Hilarion M. Henares, et al vs.

LTFRB
• • petitioners challenge the court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding
the LTFRB and DOTC to require PUVs to use CNG
• • petitioners’ site various studies on rate of vehicle usage and its relation to
pollution and its relation to the health of the citizens
• • petitioners propose the use of Compressed National Gas alleging it’s the
cleanest fossil fuel because it produces much less pollutants
• • the petitioners base their petition for a writ of mandamus on section the
right to breathe clean air in a healthy environment and the policy enunciated in
Oposa v Factoran
• • petitioners also insist that the LTFRB and DOTC are responsible for the
regulation of emission of pollutants from PUVs as stated in the clean air act
• • but the courts held that although there is an EO that seeks to use CNG as
a clean alternative fuel for transport, there is no law that mandates the LTFRB
and DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG, therefore the writ of
Mandamus is unavailing.
• • Petition is dismissed
•
Loloy Unduran, et.al. vs, R. Aberasturi
• • Whether Court a quo has jurisdiction over a complaint of injunction
involving ancestral domain of talaandigs
• • The parties did not allege that they are members of ICCs/IPs nor does it
involve a dispute or controversy over ancestral lands/domains
• • The allegations make up for an accion reivindicatoria, a civil action
involving interest in property and a case for injunction in the amnded complaint
also a civil action
• • Therefore jurisdiction is within the RTC
• • Mere fact that the case involves ICCs/IPS and their ancestral land is not
enough got it to fall under the jurisdiction of NCIP
• • Section 66 of IPRA, the clause “no such dispute shall be brought to the
NCIP unless the parties exhausted all remedies provided under customary laws”
shows that NCIP shall only have jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving
rights of ICCs/IPs arising between ICC/IPs of the same customary laws and
council of Elders/leaders
• • There also need to be a certification from council of elders/leaders who
participated that dispute has not been settled
• • Except:
• o Delineation process
• o Endorsement to NCIP of conflicting ancestral domain claims on
boundaries among ICC/IPs
• o Resolution of conflicts on dispute arising from delineation
• o Fraudulent claims
Loloy Unduran, et.al. vs, R. Aberasturi (Resolution)
• • petitioners maintain that it is the NCIP not the regular courts that has jurisdiction
involving ancestral domain ICCs and Ips regardless of parties involved

• • petitioners argue that the subject matter is determined by the allegations of a

complaint should admit exceptions in of their circumstance involving ancestral domain

• • petitioners also argue that the interpretation of the court of section 66 of IPRA is
unconstitutional because state recognizes that each ICC/IP is governed by their own
customary laws and does not need an act of Congress to enforce those laws among them
except for unresolved claims which should fall under the jurisdiction of the NCIP

• • Petitioners also point out that the imposition of penalties under customary law
may apply even to non-IPs and does not distinguish has to whom customary law may
apply

• • Courts hold that jurisdiction over subject matter lies within the RTC, meaning
subject matter will be based on allegations of the complaint

• • Courts maintain that NCIP’s jurisdiction is limited to claims and disputes

involving rights of IP/ICCs where both party belong to the same group

• • Courts also hold that any person violating IPRA shall be punished with customary
laws of the ICC/IP concerned as long as not to cruel but still hold that NCIP can only
have jurisdiction when conflict between the same ICC/IP group for it would be against
fair play and due process to subject someone not of the same IP/ICC to the latter’s
customary laws