Henares v LTFRB (Environmental Law)

Henares v LTFRB  

GR No. 158290 

October 23, 2006

FACTS:

Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to require public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel.

ISSUES:

(1) Do petitioners have legal personality to bring this petition before us? 

(2) Should mandamus issue against respondents to compel PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel?

APPLICABLE LAWS:

• Section 16,12 Article II of the 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.  

• Section 414 of Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999."  SEC. 4. Recognition of Rights. – Pursuant to the above-declared principles, the following rights of citizens are hereby sought to be recognized and the State shall seek to guarantee their enjoyment: 

a) The right to breathe clean air; 

b) The right to utilize and enjoy all natural resources according to the principle of sustainable development; 

c) The right to participate in the formulation, planning, implementation and monitoring of environmental policies and programs and in the decision-making process; 

d) The right to participate in the decision-making process concerning development policies, plans and programs, projects or activities that may have adverse impact on the environment and public health; 

e) The right to be informed of the nature and extent of the potential hazard of any activity, undertaking or project and to be served timely notice of any significant rise in the level of pollution and the accidental or deliberate release into the atmosphere of harmful or hazardous substances; 

f) The right of access to public records which a citizen may need to exercise his or her rights effectively under this Act; 

g) The right to bring action in court or quasi-judicial bodies to enjoin all activities in violation of environmental laws and regulations, to compel the rehabilitation and cleanup of affected area, and to seek the imposition of penal sanctions against violators of environmental laws; and 

h) The right to bring action in court for compensation of personal damages resulting from the adverse environmental and public health impact of a project or activity. 

RULING:

(1) YES. There is no dispute that petitioners have standing to bring their case before this Court. Moreover, as held previously, a party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which may, in the exercise of the Court's discretion, be set aside in view of the importance of the issue raised. We brush aside this issue of technicality under the principle of the transcendental importance to the public, especially so if these cases demand that they be settled promptly. 

(2) NO. plain, speedy and adequate remedy herein sought by petitioners, i.e., a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG, is unavailing. Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG.  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.  

It appears that more properly, the legislature should provide first the specific statutory remedy to the complex environmental problems bared by herein petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus is taken.