Sustainability is everyone’s responsibility

The Court of Appeals, on Sept. 20, reaffirmed its well-studied judgment rendered in May this year to stop the field testing in Philippine soil of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) talong (eggplant), a genetically-modified (GM) crop. On May 17, 2013, it granted the writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus prayed for by petitioners Greenpeace and Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura (Masipag) with 15 other individuals including former senator Orlando Mercado and Rep. Teodoro Casiño and my dear colleague, Ipat Luna.

The CA decision was anchored on the following grounds:

a) there is no scientific consensus on the safety and impacts of Bt talong;

b) there is no Congressional enactment that governs introduction, release, experimentation of GM crops like Bt talong;

c) precautionary principle is applicable in the light of uncertainties and inadequacy/ineffectiveness or current regulatory system; and,

d) The testing of Bt talong, with its social, economic and environmental impacts, should not be entrusted to scientists only but should also involve all stakeholders.

The aforesaid ruling of the Special 13th Division penned by CA Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican directed the respondents led by University of the Philippines Los Baños Foundation (UPLBFI), University of the Philippines, Los Baños (UPLB), the Department of Agriculture (DA), and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to “permanently cease and desist from further conducting BT talong field trials” and “protect, preserve, rehabilitate and restore the environment.” The respondents filed their motion for reconsideration. But the CA was not persuaded and affirmed its May Ruling.

The CA declares that the testing or introduction of Bt talong in the Philippines, by its nature and intent, is a grave and present danger to a balanced ecology because “it is an ecologically imbalancing event.” The appellate court emphasized the “chronic harm” built up over time that Bt talong might cause and the fact that it heard all the experts’ testimonies which failed to settle the scientific uncertainties.

The CA decision accorded, once more a strong respect for the State-guaranteed rights of the people to health a healthful and balanced ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. As any project which impacts the environment affects the people as well, the necessity for stakeholders to be involved and included in all phases of decision-making is recognized.

Despite numerous Supreme Court decisions requiring stakeholder participation, as mandated by the Constitution and our laws, it is unfortunate and indeed costly for the investors, that government agencies such as the DENR even under the Aquino administration, do not have a healthy respect for the constitutionally guaranteed right of the people to participate at all levels of decision-making process. They still do not realize the critical importance of engaging the public and local government units, especially in host communities, during the planning process.

The Bt talong ruling is one of the hopefully growing number of court decisions that relies on the precautionary principle when there is no scientific certainty on the impact of projects and programs.

Then Regional Trial Court Judge now CA Associate Justice Marlene Yap likewise applied the precautionary principle in extending, during the pendency of the case, the temporary environmental protection order in prohibiting the indiscriminate dumping of coal ash.

The mainstreaming of said international environmental law principle is one of the significant features of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases is promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. It is also not popularly known that as signatory to the Rio Declaration of 1992, the country is committed to uphold the principle, among other international environmental law principles.

Co-petitioner Greenpeace Southeast Asia through its Executive Director Von Hernandez welcomed the ruling which, for him, “strongly validates our position regarding the hazards of open releases of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) such as Bt eggplant into the environment.” He said that “this decision should enlighten our government not to waste public money in co-funding research on GM crops, which is not only harmful but would only benefit the corporate patent owners of the gene and technology. It must not also allow foreign biotechnology firms to dominate state university research; instead, support Filipino researchers in their work for safe, ecological and organic agriculture.”

Lawyer Zelda Soriano, political advisor, Greenpeace Southeast Asia and lead counsel for the writ of kalikasan, emphasized the need for the “departments of environment, agriculture and health to recommend policies and measures to reform the present regulatory process found by the court as incapable, ineffective and inadequate to protect the constitutional rights of the Filipinos to health and balanced ecology done in consultation and collaboration with stakeholders.”

The CA judgment was undoubtedly the most inspiring news for the ecology advocates the past week, amid disheartening news of more ecologically unsustainable projects that the Aquino administration is bent on continuing, despite the known harm of coal burning, reclamation projects and mining.

Hopefully, more members of the bench and the bar will direct efforts to study not just our world class environmental laws but the societal, ecological and survival implications of clearly unsustainable practices and habits of humans that have led us on the path of destruction.

Sustainability is, after all, everyone’s responsibility.