1.

hot tubbing," the colloquial term for concurrent expert evidence, a method used for giving evidence in
civil cases in Australia. In a "hot tub" hearing, the judge can hear all the experts discussing the same issue
at the same time to explain each of their points in a discussion with a professional colleague. The objective
is to achieve greater efficiency and expedition, by reduced emphasis on cross-examination and increased
emphasis on professional dialogue, and swifter identification of the critical areas of disagreement between
the experts.

The aforementioned term is used in INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-
BIOTECH APPLICATIONS, INC vs GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA, Philippines, where the court a
genetic mofidied organism is appiled in the production of staple known us ‘BT Talong”. upon presentation
of evidences on both parties, the court finds that there exists a preponderance of evidence that the release
of GMOs into the environment threatens to damage our ecosystems and not just the field trial sites, and
eventually the health of our people once the Bt eggplants are consumed as food. Adopting the
precautionary approach, the Court rules that the principles of the NBF need to be operationalized first by
the coordinated actions of the concerned departments and agencies before allowing the release into the
environment of genetically modified eggplant. Hence, the petition was denied and any application such
like, field testing, propagation and commercialization, and importation of genetically modified organisms
is TEMPORARILY ENJOINED

2. Legal Standing

As to legal standing, petitioners assert that they were directly injured since their right to travel and, their
right to work and earn a living which thrives solely on tourist arrivals, were affected by the closure. A
settled rule pertaining to locus standi is that, a party's personal and substantial interest in a case such that
he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged. There
must be a present substantial interest and not a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or
consequential interest.
In the case, Zabal is a sandcastle maker and Jacosalem, a driver, to which the nature of their livelihood is
one wherein earnings are not guaranteed, their earnings are not fixed and may vary depending on the
business climate in that while they can earn much on peak seasons, it is also possible for them not to earn
anything on lean seasons, especially when the rainy days set in. Clearly, therefore, what Zabal and
Jacosalem could lose in this case are mere projected earnings which are in no way guaranteed, and are
sheer expectancies characterized as contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. Concomitantly, an
assertion of direct injury on the basis of loss of income does not clothe Zabal and Jacosalem with legal
standing.

Likewise, economic gains of a person is one consider a property rights. Tough such right is constitutionally
protected the same cannot overrule the suprimacy of inherent power of the state to exercise police power
for the general welfare. the assailed governmental measure in this case is within the scope of police power
cannot be disputed, as The pressing need to implement urgent measures to rehabilitate Boracay, in regard
the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health, which rights are likewise integral concerns in
this case. Oposa warned that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are given
continuing importance and the State assumes its solemn obligation to preserve and protect them, the time
will come that nothing will be left not only for this generation but for the generations to come as well. [53] It
further taught that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain
from impairing the environment.

3. Arigo vs Swift ( writ of Kalikasan)

The writ of kalikasan cannot be granted. Although as held in Oposa vs Factoran, it is a “public right”
of citizens to “a balanced and healthful ecology solemnly enshrined in the constitutional and the affirmation
of intergenerational implications of issues that greatly affects environmental salvage, the state has the duty
to refrain anyone form impairing the envrionment.

              when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and caused damage to
the TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the (UNCLOS). The waiver of
State immunity under the VF A pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as
the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of
the Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an environmental law is to be
filed separately. However, the court ruled that it unnecessary at this point to determine whether such
waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant damages which have
resulted from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of damages, including the
collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that deemed instituted
with the criminal action charging the same violation of an environmental law.

The case as well is moot, since the restrained and removal of the USS Guardian from the reef have
already accomploished. Likeweise, Philippines, govt and US both expressed readiness to negotiate and
discuss the matter of compensation for the damage caused by the USS Guardian. The US Embassy has
also declared it is closely coordinating with local scientists and experts in assessing the extent of the
damage and appropriate methods of rehabilitation.

4. MMDA vs Jancom

The contract with Jancom is valid pursuant to the provision of Civil Code. In the case at bar, the signing
and execution of the contract by the parties clearly show that, as between the parties, there was a
concurrence of offer and acceptance with respect to the material details of the contract, thereby giving rise
to the perfection of the contract.

MMDA can only allege that there was no valid notice of award; the contract does not bear the signature of
the President; the conditions precedent specified in the contract were not complied with.
But the Court said that the lack of notice was the government’s fault; though the President did not sign, his
alter-ego did; and anyway his signature was only necessary for the effectivity of the contract, not its
perfection; and that the two-month period within which Jancom should comply with the conditions had not
yet started to run because the contract had not yet taken effect, precisely because of the absence of the
President’s signature.

The MMDA cannot revoke or renounce the same without the consent of the other. Although the contract is
a perfected one, it is still ineffective or unimplementable until and unless it is approved by the President.

Sec. 20 of the Clean Air Act pertinently reads:

SECTION 20. Ban on Incineration. Incineration, hereby defined as the burning of municipal, bio-chemical
and hazardous wastes, which process emits poisonous and toxic fumes, is hereby prohibited: x x x.
Section 20 does not absolutely prohibit incineration as a mode of waste disposal; rather only those burning
processes which emit poisonous and toxic fumes are banned.
As regards the projected closure of the San Mateo landfill vis--vis the implementability of the contract, Art.
2.3 thereof expressly states that [i]n the event the project Site is not delivered x x x, the Presidential task
Force on Solid Waste Management (PTFSWM) and the Client, shall provide within a reasonable period of
time, a suitable alternative acceptable to the BOT COMPANY.
With respect to the alleged financial non-viability of the project because the MMDA and the local
government units cannot afford the tipping fees under the contract, this circumstance cannot, by itself,
abrogate the entire agreement.
Petition is dismissed.