CASE 2016-0055: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGR-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS INC. VS. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES) ET AL. (G.R. NO. 209271, 26 JULY 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (NOTE: THERE ARE OTHER COMPANION CASES) (SUBJECT/S: SC RESOLVES ONLY ACTUAL CONTROVERSIES; EXCEPTIONS –  RESOLUTION OF CASES RENDERED MOOT) (BRIEF TITLE: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE VS. GREENPEACE)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

“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 dat.ed 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 DISJ\r1ISSIN G 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), JUagsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad’ng Agrikultura, and others on the ground of mootness.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT DOES THIS CASE INVOLVE?

 

IT INVOLVES NINE (9) MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION1 ASSAILING THE DECISION DATED DECEMBER 8, 2015 OF THE COURT (DECEMBER 8, 2015 DECISION), WHICH UPHELD WITH MODIFICATION THE DECISION3 DATED MAY 17, 2013 AND THE RESOLUTION4 DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (CA) IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 00013.

 

HOW DID THE SC RESOLVE THESE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION?

 

SC GRANTED THESE MOTIONS.

 

ON WHAT MAIN GROUND?

 

ON THE GROUND OF MOOTNESS.

 

THESE CASES STEMMED FROM RESPONDENTS’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF KALIKASAN. THE WRIT BEING SOUGHT WAS MOOTED BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE BIOSAFETY PERMITS ISSUED BY BUREAU OF PLANT INDISTRY  AND THE COMPLETION OF THE BT TALONG FIELD TRIALS. THERE IS NO MORE FIELD TEST TO ENJOIN.

 

ALSO, THERE IS NO PERCEPTIBLE BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC THAT MAY BE GAINED BY RESOLVING RESPONDENTS’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF KALIKASAN.

 

WHAT CONTROVERSIES CAN THE COURT ADJUDICATE?

 

AS A GENERAL RULE ONLY ACTUAL, ONGOING CONTROVERSIES. THIS RULE IS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, ARTICLE VIII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

 

IN OTHER WORDS, THE COURT IS NOT EMPOWERED TO DECIDE MOOT QUESTIONS OR ABSTRACT PROPOSITIONS.


WHEN A CASE IS MOOT, IT BECOMES NON-JUSTICIABLE.

 

ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS GENERAL RULE?

 

YES.

 

FIRST, WHEN THERE IS A GRAVE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION;

 

SECOND, WHEN THE EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER OF THE SITUATION AND THE PARAMOUNT PUBLIC INTEREST ARE INVOLVED;

 

THIRD, WHEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE RAISED REQUIRES FORMULATION OF CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE BENCH, THE BAR, AND THE PUBLIC;

 

AND FOURTH, WHEN THE CASE IS CAPABLE OF REPETITION YET EVADING REVIEW.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2016-0055-INTERNATIONAL SERVICE

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.