Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

June 26, 2019 Part 2 Executive Order No.

(EO) 430, is the regulatory


00:41:10 to 01:20:00 body tasked to:
(a) "identify and evaluate potential hazards
Pemberton case involved in initiating genetic engineering
(continuation) experiments or the introduction of new species
and genetically engineered organisms and
 You are not really against that private complainant. recommend measures to minimize risks"; and
She’s already dead. But rather, you are pitted (b) ''formulate and review national policies and
against the People. That’s why the title of the case guidelines on biosafety, such as the safe conduct of
is People vs. “the accused” because the real injured work on genetic engineering, pests and their
party is the State, the People. genetic materials for the protection of public
 The People is the real-party-in-interest which health, environment, and personnel, and supervise
means allowing the private complainant to sue a the implementation thereof."
criminal case on its own is a rare exception. It is  So, there is a legislative basis on the conduct of
only when it is allowed by the public prosecutor; these experiments and also, administrative
only if the prosecutor, representing the People of issuances that would regulate these experiments.
the Philippines would allow you to sue separately. Accordingly, UP LB conducted experiments. These
 In this case, she wasn’t able to obtain the consent complained experiments were completed in 2009.
required. So, there was a certificate of completion.
 The next step is the field tests.
#2 Constitutionality of the VFA which granted Pemberton  On April 26, 2012, respondents Greenpeace
this special privilege Southeast Asia (Philippines) (Greenpeace),
 The Supreme Court did not resolve this issue Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng
because the unconstitutionality of the VFA is not Agrikultura (MASIPAG), and others (respondents)
the lis mota of this case. filed before the Court a Petition for Writ of
 The issue on seeking the transfer of this person in Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan with
another facility can be decided without having to Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
deal with the unconstitutionality of the VFA. The Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) (petition
Court will only look whether or not a particular for Writ of Kalikasan) against herein petitioners.
provision is applicable in the VFA, whether or not  They invoke this Temporary Environmental
it is factual, or that it involves the resolution of this Protection Order (TEPO) before the Supreme
issue, whether unconstitutional or not. Also, the Court.
main case is not the lis mota. The issue raised does
not hinge on whether or not the VFA is Why did they want to enjoin this field testing of the Bt
unconstitutional. He really just wants to be Talong? What was the reason?
transferred to the appropriate facility.  For violation of the Constitutional right to health
 So, the Court dismissed the petition. and a balanced ecology. What if this would affect
the other plants, genetic mutation, for example,
that would cause widespread damage. This is only
testing; there is no certainty yet on whether or not
International Service vs. Greanpeace this would be successful. So, they argued that the
required certificates were not obtained to proceed
Facts: with the field testing.
 This involves the Bt talong experiments being  UP LB, et al also argued that this would also violate
conducted by the UP LB. So, these GMOs their rights to pursue this endeavor and due
(Genetically-Modified Organisms), they wanted to process, as well. And so, Greenpeace went to the
genetically modify these talongs to be resistant to Supreme Court to get TEPO to stop the Bt talong
certain tests but the process involves many experiments.
requirements. It does not only involve getting the  SC passed the case to the CA. The CA rendered a
permits of these tests. So, the process is decision in favor of Greenpeace and it directed
complicated. The first step was already complied those who conducted the experiments to cease
with. and desist from further conducting Bt talong field
 From 2007 to 2009, petitioner University of the trials, to protect, to serve and to rehabilitate the
Philippines Los Banos (UPLB), the implementing environment.
institution of the field trials, conducted a contained  So, those who lost the case went to the SC because
experiment on Bt talong under the supervision of they are claiming that the decision of the CA was
the National Committee on Biosafety of the invalid because they have complied with all of the
Philippines (NCBP). The NCBP, created under requirements. There is no proof in the first place
that it will cause irreversible harm if they proceed If we apply this precautionary principle, what
with the Bt talong experiments. happens to the burden of evidence? Who proves
 There were procedural issues on the requirements what?
of judicial review.
 General rule:
Issue on standing: The person who alleges a fact must prove such fact.
 They wanted to reverse the decision of the CA.  In this case:
They wanted to proceed with the experiments. Did The precautionary principle shifts the burden of
they have standing? evidence of harm away from those who are likely
 In environmental cases, if you are invoking a law to suffer harm and on to those who want to
and you invoke the rules of the SC in change the status quo.
environmental cases, the rule on standing is
liberalized. This was the rule in Oposa vs. Factoran Those who seek to pursue experiments that
involving minors representing to those children would harm the environment must prove with
unborn. The Court said that yes you have standing certainty that harm will not be done.
to represent these unborn individuals. So, the rule
on locus standing is liberalized. In case of doubt or uncertainty of irreversible
harm, the cases shall be resolved in favor of the
SEC. 5. Citizen suit. - Any Filipino citizen in representation Constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
of others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may ecology.
file an action to enforce rights or obligations under
environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the As much as possible, we would have to sustain the
court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief status quo than risk it. If they cannot prove, then,
description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, they can be enjoined from doing the experiments.
requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to  The Court reversed its ruling because it sustained
intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice its injunction on the Bt talong. In the 2016 case, the
thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a Court said that there is no need to decide on this
newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or case because it was actually already moot and
furnish all affected barangays copies of said order. academic. What do they have to stop if the field
testing already stopped?

Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes


Issue on being moot and academic:
 There is nothing to stop because the field tests Facts:
were already stopped. However, the Court said  The Resident Marine Mammals here sued the
that the case is not moot and academic because enforcement of the contract entered into between
the exception to the mootness principle apply. the Republic and this private entity to develop,
 Precautionary principle: explore, and produce petroleum resources in
When there are threats of serious and irreversible Tañon Strait. It alleged that because of the
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be exploration of that area, there were fish kills,
used as a reason for postponing cost-effective reduce of catch of the fishermen. They wanted to
measures to prevent environmental degradation. stop this activity. They filed this case, an allegation
of violation of environmental law.
Simply means, if there are threats that would cause  The Resident Marine Mammals wanted to have
serious and irreversible damage, it does not mean this contract declared unconstitutional, for, among
that the Courts will not stop it because there is others, not complying with the provisions of the
proper precaution. Constitution and also violation of the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology.
In other words, you cannot postpone action, etc.,
to avoid potentially serious or irreversible damage Issue on legal standing:
or harm to the environment on the ground that  The defense of the other party was that the
there is no scientific certainty that harm will be Resident Marine Mammals had no legal standing
done. It’s better to be safe than sorry just because before the Court. You are whales, dolphins, and
there is no proof of actual injury or damage. To fish.
exercise caution, on the safe side.  They claimed that through their stores, they have
legal standing.
Issue on mootness:
 The contract was already terminated and the
activity already ended. However, the Court said Ruling:
that despite the mootness because of the 1) Is there an actual case or controversy?
cessation of the activity, it will decide on the No because the Senators, who are required to
matter. concur on the treaty, are not deprived of the
opportunity to invoke the privileges granted to
Ruling: them in the Constitution.

Have we evolved as a State in the level of consciousness that


we can already grant standing to rivers, trees, inanimate
objects?

 No, we have not yet established that these have


standing in Court. Nevertheless, we have cases
that were decided in a liberal approach when there
is an issue in standing as decided in Oposa vs.
Factoran and as adopted by the Court in the Rules
of Procedures in Environmental Cases.
 Under the rules, the need to give Resident Marine
Mammals legal standing have been eliminated.
Locus standing in environmental cases have been
given a more liberalized approach. If the Rules of
Procedures in Environmental Cases permits any
Filipino citizen to file an action for violation of
environmental laws.
 So, these Resident Mammals, they cannot go
there. They are represented by stewards. And
these stewards are given standing because there is
allegation of violation of environmental laws. The
requirement on standing is liberalized.
 Ultimately, the Court granted the petition and
declared that this contract is null and void for
violating the provisions of the Constitution and
several laws.

Saguisag vs. Ochoa

Facts:
 The Court decided here the validity of the
Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
(EDCA). So, there is this VFA and then, the US and
RP wanted to add activities to strengthen their
defenses. The US and RP entered into this EDCA
not by way of treat but by mere executive
agreement between these two countries, signed
by their representatives.
 Now, this was challenged because this involves a
purported entry of foreign troops. In the
Constitution, that is required to be in a treaty and
a treaty requires the concurrence of Senate. It did
not undergo that procedure.
 Congressmen, including Saguisag, et al, went to
Court to challenge the validity of this EDCA, for
among other, being entered into by executive
agreement and not in a treaty.

Issue: Whether or not the requisites for a judicial review are


present?

Похожие интересы