Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

158290 October 23, 2006 HILARION M. HENARES, JR., VICTOR C. AGUSTIN, ALFREDO L. HENARES, DANIEL L. HENARES, ENRIQUE BELO HENARES, and CRISTINA BELO HENARES, petitioners, vs. LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, respondents. QUISUMBING, J.: FACTS: The petitioners challenged the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to LTFRB and DOTC to require the public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use the compressed natural gas (CNG) as an alternative fuel instead of gasoline and diesel. The petitioners cite the different statistics and studies from renowned institutions that show the bane of air pollution and related environmental hazards. The petitioners alleged that the particulate matters (PM) have caused detrimental effects on health, productivity and the overall quality of life. This PM constitutes complex mixture of dust, dirt, smoke and liquid droplets composed of harmful elements which are emitted into the air from engine combustions. Studies from the Philippine Environment Monitor in 2002 shows that over 2,000 die prematurely, 9,000 people suffer from chronic bronchitis and 51 million cases of respiratory symptoms in Metro Manila alone. The petitioners proposed the use of CNG to counter the effects. CNG is known to be the cleanest fossil fuel and 90 percent less CO emissions and cuts hydrocarbon emission by half. The petitioners assert their right to clean air as stipulated in Sec. 4 of R. A. 8749 known as Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 and Sec. 16 Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The Solicitor General, in his comments for LTFRB and DOTC, said that nothing in the Philippine Clean Air Act prohibits the use of gasoline and diesel by motor vehicle owners, and more sadly, the said act does not include CNG as an alternative fuel. Further, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is the agency tasked to set the emission standards for fuel use and tasked to develop an action plan.

ISSUE: 1. Whether the petitioners have the personality to bring the petition to the Supreme Court. 2. Should mandamus be issued against LTFRB and DOTC to compel PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel.

HELD: Yes, the petitioners have the personality to bring the petition to the Supreme Court as in the case of Oposa vs Factoran. Sec. 16 of Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution bestows on the people the right to breathe clean air in a healthy environment. The implementation of this policy is articulated in Sec. 4 of R.A. 8749. As in the decision of the Court in Oposa case, the case is an inter-generational responsibility and for inter-generational justice. The petition focuses on the legal right of the petitioners for their right to clean air. The issue concerned is not only important to the petitioners but also of public concern. On the other issue, mandamus cannot be issued to LTFRB and DOTC because it not within the mandate of the agencies to impose the use of CNG. Their mandate is to oversee that motor vehicles prepare an action plan and implement the emission standards for motor vehicles. The DENR is the agency tasked to set the emission standards, and that the legislature should first provide the specific statutory remedy to the complex problems bared by the petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus is taken.

DECISION: The petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of merit.