5. Henares vs LTFRB GR No.

158290
Ponente: Quisumbing, J. October 23, 2006

Facts:
Asserting their right to clean air pursuant to the RA8749, their
Constitutional right, and the principle of "inter-generational responsibility",
Petitioners, Henares, et al, filed a petition to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS
commanding Respondents, LTFRB and DOTC, to require public utility vehicles
(PUVs) to use COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) as alternative fuel.
Respondents contend that nothing in Rep. Act No. 8749 that
petitioners invoke, prohibits the use of gasoline and diesel by owners of motor
vehicles. Sadly too, according to the Solicitor General, Rep. Act No. 8749 does not
even mention the existence of CNG as alternative fuel and avers that unless this
law is amended to provide CNG as alternative fuel for PUVs, the respondents
cannot propose that PUVs use CNG as alternative fuel.
Petitioners state that under these laws and with all the available information
provided by the DOE on the benefits of CNG, Respondents cannot ignore the
existence of CNG, and their failure to recognize CNG and compel its use
by PUVs as alternative fuel while air pollution brought about by the emissions of
gasoline and diesel endanger the environment and the people, is tantamount to
neglect in the performance of a duty which the law enjoins.

Issue:
1. Whether or not Petitioners have legal capacity to bring this petition to the
Court.
2. Whether or not mandamus can be validly issue against respondents so as to
compel PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel.

Ruling:
1. Yes, Petitioners have legal capacity to bring this petition to the Court.

Sec. 16, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution provides that “The State shall
protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” Furthermore,
in Oposa vs Factoran, the Court held that the right to a balanced and
 healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment.

In this case, the Court ruled that the right to clean air not only is an
issue of paramount importance to petitioners for it concerns the air they
breathe, but it is also impressed with public interest. The consequences of
the counter-productive and retrogressive effects of a neglected environment
due to emissions of motor vehicles immeasurably affect the well-being of
petitioners. On these considerations, the legal standing of the petitioners
deserves recognition.

2. No, Mandamus cannot be validly issue against respondents so as to compel

PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel.

Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, provides that mandamus lies under
any of the following cases: (1) against any tribunal which unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty; (2) in case any
corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which
the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; and (3) in case
any tribunal, corporation, board or person unlawfully excludes another from the
use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is legally entitled; and
there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.

In this case, there is no law that mandates Respondents to order owners of

public utility motor vehicles to use CNG. Furthermore, Mandamus will not
generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate branch, for the
obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other. Therefore, the legislature
should provide first the specific statutory remedy to the complex environmental
problems before any judicial recourse by mandamus is taken.
8. Bangus Fry Fisherfolk vs Judge Lanzanas GR No. 131442
Ponente: Carpio, J. July 10, 2003

Facts:
DENR Regional Executive Director Principe issued an Environmental
Clearance Certificate (ECC) in favor of Napocor, authorizing the corporation to
construct a temporary mooring facility in the Minolo Cave in Puerto Galera. The
Sangguniang Bayan of Puerto Galera has declared the Minolo Cave which was a
mangrove area and breeding ground for bangus fry, an eco-tourist zone. The
mooring facility would serve as the temporary docking site of Napocor's power
barge. Petitioners, claiming to be fisherfolks from Minolo, Puerto Galera, sought
reconsideration of the ECC issuance, which was denied by the DENR. Petitioners
then filed a complaint with the RTC of Manila for the cancellation of the ECC,
for the issuance of a writ of injunction to stop the construction of the mooring
facility, and further prayed for the demolition of mooring structures that has
already been built. By this time, the provincial government of Mindoro
manifested that it was the one undertaking the construction of the mooring
facility.
RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
since there was no appeal before the DENR Secretary prior to filing the case with
the trial court. Petitioners contend that they are exempt from filing an appeal
with the DENR Secretary because the issuance of the ECC was a patent violation
of existing laws and regulations, one of which was Sections 26 and 27 of the Local
Government Code.

Issues:
Whether or not the issuance of the ECC was in patent violation of existing
laws and regulations.

Ruling:
NO, the issuance of the ECC was not in patent violation of existing laws and
regulations.

Sec. 2 of PD 1605 provides that “No permit for the construction of

any wharf, marina, hotel, restaurants and other commercial structures in Puerto
Galera shall be issued without prior approval of the Office of the President upon
the recommendation of the Philippine Tourism Authority.” Moreover, Secs. 26
and 27 of RA 7160 require every national government agency or government-
owned and controlled corporation to hold prior consultations with the local
government unit concerned and to secure the prior approval of
its sanggunian before implementing any project or program that may cause
pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of
cropland, rangeland, or forest cover and extinction of animal or plant species.
Furthermore, under DAO 96-37, an ECC applicant for a project located within an
environmentally critical area is required to submit an Initial Environment
Examination, which must contain a brief description of the environmental setting
and a documentation of the consultative process undertaken, when appropriate.

In this case, the mooring facility, which will be used by NAPOCOR to

supply electricity to the entire province of Oriental Mindoro, is obviously a
government-owned public infrastructure intended to serve a basic need of the
people of Oriental Mindoro. Moreover, the mooring facility itself is not
environmentally critical and hence does not belong to any of the six types of
projects mentioned in the law. There is no statutory requirement for the
concerned sanggunian to approve the construction of the mooring facility.
Furthermore, while the documents proving the holding of consultations and the
issuance of a locational clearance or zoning certificate are part of the submissions
required from a project proponent, their mere absence does not render the
issuance of the ECC patently illegal. While Petitioners may present proof to the
contrary, they must do so before the proper administrative forum before resorting
to judicial remedies.
9. Oposa vs Factoran GR No. 101083
Ponente: Davide, Jr., J. July 30, 1993

Facts:
Petitioners, minors represented by their parents, filed a civil action against
Respondent, the then Secretary of DENR, which sought to have all existing timber
license agreements cancelled and for the latter to cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing, or appraising new TLAs.

Issue:
Whether or not Petitioners have a cause of action in filing a class suit
considering Petitioners’ contention that the complaint contains sufficient
allegations concerning their right to a sound environment since they represent
their generation as well as generations yet unborn.

Ruling:
Yes, Petitioners have a cause of action to file a class suit.

Secs. 15 and 16, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution provides that the State shall
protect and promote the right to health of the people, as well as protect and
advance the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

In this case, the Court ruled that the above-mentioned provisions are self-
executory and do not need an implementing legislation, and carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the government. All licenses may then
be revoked or rescinded by executive action.

(HAHAHAHAHAHA. Sa consti 1 pa nako ni na digest ang oposa vs factoran. Try

lang nako ayuhon pa ugma. HAHAHAHHAA)