The Supreme Court on Tuesday permanently stopped the government from conducting field trials, propagation and commercialization, and importation of genetically modified organisms being used on plants due to risks these pose to human and the environment.
In its en banc session, the SC upheld the decision issued by the Court of Appeals in May 2013, which granted the petition filed by Greenpeace and co-petitioners Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura (Masipag) and several other individuals for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan against the field testing of BT eggplant.
The respondents lamented that the conduct of BT eggplant field trials has violated the constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology.
The oppositors to GMOs claimed that the Bt eggplant test project did not comply with the required public consultation under Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code.
In its May 2013 decision, the CA issued a writ of kalikasan ordering the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and other concerned government agencies to permanently “cease and desist” from further conducting field trials of BT eggplant in the country.
This prompted the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications Inc., Environmental Management Bureau, Crop Life Philippines Inc., University of the Philippines Los Baños Foundation Inc. University of the Philippines to file separate petitions, which was later consolidated by the Court, seeking the reversal of the CA ruling.
Aside from permanently enjoining the field testing of Bt eggplant, the SC also declared null and void the Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 08 providing rules and regulations for the importation and release into the environment of plants and plant products derived from the use of modern biotechology.
The order specifically covers the importation or release into the environment of: (1) any plant which has been altered or produced through the use of modern 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 as meeting the definition of plant pest or is a medium for the introduction of noxious weeds; or (2) any plant or plant produce altered through the use of modern biotechnology which may
pose significant risks to human health and the environment based on available scientific and technical information.
SC spokesman Theodore Te revealed that as a result of the SC ruling, any application for contained use, field testing, propagation and commercialization, and importation of GMOs is temporarily enjoined until a new administrative order is promulgated in accordance with law.
“The Court agreed with the CA on its basic holdings. It reviewed the testimonies presented at the CA of the scientists tapped by petitioners and respondents. From its review, the Court noted that the scientists do not have a consensus on the safety of Bt talong and that these divergent views reflect the continuing international debate on Genetically Modified Organisms and the varying degrees of acceptance of GM technology by States, especially in the developed countries,” the SC through Associate Justice Martin Villarama Jr. ruled.
The SC held that the existing regulations issued by the DA and the DOST were insufficient to guarantee the safety of the environment and the health of the people.
It added that the appellate court is correct in applying the precautionary principle set forth in Rule 20, section 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) stressing that the “over all safety guarantee of the bt talong” remains unknown.
“In the present proceeding, the Court found all three conditions present—uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm and the possibility of serious harm. The Court arrived at this conclusion after assessing the evidence on record as well as the current state of the GMO research worldwide,” the SC stressed.
Te stressed that the high court also took judicial notice of the current literature on GMO research and after a lengthy review of the scientific literature, arrived at the conclusion that “(i)n sum, current scientific research indicates that the biotech industry has not sufficiently addressed the uncertainties over the safety of GM foods and crops.”
The Court held that DAO 08-2002 failed to meet the minimum requirements for safety under Executive Order 514, which established the National Biosafety Framework.
The NBF under EO 514 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 as provided in DAO 08-2002.
“The Court found that petitioners simply followed DAO 08-2002, but no real effort was made to operationalize the principles of the NBF in the conduct of field testing of Bt talong,” the SC pointed out.
“The failure of DAO 08-2002 to accommodate the NBF means that the DA lacks the mechanisms to mandate applicant to comply with international biosafety protocols,” it said.