The Bt talong Case:Precautionary Principle in Action
The bone of contention in the Bt talong case cited in this column last week is whether the precautionary principle can be invoked to enjoin the Bt talong field trial.
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. In applying the precautionary principle, the Court traced the principle’s history in Germany in the 1960s, expressing the normative idea that governments are obligated to “foresee and forestall” harm to the environment. The Court noted Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development codified the precautionary approach, in this wise:
“To protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
The Supreme Court identified the conditions for the application of the precautionary principle as follows:
For purposes of evidence, the precautionary principle should be treated as a principle of last resort, where the application of the regular Rules of Evidence would cause in an inequitable result for the environmental plaintiff – (a) settings in which the risks of harm are uncertain; (b) settings in which harm might be irreversible and what is lost is irreplaceable; and (c) settings in which the harm that might result would be serious. When these features – uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious harm – coincide, the case for the precautionary principle is strongest. When in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Parenthetically, judicial adjudication is one of the strongest fora in which the precautionary principle may find applicability.
The Court found the presence of the conditions of uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious harm; hence, it granted the reliefs sought in the petition. The ponencia of Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. did not have any dissent from the other members of the Court, although it was later reconsidered in a Resolution dated July 26, 2016, penned by Justice Estela Perlas Bernabe, dismissing the petition but mainly on the ground of mootness as the Biosafety Permits already expired and the subject field trials were completed.