Henares, et.

al
vs.
LTFRB and DOTC
G.R. No. 158290 October 23, 2006
By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law
Start: 6/26/14 10:56:10 AM
Finish: 6/26/14 12:34:40 PM
Nature of the Case
A direct petition for mandamus commanding LTFRB and DOTC to require public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed natural gas
(CNG) as alternative fuel.

Facts
Petitioners attempt to present a compelling case of air pollution and related environmental hazards anchored with their rights as mandated
by the Constitution (RBHE), Oposa doctrine, and the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999, alleging that particulate matters (PM) from fuel
combustions have caused detrimental effects on the health, productivity, infrastructure and the overall quality of life citing the adverse
effects of HCs (hydrocarbons) which react with oxygen in NOx [forming smog which reacts with either SO2 (sulfur dioxide) to produce acid
rain or ammonia (NH3), moisture and other compounds to form nitric acid (HNO3) and other harmful nitrates], CO (carbon monoxide) [when
uncompletely burned and inhaled can disrupt oxygen flow in blood so that prolonged exposure can be fatal to people with weak hearts], PM10
[a finer PM which can penetrate the lungs and cause lung problems] based on certain studies. Petitioner also cited a UP study showing the
prevalence of COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases) due to vehicular emissions, including the prevalence of respiratory symptoms
to school children and child vendors in Metro Manila than compared to their provincial counterparts. To counter these effects, petitioner
contends the use of CNG and they aver that: (1) it is the cleanest fossil fuel compared to coal and petroleum; (2) produces 90% less CO
compared to gasoline and diesel fuel; (3) reduces NOx and HC emissions by 50%; (4) emits 60% less PM; (5) emits no SO2; although they
admitted that CNG produces methane (CH4) which is one of the gases blamed for global warming. DOTC was impleaded as additional
respondent. Meanwhile, the Solicitor General (SG), in behalf of the public respondents opined that: (1) mandamus is not the remedy for
petitioners; (2) that nothing in the law (RA 8749) cited by petitioners prohibits the use of gasoline and diesel; (3) that nowhere in the said law
provides CNG as alternative fuel so that the proper course is to lobby Congress; (4) that it is DENR (not DOTC or LTFRB) that is in charge
of the implementation of said law; (4) that it is DOE that sets the standards for all types of fuel and fuel-related products and DOTC only
implements these standards for motor vehicles so that petitioners could not alter or modify these standards. All premises considered, the SG
opins that the petition be denied for lack of merit. Petitioners, in their Reply, insists that the public respondents possess the administrative
and regulatory powers to compel the use of CNG by virtue of the same law on top of the information provided by DOE on the benefits of
CNG and, so that their failure to recognize the same as alternative fuel, considering the air pollution cause by the emissions of gasoline and
diesel endangers the environment and the people, to the extent that this leads to neglect in their duties as enjoined them by the law and that
the writ is appropriate for there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, this petition.

Issue(s)
(1). Do petitioners have the locus standi?
(2). Does the action have legal basis?
(3). Does public respondent have the responsibility to order motor vehicles to use of CNG?
(4). Can public respondent be compelled by mandamus to require PUVs to use CNG?

Held
(1). Yes.

The issue focuses on petitioners fundamental right to clean air imbued with public interest, and not merely procedural in nature.
The consequences of counter-productive and retrogressive effects of a neglected environment due to motor vehicle emissions
immeasurably affect the well being of the petitioners. In view of the paramount importance raised herein, the Court may, at its own
discretion, take cognizance of the issue and relax the procedural technicalities under the principle of transcendental importance.
(2). Yes.

The Constitution and the Oposa doctrine bestows the people the right to breathe clean air. The government, when it omits to
safeguard this right, can resort to and exhaust all remedies to challenge such omission by the government. The contentions of the
SG cannot be sustained. Petitioners seek to protect their right to breathe clean air by having a less circuitous, speedy and
unchartered course, which they can avail of under the concept of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice."
(3). No.

EO 290 only mandates public respondents to grant preferential and exclusive Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) or
franchises to operators of NGVs based on the results of the DOTC surveys. No law grants them the authority to order owners of
motor vehicles to use CNG.
(4). No. Mandamus will not lie.

The issuance of mandamus lies when there is the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required xxx it operates only
to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. As held in (3), EO 290 does not public respondents the duty to
compel owners of motor vehicles to use CNG.

The Court cannot preempt the need for future changes in both legislation and its implementation. xxx Comity with and courtesy to a
coequal branch dictate that we give sufficient time and leeway for the coequal branches to address by themselves the
environmental problems raised in this petition. xxx Petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an indubitable legal duty
on respondents that will justify a grant of the writ of mandamus compelling the use of CNG for public utility vehicles. It appears to
us 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.