a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer
Interational Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia, GR 209271, December 8, 2015
FACTS: On September 24, 2010, a Memorandum of Undertaking was executed pursuant to collaborative research and development project on eggplants. The petitioners conducted field trials for "bioengineered eggplants," known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) eggplant (Bt talong). Bt talong contains the crystal toxin genes from the soil bacterium Bt, which produces the CrylAc protein that is toxic to target insect pests. The Cry1Ac protein is said to be highly specific to lepidopteran larvae such as the fruit and shoot borer, the most destructive insect pest to eggplants. Subsequently, respondents filed a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan alleging that the field trials violated their consitutional right to health and a balance ecology considering that BT talong is presumed harmful to human health and the environment
ISSUE: Whether or not the case is moot and academic.
RATIO DECIDENDI: The case is not moot and academic. An action is considered “moot” when it 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. The case falls under the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness principle. The human and environmental health hazards posed by the introduction of a genetically modified plant which is a very popular staple vegetable among Filipinos is an issue of paramount public interest.
Leave a Reply.