Title
Segovia vs. Climate Change Commission
Case
G.R. No. 211010
Decision Date
Mar 7, 2017
Petitioners sought implementation of the Road Sharing Principle, alleging government inaction violated their right to a balanced ecology. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling the principle is discretionary, not a legal mandate, and petitioners failed to prove environmental harm or standing.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 211010)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Genesis of environmental policy issuances
    • AO 171 (2007)
      • Established the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC).
      • First executive response to climate change under President Arroyo.
    • EO 774 (2008)
      • Reorganized PTFCC under the President as Chairperson and Cabinet secretaries as members.
      • Introduced the “Road Sharing Principle” (Sec. 9(a)): “Those who have less in wheels must have more in road,” favoring non-motorized locomotion and collective transport.
  • Further policy frameworks
    • AO 254, s. 2009
      • Mandated DOTC (as lead of Task Group on Fossil Fuels) to formulate a National Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) Strategy.
      • Reiterated the Road Sharing Principle to reform the transport sector.
    • RA 9729 (Climate Change Act of 2009)
      • Created the Climate Change Commission (CCC), absorbing PTFCC functions.
      • Charged CCC to coordinate, monitor, and evaluate government programs on climate change.
  • Petitioners’ demands and causes of action
    • Prayers in Petition (G.R. No. 211010)
      • Issue writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus to compel implementation of RA 9729, RA 8749 (Clean Air Act), EO 774, AO 254, and AO 171.
      • Specific directives sought:
        • Road-bifurcation nationwide—half for sidewalks/bicycles, half for Filipino-made vehicles.
        • 50% reduction of official fuel consumption; mandatory public transport for officials.
        • Demarcation of road right-of-way; release of Road Users’ Tax funds.
    • Alleged violations (Petition pp. 23–29)
      • Breach of “atmospheric trust” (Const., Art. XI, § 1) and thoughtless extravagance (Civil Code, Art. 25).
      • Failure of DOTC/DPWH to implement Road Sharing Principle (EO 774).
      • DA’s omission to convert public spaces to urban farming (EO 774, Sec. 12).
      • DILG’s failure to guide LGUs on Road Sharing (EO 774, Sec. 9(g)).
      • DENR’s inadequate action on air pollutant emissions.
      • DBM’s non-release of Road Users’ Tax (EO 774, Sec. 9(e)).
  • Procedural history and respondents’ defenses
    • Respondents’ Comment (OSG)
      • Motion to dismiss: lack of standing; violation of hierarchy of courts; failure to state unlawful acts; no proof of environmental damage.
      • Denial of alleged omissions; recited numerous transport-and environment-improvement programs.
    • Petitioners’ Reply
      • Reiterated demands for writs; maintained non-receipt of respondents’ compliance.
      • Emphasized constitutional right to healthful ecology.

Issues:

  • Whether petitioners have standing under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC).
  • Whether the petition must be dismissed for failure to observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
  • Whether the requisites for issuance of the writ of kalikasan are met.
  • Whether the requisites for issuance of the writ of continuing mandamus are met.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.