Amidst the intense global debate on genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), there arises a question that would interest those in the
legal profession— should courts interfere in matters involving the regulation
of GMOs? The question is better answered using the recently concluded
consolidated case of ISAAA v. Greenpeace, et al. as a backdrop.
In 2012, Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), a
non-governmental environmental organization, along with Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG),
a coalition of local farmers, scientists and NGOs, filed a petition for writ of
kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) to enjoin the Department of
Agriculture (DA) from permitting the International Service for the Acquisition
of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAAA) and UPLB Foundation, Inc. (UPLBFI)
to conduct (or continue rather) the field testing of Bt
Talong (a genetically modified eggplant that is resistant to Fruit and
Shoot Borers). The petitioners claimed that their rights to health, and to a
balanced and healthful ecology, as enshrined in Article II, Sections 15 and 16
of the Constitution are being violated. The Court of Appeals (CA) granted the
petition, and the Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the decision.
Jurisprudence will show an increase in judicial activism,
where courts are now less hesitant to rule on matters which were once
considered “political questions”. This trend is a result of the lessons learned
from Marcos Martial Law era where atrocities persisted and justice was denied
to the victims because the courts refused to take cognizance of cases that were
said to be in the dominion of the political branches of government. In fact,
the Constitution gives the courts the duty to “determine whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government.”
Judicial power, extensive as it may
be, has limitations. The question of whether GMOs are beneficial or harmful is
not for the courts to answer. Rather,
what the courts need to concern themselves with is whether the law that
safeguards the people’s rights have sufficient standards to discharge the
constitutional guarantee, and whether the appropriate government agencies are
carrying out their respective mandates as provided for by law.
It is, therefore, curious that
the (CA) used the “hot tub” method in deciding the case. From a cursory reading
of what had transpired during this combined consultation of opposing experts,
it would seem that the CA tried to rule based on the potential harm of GMOs in
general. The CA relied on one particular academic paper instead of verifying
whether the methods used to support the experiments on Bt Talong, in particular, were sound based on scientific standards.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Leonen pointed out that courts of law are
governed by published rules of evidence. Hence, by disregarding these rules,
the CA, in Justice Leonen’s opinion, have acted with grave abuse of discretion.
The SC ultimately ruled that DAO
08-2002 that allowed the field testing was invalid. The SC said, “The failure
of DAO 08-2002 to accommodate the NBF [National Biosafety Framework] means that
the Department of Agriculture lacks mechanisms to mandate applicants to comply
with international biosafety protocols. Greenpeace's claim that BPI [Bureau of
Plant Industry] had approved nearly all of the applications for GMO field
trials is confirmed by the data posted on their website. For these reasons, the
DAO 08-2002 should be declared invalid.” This reasoning, however, is unclear,
and seems to question the validity of the standards (if any) chosen. A better
explanation of the ruling was made by Justice Leonen when he explained that “the
standard to be used by the State in the discharge of its regulatory oversight
should be clear.” Here, Justice Leonen left the responsibility of determining
these specific standards to the legislative and executive branches.
In sum, with complexities of the
issues surrounding GMOs, the courts should most definitely interfere in the
matters concerning the regulation of GMOs as the food security, health, and a
balanced ecology are compelling state interests. But this interference should
conform to the limitations provided for in the Constitution. The courts should
leave issues of policy to the political branches of government. The separation
of powers is integral in upholding the rule of law and democracy in the
country.
No comments:
Post a Comment