G.R. No. 209271/G.R. No. 209276/G.R. No. 209301/G.R. No. 209430, July 26, 2016
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et al.

FACTS

This consolidated case originated from a challenge to the field testing of Bt eggplant, a genetically modified organism. The petitioners, including the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc., sought to nullify the Court of Appeals’ rulings which had upheld the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and a Temporary Environmental Protection Order against the field trials. The core controversy involved the constitutionality and application of Department of Agriculture Administrative Order (DAO) No. 8, Series of 2002, which governed the importation and release of genetically modified organisms into the environment.
Subsequently, the Department of Agriculture issued a new regulation, DAO No. 8, Series of 2016, which effectively repealed and replaced the 2002 administrative order that was the subject of the constitutional challenge. This supervening event rendered the primary issue—the validity of the old DAO—moot and academic, as the specific regulatory measure in question was no longer in force. The Supreme Court was thus presented with motions for reconsideration against its earlier decision, now needing to address the effect of this regulatory change on the live controversy.

ISSUE

Whether the case has been rendered moot and academic by the issuance of a new administrative order repealing the challenged regulation, and if so, whether the Court should nevertheless resolve the constitutional questions under the “paramount public interest” exception to the mootness doctrine.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through the Resolution penned by Justice Perlas-Bernabe and with a Concurring Opinion by Justice Leonen, granted the motions for reconsideration. The Court ruled that the case had indeed become moot and academic with the repeal of DAO No. 8, Series of 2002. A judicial declaration on its constitutionality would no longer have any practical legal effect, as the operative law was now the 2016 issuance. The validity of this new regulation was not in issue before the Court.
In his Concurring Opinion, Justice Leonen expressly agreed with the grant of the motions but articulated a principle of judicial restraint regarding the mootness doctrine. He reserved his opinion on whether “the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest” could justify ruling on a moot case. Justice Leonen emphasized that the judiciary should generally refrain from deciding questions that no longer present a live, actual controversy, as venturing beyond such parameters risks the Court improperly engaging in policy-making—a function constitutionally delegated to the executive and legislative departments. He concluded that, in this instance, the purported exception did not apply, and the Court correctly declined to rule on the constitutionality of the repealed administrative order. Accordingly, the Court resolved the motions based on the mootness of the core issue.