Oposa vs Factoran

Facts

 Originated from Civil Case 90-777 wherein petitioners, (minors + environmental groups), filed a
taxpayer’s suit against DENR Sec Factoran, praying to cancel all existing timber licensing
agreements in the country
 Claims that they are representing not only themselves, but also others who are equally
concerned about the environment as well as the generations yet unborn
 Factoran countered and filed a motion to dismiss the case on two grounds: plantiffs have no
cause of action against him and the issue raised is a political question

Issue: w/n the petitioners have the locus standi to file this case

Ruling: YES

 The original civil case is indeed a class suit since the complaint is of common and general
interest. The court understands that the parties are numerous that it would impracticable and
impossible to bring all of them to court
 Petitioners are enough to represent those who have interest in this case
 Court affirms the concept of “intergenerational responsibility” and granted the petitioner’s
assertion. With this, they have the personality to sue insofar as the right to balanced and
healthful ecology is concerned
 “The minors’ assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure protection of that right for generations to come”

Chavez vs PCGG

 Chavez, as a taxpayer, citizen and former govt official who initiated the prosecution of the
Marcoses and their cronies, alleges that several news reports in Sept 1997 compelled him to file
a suit against the PCGG. News reports contained the: alleged discovery of billions of dollars of
Marcos’ assets in Swiss banks; the reported execution of a compromise between the govt (thru
PCGG) and Marcos heirs, on how to split these assets
 Chavez invoked his constitutional right to information and the state’s duty to disclose to the
public all its transactions involving national interest. Thus, he demands PCGG to make public all
the negotiations and agreements of the compromise.
o Claims that it is of “paramount public interest” since it has a “debilitating effect on the
country’s economy:
 PCGG don’t deny making a compromise agreement with the Marcos heirs. However, they
contend that Chavez’s action is premature since there’s no proof that he asked the PCGG to
disclose the negotiations and agreement. Even if he did PCGG can’t disclose since the terms an
conditions were not yet binding and effective
 PCGG averred that the Marcos heirs have submitted the agreements to the Sandiganbayan for
approval but was denied on the grounds that agreements weren’t submitted to president for
 approval and that the Marcos heirs have failed to comply with the agreements, particularly the
submission of their assets. Likewise, Pres Ramos sent PCGG a letter which stated that he has not
given them any authority approve the compromise agreements.

Issue: W/N the petitioner has the legal standing to file the case

Ruling: YES

 Petitioner sued the case in his capacity as taxpayer and citizen. He contends that as a taxpayer,
he has the legal personality. The ill-gotten wealth “belongs to the Filipino people and [is], in
truth and in fact, part of the public treasury”. Moreover, the issue of the ill-gotten wealth is of
“transcendental importance to the public” since it “immeasurably affect the social, economic
and moral well-being of the people”. Also, the fact that he sued as a citizen satisfies the
requirement of locus standi especially when the proceedings involves the assertion of a public
right
 The Court affirms the argument presented by Chavez and cites relevant case
o Tañada v. Tuvera: the Court asserted that when the issue concerns a public right and
the object of mandamus is to obtain the enforcement of a public duty, the people are
regarded as the real parties in interest; and because it is sufficient that petitioner is a
citizen and as such is interested in the execution of the laws, he need not show that he
has any legal or special interest in the result of the action
 in this case, the petitioners sought to enforce their right to be informed on
matters of public concern, a right then recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the
1973 Constitution, in connection with the rule that laws in order to be valid and
enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively
promulgated.
 In ruling for the petitioners' legal standing, the Court declared that the right
they sought to be enforced "is a public right recognized by no less than the
fundamental law of the land."
o Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission: reiterated Tañada, further declaring that "when a
mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement of
personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that petitioner is a citizen and, therefore,
part of the general 'public' which possesses the right."
o Albano vs Reyes: while expenditure of public funds may not have been involved under
the questioned contract for the development, the management and the operation of
the Manila International Container Terminal, "public interest [was] definitely involved
considering the important role [of the subject contract] . . . in the economic
development of the country and the magnitude of the financial consideration involved."
We concluded that, as a consequence, the disclosure provision in the Constitution
would constitute sufficient authority for upholding the petitioner's standing.
 IN THIS CASE, the petition is anchored on the people’s right to information and access to public
official records, documents and papers— a right guaranteed under Section 7, Article III of the
1987 Constitution. Petitioner, a former solicitor general, is a Filipino citizen. Because of the
satisfaction of the two basic requisites laid down by decisional law to sustain petitioner's legal
 standing, i.e. (1) the enforcement of a public right (2) espoused by a Filipino citizen, we rule that
the petition at bar should be allowed.
 In any event, the question on the standing of Petitioner Chavez is rendered moot by the
intervention of the Jopsons, who are among the legitimate claimants to the Marcos wealth. The
standing of the Jopsons is not seriously contested by the solicitor general. Indeed, said
petitioners-intervenors have a legal interest in the subject matter of the instant case, since a
distribution or disposition of the Marcoses' ill-gotten properties may adversely affect the
satisfaction of their claims.

Henares vs LTFRB

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
 This is because particulate matters (PM)- “complex mixtures of dust, dirt, smoke and liquid
droplets, varying in sizes and compositions”, have detrimentally affected our health,
productivity, infrastructure and overall quality of life
 They particularly cite the effects of certain fuel emissions from engine combustion when these
react to other pollutants. For example, hydrocarbons reacting with different elements result in
acid rain, smog, ammonia, nitric acid and other harmful substances.
 Despite phasing out coal-fired fuel stations and using natural gas, the energy and fuel sectors
remain the harmful sources of emissions. Petitioners then cite various studies that affirm the
detrimental effects of constant exposure to these PMs (Ph Environment Monitor 2002, UP 1990-
91 and 1994)
 Thus, petitioners propose the use of CNG which is a “natural gas comprised mostly of methane
which although containing small amounts of propane and butane, is colorless and odorless and
considered the cleanest fossil fuel because it produces much less pollutants than coal and
petroleum; produces up to 90 percent less CO compared to gasoline and diesel fuel; reduces
NOx emissions by 50 percent and cuts hydrocarbon emissions by half; emits 60 percent less
PMs; and releases virtually no sulfur dioxide.” However, its side effects are that it produces
more which might contribute to global warming.
 Petitioners contend that their basis for the petition lies in Art 2, Sec 16 of the 1987 Constitution,
the ruling in Oposa vs Factoran Jr, and Sec 4 of RA 8749 (Ph Clean Air Act of 1999)

Issue: W/N the petitioners have the legal standing to file the petition

RULING: YES

 There is no dispute that petitioners have standing to bring their case before this Court. Even
respondents do not question their standing. This petition focuses on one fundamental legal right
of petitioners, their right to clean air. 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.
 Undeniably, the right to clean air not only is an issue of paramount importance to petitioners for
it concerns the air they breathe, but it is also impressed with public interest. The consequences
of the counter-productive and retrogressive effects of a neglected environment due to
emissions of motor vehicles immeasurably affect the well-being of petitioners. On these
considerations, the legal standing of the petitioners deserves recognition
 In Oposa, the “right to a balanced and healthful ecology” has the “correlative duty to refrain
from impairing the environment”