MANILA - The Court of Appeals (CA) has reversed a lower court order which barred the government from granting Bayer Crop Science Inc.'s application to use the Liberty Link Rice 62 (LLRice 62), a genetically-modified rice variety.

In a 21-page decision penned by Associate Justice Vicente Veloso, the CA's fourth division granted the consolidated petitions filed by the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) and Bayer, which sought the nullification of the September 18, 2007 order issued by Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) branch 101.

In the said order, Quezon City RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction barring the BPI from granting Bayer's application to use LLRice 62 in the country. The lower court granted the petition filed by Greenpeace Philippines, which insisted that the use of LLRice 62 will result to an increased use of toxic herbicides, putting farmers and consumers at risk.

But according to the CA, the Quezon City RTC "merely parroted" the allegations made by Greenpeace when it issued the injunction. The appelate court pointed out that Von Hernandez and the rest of Greenpeace failed to establish a clear and positive right which should be juridically protected through the writ of injunction.

“Nowhere in the assailed order did the trial court point out or elaborate on the alluded ‘sampling of petitioners’ evidence.’ This Court is therefore is constrained to remind the court below that an injunction, being a limitation upon the freedom of action of the defendant should not be granted lightly or precipitately. It should be granted only when there is enough basis to conclude that the law permits it and the emergency demands it,” the CA said.

“Verily, Von Hernandez, et al have failed to prove any right in esse to entitle them to the issuance of a writ of injunction. There is no cogent proof pointing to the conclusion that ‘there is hardly any doubt’ that Bayer’s application will be approved by BPI. The approval is discretionary, not ministerial…Accordingly, we find private respondents arguments too contigent and speculative to warrant injunctive relief,” it added.

Aside from this, the CA stressed that the alleged dangers of LLRice 62 to the people and the environment would have to be further examined and verified by proper agencies since "the courts do not have the competence or expertise" on matters such as genetically-modified rice.

The CA also did not give credence to Greenpeace's claim that their right of information has been violated due to BPI's refusal to provide them information about Bayer's application.

“Since, however, the private respondents were able to register their opposition and elicit some information from BPI and DA, we therefore see no merit in their argument that they are being denied or are threatened to be denied adequate ‘participatory’ processes or that their right to information has been impaired or is threatened of being impaired,” the CA said.