not
fall under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception.

Under DAO 08-2002, no specific guidelines were used in the conduct of risk assessment, and the DA was allowed to consider the
expert advice of, and guidelines developed by, relevant international organizations and regulatory authorities of countries with
significant experience in the regulatory supervision of the regulated article.

However, under JDC 01-2016, the CODEX Alimentarius Guidelines was adopted to govern the risk assessment of activities
involving the research, development, handling and use, transboundary movement, release into the environment, and management
of genetically modified plant and plant products derived from the use of modern biotechnology.

Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that the regulatory framework now applicable in conducting risk assessment in matters
involving the research, development, handling, movement, and release into the environment of genetically modified plant and plant
products derived from the use of modern biotechnology is substantially different from that which was applied to the subject field
trials. In this regard, it cannot be said that the present case is one capable of repetition yet evading review.

the Court discerns that there are two (2) factors to be considered before a case is deemed one capable of repetition yet evading
review: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and (2) there was
a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action.

Here, respondents cannot claim that the duration of the subject field tests was too short to be fully litigated. It must be emphasized
that the Biosafety Permits for the subject field tests were issued on March 16, 2010 and June 28, 2010, and were valid for two (2)
years. However, as aptly pointed out by Justice Leonen, respondents filed their petition for Writ of Kalikasan only on April 26, 2012 -
just a few months before the Biosafety Permits expired and when the field testing activities were already over.[108] Obviously,
therefore, the cessation of the subject field tests before the case could be resolved was due to respondents' own inaction.

Moreover, the situation respondents complain of is not susceptible to repetition. As discussed above, DAO 08-2002 has already
been superseded by JDC 01-2016. Hence, future applications for field testing will be governed by JDC 01-2016 which, as illustrated,
adopts a regulatory framework that is substantially different from that of DAO 08-2002.

In fact, in relation to the latter, it is observed that the Court should not have even delved into the constitutionality of DAO 08-2002 as
it was merely collaterally challenged by respondents, based on the constitutional precepts of the people's rights to information on
matters of public concern, to public participation, to a balanced and healthful ecology, and to health.

All told, with respondents' petition for Writ of Kalikasan already mooted by the expiration of the Biosafety Permits and the completion
of the field trials subject of these cases, and with none of the exceptions to the mootness principle properly attending, the Court
grants the instant motions for reconsideration and hereby dismisses the aforesaid petition. With this pronouncement, no discussion
on the substantive merits of the same should be made.

Principles:

At this point, the Court discerns that there are two (2) factors to be considered before a case is deemed one capable of repetition yet
evading review: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and (2)
there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action.