SEGOVIA vs.

THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION

G.R. No. 211010
7 March 2017
Caguioa, J.

SUBJECT MATTER:
Territory, People, and Government
Under Immunity from Suit

LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S):

ART. II, Sec. 16, 1987 Constitution: 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. – The petitioners invoked this repeatedly, but the
Court ruled that petitioners did NOT show any unlawful act or omission that constitutes a violation of this constitutional
right.

ART. XI, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution: Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and
justice, and lead modest lives. – Allegations of petitioners include the government’s violation “atmospheric trust” for failure
to reduce personal and official consumption of fossil fuels by at least fifty percent (50%).

EO 774, Sec. 9(a): Road Sharing Principle. To reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, the Department of Transportation
and Communications (DOTC) shall lead a Task Group to reform the transportation sector. The new paradigm in the
movement of men and things must follow a simple principle: "Those who have less in wheels must have more in
road." For this purpose, the system shall favor nonmotorized locomotion and collective transportation system (walking,
bicycling, and the man-powered mini-train). – A principle is a discretionary act, not a ministerial duty (that is – a specified
course of action provided in law). Mandamus only applies to ministerial duties and not discretionary acts.

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

This is a petition for the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus to compel the implementation of the
following environmental laws and executive issuances
1. RA 9729 (Climate Change Act)

2. RA 8749 (Clean Air Act)

3. Executive Order No. 774 (EO 774)

4. AO 254, s. 2009 (AO 254)

5. Administrative Order No. 171, s. 2007 (AO 171).

Petitioner(s): VICTORIA SEGOVIA et. al., REPRESENTING THE CARLESS PEOPLE OF THE
Parties PHILIPPINES

*includes Castañeda et. al. for CHILDREN OF THE FUTURE and Sangalang et. al for
CAROWNERS WHO WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE CARS IF GOOD PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION WERE SAFE, CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND RELIABLE)

Respondent( THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HIS

s): EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, AND ITS COMMISSIONERS MARY ANN
LUCILLE SERING, HEHERSON ALVAREZ AND NADAREV SANO

*includes Secretaries/Heads of DOTC, DPWH, DILG, DENR, DBM, MMDA, DA, LGUs)

SUMMARY:

C2023(BINAG) – LAW 121, GATMAYTAN

Petitioners file directly to the SC for the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus to compel the
implementation of the mentioned environmental laws and executive issuances. However, Court ruled against them
because petitioners:
1. Failed to show a specific law violated, which is required to issue a Writ of Kalikasan.
2. Sought to compel respondents to apply the Road Sharing Principle – which is a discretionary act. Mandamus is
only for ministerial duties (those expressly provided in law.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● 2007: To address the clamor for a more tangible response to climate change, Former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo issued AO 171 which created the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC) on
February 20, 2007.
○ This body was re-organized through EO 774 which expressed what is now referred to as “Road Sharing
Principle” found in Sec. 9(a).
○ EO 774, Sec. 9(a): Road Sharing Principle. To reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, the Department
of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) shall lead a Task Group to reform the transportation
sector. The new paradigm in the movement of men and things must follow a simple principle: "Those
who have less in wheels must have more in road." For this purpose, the system shall favor
nonmotorized locomotion and collective transportation system (walking, bicycling, and the man-powered
mini-train)
● 2009: AO 254 was issued - mandating the DOTC (as lead agency for the Task Group on Fossil Fuels or TGFF) to
formulate a national Environmentally Sustainable Transport Strategy (EST) for the Philippines.
○ Road Sharing Principle is also mentioned in Sec. 4 of AO 254
○ Copies EO 774 verbatim, from “The new paradigm…” onwards
● Later that same year (2009), Congress passed the Climate Change Act.
○ It created the Climate Change Commission which absorbed the functions of the PTFCC and became
the lead policy-making body of the government which shall be tasked to coordinate, monitor and evaluate
the programs and action plans of the government relating to climate change.
● Thus, PETITIONERS claim they are entitled to the issuance of writs due to the failure of respondents to execute
said laws/executive issuances
● The ALLEGATIONS include:
1. Failure to reduce official consumption of fossil fuels by at least 50%.
a. Violative of: ART. XI, Sec. 1, 1987 Consti (Atmospheric Trust), and ART. 25, NCC (Thoughtless
Extravagance in the Midst of Acute Public Want)
2. (DOTC and DPWH) Failure to implement Road Sharing Principle.
a. Violative of EO 774.
3. (DA) Failure to devote public open spaces along sidewalks, roads and parking lots to sustainable
urban farming.
a. Violative of Sec. 12(b) of EO 774.
4. (DILG) Failure to coordinate with LGUs to guide them on Road Sharing Principle.
a. Violative of Sec. 9(g) of EO 774.
5. (DENR) Failure to reduce air pollutant emissions.
6. (DBM) Failure to make available Road Users’ Tax.
a. Violative of Sec. 9(g) of EO 774.

GIST: Petitioners claim that these violations are in violation of their constitutional rights to:
1. a balanced and healthful ecology, and may even be tantamount to a deprivation of life and of life
sources without due process of law.
2. equal protection because 98% of FIlipinos are discriminated against the 2% car-owning population with
the usage of roads.

● RESPONDENTS through the OSG filed their Comment seeking outright dismissal for:
1. Lack of standing
2. Failure to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
3. Non-entitlement to reliefs prayed for:
a. Writ of Kalikasan – petitioners failed to:
i. show the public respondents are guilty of an unlawful act or omission
ii. state/list the environmental law/s violated
iii. show environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants of two or more cities

C2023(BINAG) – LAW 121, GATMAYTAN

 iv. prove that the non-implementation of Road Sharing Principle will cause environmental
damage.
b. Continuing Mandamus because:
i. no showing of a direct or personal injury or a clear legal right to the thing demanded
ii. the writ will not compel a discretionary act or anything not in a public officer's duty to do
(i.e., the manner by which the Road Sharing Principle will be applied; and to compel DA
to exercise jurisdiction over roadside lands)
iii. the DBM cannot be compelled to make an instant release of funds as the same requires
an appropriation made by law – [Article VI, Section 29 [1] of the Constitution]. Also, the
use of the Road Users' Tax (more appropriately, the Motor Vehicle Users' Charge)
requires prior approval of the Road Board.
● Respondents stated instead that they have taken and continue to take measures to improve the traffic situation
in Philippine roads and to improve the environment condition through projects/programs:
○ priority tagging of expenditures for climate change adaptation and mitigation,
○ the Integrated Transport System which is aimed to decongest major thoroughfares,
○ Truck Ban,
○ Anti-Smoke Belching Campaign,
○ Anti- Colorum,
○ Mobile Bike Service Programs, and
○ Urban Re-Greening Programs.

ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):

1. WON petitioners have standing to file the petition - YES
2. WON petition should be dismissed for failing to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts - NO
3. WON a writ of Kalikasan and/or Continuing Mandamus should issue - NO

RATIO:

1. On LEGAL STANDING: - YES, petitioners have legal standing.

○ Based on the ruling on Arigo v. Swift and International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-BioTech
Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines):
■ Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC) liberalized the
requirements on standing
● It allowed the filing of citizen's suit for the enforcement of rights and obligations under
environmental laws
○ However, difference of writ of kalikasan and continuing mandamus must be noted
■ A petition for continuing mandamus is only available to one who is personally aggrieved by the
unlawful act or omission

2. On HIERARCHY OF COURTS: NO, petition should NOT be dismissed.

○ Petitioner filed with the Supreme Court directly
○ Under the RPEC, the writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy, such that it provides a speedy and
effective resolution of a case involving the violation of one's constitutional right to a healthful and
balanced ecology
○ It is an exception to the hierarchy of courts – direct resort to SC is allowed where it is dictated by public
welfare (in this case, potentially exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats satisfies ‘public
welfare’ exception)

3. On RELIEFS PRAYED FOR: NO, both reliefs must not be issued, because the petitioners failed to establish
requisites of the reliefs prayed for.
3 requisites for Writ of Kalikasan:
a. there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology
b. the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity, and
c. the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces.
In this case, aside from bare allegations that their rights were violated, the PETITIONERS also failed to
show an act or omission.
C2023(BINAG) – LAW 121, GATMAYTAN
 ■ No showing that respondents failed to execute any of the laws petitioners cited.
■ Did not go beyond mere allegation in establishing the unlawful acts or omissions on the part of
the public respondents that have a causal link or reasonable connection to the actual or
threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
● In fact, the National Air Quality Status Report for 2005-2007 (NAQSR) submitted by the
petitioners belies their claim that the DENR failed to reduce air pollutant emissions as it
shows that Total Suspended Particles (pollutants) in the air has declined from 2004 to
2007.
On the other hand, RESPONDENT sufficiently showed that they did not unlawfully refuse to implement or
neglect the laws thru the aforementioned projects and programs
Requisites of Continuing Mandamus under Rule 8 of RPEC:
a. Petitioners failed to prove direct or personal injury arising from acts attributable to the
respondents to be entitled to the writ.
i. While the requirements of standing had been liberalized in environmental cases, the
general rule of real party-in-interest applies to a petition for continuing mandamus.
b. The Road Sharing Principle is precisely as it is denominated — a principle.
i. It cannot be considered an absolute imposition to encroach upon the province of public
respondents to determine the manner by which this principle is applied or considered in
their policy decisions.
1. Thus, in cannot be compelled through mandamus which relates to ministerial
duties only.
ii. Furthermore, there is nothing in EO 774, AO 254 and allied issuances that require that
SPECIFIC COURSE OF ACTION in order to implement the same, while respondents ask
for a bifurcation of roads for bicycles.
1. Thus, no showing of unlawful neglect on the part of the respondents to
perform any act that the law specifically enjoins as a duty — there being nothing
in the executive issuances relied upon by the petitioners that specifically enjoins
the bifurcation of roads, etc.

GIST: Road Sharing Principle that petitioners invoke is a discretionary act. Mandamus applies only for ministerial acts
(those expressly provided in the law) and NOT discretionary acts

OTHER (MINOR) ISSUES:

● On ROAD USER’S TAX: The petitioners' demand for the immediate and unilateral release of the Road Users' Tax
by the DBM to support the petitioners' operationalization of this Road Sharing Principle has no basis in law.
○ Under the pertinent laws (EO 774 and AO 254), the Road User’s Tax is the Special Vehicle Pollution
Control Fund (RA 8734) for the purposes of:
1. road maintenance and the improvement of the road drainage.
2. installation of adequate and efficient traffic lights and road safety devices.
3. air pollution control, whose utilization is subject to the management of the Road Board.
In other words, the provisions on the release of funds by the DBM as provided in EO 774 and AO 254 are
necessarily subject to the conditions set forth in RA 8794.
○ Furthermore, the claim made by the petitioners that hardly any budget is allotted to mitigating
environmental pollution is belied by the priority given to programs aimed at addressing and
mitigating climate change that the DBM and the CCC had been tagging and tracking as priority
expenditures since 2013.
● On OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION: Petitioners' failure to show any violation on the part of the respondents
renders it unnecessary to rule on other allegations of violation that the petitioners rely upon as causes of action
against the public respondents.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

C2023(BINAG) – LAW 121, GATMAYTAN

MAIN DISSENTING OPINION:
N/A

OTHER OPINIONS:

J. VELASCO, concur:
● On question of hierarchy of courts, for a writ of kalikasan the petitioners are given a choice whether to file it at
the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court with the use of conjunction “or” in Sec. 3, Rule 7 of RPEC.
○ Why? The scale of impact of the ecological problems sought to be addressed by a writ of kalikasan sets
it apart from the other special civil actions under the other rules issued by this Court.
○ It is also an exception that the SC cannot entertain questions of fact.

J. LEONEN, concur:
● I wish to reiterate my view that the parties, who brought this case, have no legal standing, at least as
representative parties in a class suit.
○ Petitioners fail to convince that they are representative enough of the interests of the groups they
allegedly speak for, some of whom have yet to exist and could therefore have not been consulted.
■ Petitioners also failed to prove that they are true agents of the groups they represent in this
action.
● Three Instances where a person who is not a real party can file:
○ Representatives as parties.
○ Class suit.
○ Citizen suit.
■ Derived from Oposa v. Factoran.
● It is my view that the Oposa Doctrine is flawed in that it allows a self-proclaimed "representative," via a citizen
suit, to speak on behalf of a whole population and legally bind it on matters regardless of whether that group was
consulted.

C2023(BINAG) – LAW 121, GATMAYTAN