105. Henares vs. LTFRB

8/18/2019 105. Henares vs. LTFRB

1/10

Henares v. LTFRB, GR 158290, October 23, 2006.HENRE! ". LTFRB

FACTS:

Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents

LTFRB and DOTC to reuire P!"s to use compressed natural gas #C$%& as alternati'e fuel(Asserting their right to clean air) petitioners contend that the *ases for their petition for awrit of mandamus to order the LTFRB to reuire P!"s to use C$% as an alternati'e fuel) lie inSection +,) Article -- of the +./0 Constitution) our ruling in Oposa '( Factoran) 1r() and Section2 of Repu*lic Act $o( /02. otherwise 3nown as the 4Philippine Clean Air Act of +...(4

-ssue: 56$ LTFRB CA$ B7 CO8P7LL7D TOR79!-R7P!"s TO !S7 C$% TRO!% A 5R-TOF8A$DA8!S;

eld:

$O( Petitioners in'o3e the pro'isions of the Constitution and the Clean Air Act in their pra


2/10

appears to us that more properludicial recourse *< mandamus is ta3en(

Repu*lic of the Philippines!#$RE%E &O#RT

8anila

T-RD D-"-S-O$

G.R. No. 158290 October 23, 2006

H'LR'ON %. HENRE!, (R., "'&TOR &. G#!T'N, LFRE)O L. HENRE!, )N'EL L.HENRE!, ENR'*#E BELO HENRE!, an+ &R'!T'N BELO HENRE!, petitioners)

's(LN) TRN!$ORTT'ON FRN&H'!'NG N) REG#LTOR BOR) an+)E$RT%ENT OF TRN!$ORTT'ON N) &O%%#N'&T'ON!, respondents(

R 7 S O L ! T - O $

*#'!#%B'NG, J.:

Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents Land Transportation Franchising and Regulator< Board #LTFRB& and the Department of Transportation and Communications #DOTC& to reuire pu*lic utilit< 'ehicles #P!"s& to usecompressed natural gas #C$%& as alternati'e fuel(

Citing statistics from the 8etro 8anila Transportation and Trac Situation Stud< of+..,)+ the 7n'ironmental 8anagement Bureau #78B& of the $ational Capital Region)@ astud< of the Asian De'elopment Ban3)I the 8anila O*ser'ator


3/10

rain and with ammonia) moisture and other compounds) it reacts to form nitric acid andharmful nitrates( Fuel emissions also cause retardation and leaf *leaching in plants(According to petitioner) another emission) car*on mono?ide #CO&) when not completel<*urned *ut emitted into the atmosphere and then inhaled can disrupt the necessar< o?eepne< dri'ers and there is a 2(/ to @0(J percent pre'alence of respirator< s


4/10

8eantime) following a su*seuent motion) the Court granted petitionersM motion to impleadthe Department of Transportation and Communications #DOTC& as additional respondent(

-n his Comment for respondents LTFRB and DOTC) the Solicitor %eneral) cites Section I) Rule,J of the Re'ised Rules of Court and e?plains that the writ of mandamus is not the correctremed< since the writ ma< *e issued onl< to command a tri*unal) corporation) *oard or

person to do an act that is reuired to *e done) when he or it unlawfull< neglects theperformance of an act which the law speci=call< en>oins as a dut< resulting from an oce)trust or station) or unlawfull< e?cludes another from the use and en>ourisprudence) the Solicitor%eneral e?plains that in contrast to a discretionar< act) a ministerial act) which a mandamusis) is one in which an ocer or tri*unal performs in a gi'en state of facts) in a prescri*edmanner) in o*edience to a mandate of legal authoritudgment upon the propriet< or impropriet< of an act done(

The Solicitor %eneral also notes that nothing in Rep( Act $o( /02. that petitioners in'o3e)prohi*its the use of gasoline and diesel *< owners of motor 'ehicles( Sadl< too) according tothe Solicitor %eneral) Rep( Act $o( /02. does not e'en mention the e?istence of C$% as

alternati'e fuel and a'ers that unless this law is amended to pro'ide C$% as alternati'e fuelfor P!"s) the respondents cannot propose that P!"s use C$% as alternati'e fuel(

The Solicitor %eneral also adds that it is the D7$R that is tas3ed to implement Rep( Act $o(/02. and not the LTFRB nor the DOTC( 8oreo'er) he sa


5/10

---( 57T7R OR $OT T7 R7SPO$D7$T -S T7 A%7$CH R7SPO$S-BL7 TO-8PL787$T T7 S!%%7ST7D ALT7R$AT-"7 OF R79!-R-$% P!BL-C !T-L-TH "7-CL7S

TO !S7 CO8PR7SS7D $AT!RAL %AS #C$%&

-"( 57T7R OR $OT T7 R7SPO$D7$T CA$ B7 CO8P7LL7D TO R79!-R7 P!BL-C!T-L-TH "7-CL7S TO !S7 CO8PR7SS7D $AT!RAL %AS TRO!% A 5R-T OF

8A$DA8!S@

Brie< put) the issues are twofold( First) Do petitioners ha'e legal personalit< to *ring thispetition *efore us; Second) Should mandamus issue against respondents to compel P!"s touse C$% as alternati'e fuel;

According to petitioners) Section +,)@+ Article -- of the +./0 Constitution is the polic<statement that *estows on the people the right to *reathe clean air in a health<en'ironment( This polic< is enunciated in Oposa.@@ The implementation of this polic< isarticulated in Rep( Act $o( /02.( These) according to petitioners) are the *ases for theirstanding to =le the instant petition( The< a'er that when there is an omission *< thego'ernment to safeguard a right) in this case their right to clean air) then) the citiEens canresort to and e?haust all remedies to challenge this omission *< the go'ernment( This) the<

sa


6/10

petitioners( On these considerations) the legal standing of the petitioners deser'esrecognition(

Our ne?t concern is whether the writ of mandamus is the proper remedoins as a dutoins as a dut< resulting from an oce)trust) or station and #I& in case an< tri*unal) corporation) *oard or person unlawfull<e?cludes another from the use and en>o


7/10

There is no dispute that under the Clean Air Act it is the D7$R that is tas3ed to set theemission standards for fuel use and the tas3 of de'eloping an action plan( As far as motor'ehicles are concerned) it de'ol'es upon the DOTC and the line agenc< whose mandate is too'ersee that motor 'ehicles prepare an action plan and implement the emission standardsfor motor 'ehicles) namel< the LTFRB(

-n Oposa@,

we said) the right to a *alanced and healthful ecolog< carries with it thecorrelati'e dut< to refrain from impairing the en'ironment( 5e also said) it is clearl< the dut<of the responsi*le go'ernment agencies to ad'ance the said right(

Petitioners in'o3e the pro'isions of the Constitution and the Clean Air Act in their praoined *< law as a dut


8/10

the future generation to clean air( -n Oposa we said that if the right to a *alanced andhealthful ecolog< is now e?plicitl< found in the Constitution e'en if the right is 4assumed toe?ist from the inception of human3ind)Q it is *ecause of the wellfounded fear of its framersof the ConstitutionG that unless the rights to a *alanced and healthful ecolog< and to healthare mandated as state policies *< the Constitution itself) there*< highlighting theircontinuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn o*ligation to preser'e the =rst

and protect and ad'ance the second) the da< would not *e too far when all else would *elost not onl< for the present generation) *ut also for those to come( ( (4@.

-t is the =rm *elief of this Court that in this case) it is timel< to rearm the premium we ha'eplaced on the protection of the en'ironment in the landmar3 case of Oposa. Het) as seriousas the statistics are on air pollution) with the present fuels deemed to?ic as the< are to theen'ironment) as fatal as these pollutants are to the health of the citiEens) and urgentl<reuiring resort to drastic measures to reduce air pollutants emitted *< motor 'ehicles) wemust admit in particular that petitioners are una*le to pinpoint the law that imposes anindu*ita*le legal dut< on respondents that will >ustif< a grant of the writ of mandamuscompelling the use of C$% for pu*lic utilit< 'ehicles( -t appears to us that more properludicial recourse *< mandamus is ta3en(

HEREFORE) the petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is )'!%'!!E) for lac3 ofmerit(

!O OR)ERE).

Carpio, Morales, $inga, an' Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur(

Footnotes

+ (ollo) p( 2(

@ -d( at ,(

I -d(

2 -d(

J -d( at 0(

, -d( at J) 0/(

0 -d( at .(

/ -d( at +(

. -d( at .+(

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_158290_2006.html#rnt9


9/10

+ -d( at ++) citing Alternative Fuels) A *ey to (e'ucing Air Pollution. The7n'ironmental 7ducation and -nformation Di'ision 7n'ironmental 8anagementBureauD7$R(

++ -d( at +++@) citing Bacallan) 1(1( Alternative Fuels for Veicles( Business and7n'ironment( First 9uarter @I( "olume /) $o( +) page +@(

+@ Section +. The State shall protect and ad'ance the right of the people to a*alanced and healthful ecolog< in accord with the rhects or acti'ities that ma<ha'e ad'erse impact on the en'ironment and pu*lic health

e& The right to *e informed of the nature and e?tent of the potential haEard ofan< acti'itect and to *e ser'ed timel< notice of an<

signi=cant rise in the le'el of pollution and the accidental or deli*erate releaseinto the atmosphere of harmful or haEardous su*stances

f& The right of access to pu*lic records which a citiEen ma< need to e?ercisehis or her rights eecti'el< under this Act

g& The right to *ring action in court or uasi>udicial *odies to en>oin allacti'ities in 'iolation of en'ironmental laws and regulations) to compel thereha*ilitation and cleanup of aected area) and to see3 the imposition ofpenal sanctions against 'iolators of en'ironmental laws and

h& The right to *ring action in court for compensation of personal damages

resulting from the ad'erse en'ironmental and pu*lic health impact of apro>ect or acti'it


10/10

of the fuel and automoti'e industries) academe and the consumers shall set thespeci=cations for all t

Documents

105. Henares vs. LTFRB