Section 16: Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology

GR. No. 209271 Intrernational Service vs Greenpeace

Villarama, JR., J.:

Provide a single paragraph summary of the case here but be sure to highlight the areas pertinent to the subject matter in
the syllabus.

DOCTRINE (subject matter mandatory, the rest optional)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque ac erat placerat turpis suscipit congue id quis erat.
Curabitur lobortis metus ut purus venenatis

IMPORTANT Parties
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)

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

FACTS: SAME AS IN THE DECEMBER 8, 2015 case, but the petitioners moved for reconsideration from the decision fo
the first case.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. WON the case is moot and academic

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

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

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration are GRANTED. The Decision dated December 8, 2015 of the Court,
which affirmed with modification the Decision dated May 17, 2013 and the Resolution dated September 20, 2013 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00013, is hereby SET ASIDE for the reasons above-explained. A new one
is ENTERED DISMISSING the Petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) filed by respondents Greenpeace Southeast Asia
(Philippines), Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunladng Agrikultura, and others on the ground of mootness.

OTHER NOTES
Basically, the court just reversed their decision in the December 8, 2015 case.

DIGESTER: Infante, Reyes