Case Summary (G.R. No. 211010)
Key Individuals and Context
Petitioners include carless individuals (Victoria Segovia, Ruel Lago, Clariesse Jami Chan), parents representing children of present and future generations (Gabriel Anastacio, Dennis Orlando Sangalang, Maria Paulina Castañeda), and car-owners preferring safe, reliable non-motorized transport (Renato Pineda Jr., Aron Kerr Menguito, May Alili Sangalang, Glynda Bathan Baterina). They sought enforcement of environmental laws and executive issuances to address climate change and air pollution. Respondents are various national agencies (Climate Change Commission, DOTC, DPWH, DILG, DENR, DBM, MMDA, DA) and unnamed local government units.
Petition and Demands
Petitioners requested (1) a writ of kalikasan and a continuing mandamus; (2) implementation of the “Road Sharing Principle” via lengthwise bifurcation of all roads—half for sidewalks/bicycles, half for Filipino-made vehicles; (3) a time-bound national action plan; (4) 50% reduction in fuel consumption and corresponding public-transport usage by the President, Cabinet, and officials; (5) DPWH demarcation of road right-of-way; and (6) immediate DBM release of Road Users’ Tax funds.
Legal Framework
Applicable instruments (1987 Constitution):
• Republic Act No. 9729 (Climate Change Act) and creation of the Climate Change Commission.
• Republic Act No. 8749 (Clean Air Act).
• Executive Order No. 774 and Administrative Order No. 171 establishing and reorganizing the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change and mandating the Road Sharing Principle.
• AO 254, s. 2009 directing DOTC to formulate a national Environmentally Sustainable Transport Strategy.
Petitioners’ Alleged Violations
They alleged respondents (a) violated the constitutional “atmospheric trust” doctrine (Art. XI, Sec. 1) and Civil Code Art. 25 through failure to cut fossil-fuel use by 50%; (b) neglected implementation of the Road Sharing Principle; (c) refused to devote open spaces for urban farming; (d) failed to coordinate with LGUs on non-motorized transport; (e) neglected air pollution reduction; and (f) withheld Road Users’ Tax funding.
Respondents’ Defenses
Through the Office of the Solicitor General, respondents argued lack of standing, non-compliance with the hierarchy of courts, and failure to state unlawful acts. They denied violations and cited ongoing projects: climate change expenditure tagging, integrated transport decongestion plans, truck bans, anti-smoke-belching campaigns, anti-colorum enforcement, mobile bike services, and urban re-greening. They pointed to the Philippine National Implementation Plan on Environment Improvement in the Transport Sector.
Issues for Resolution
- Standing of petitioners for writ of kalikasan and continuing mandamus.
- Applicability of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
- Whether the requisites for writ of kalikasan and continuing mandamus are met.
Ruling on Standing and Hierarchy of Courts
The Court recognized liberalized standing under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases but distinguished between writs of kalikasan (class standing) and continuing mandamus (personal aggrievement). It held that direct resort to the Supreme Court for writ of kalikasan is authorized by the rules, rendering the doctrine of hierarchy inapplicable in environmental cases where public welfare and transboundary ecological impact are at issue.
Ruling on Writ of Kalikasan
Requisites: actual or threatened violation of the right to a balanced ecology; unlawful act or omission; environmental damage prejudicing the life, health, or property of inhabitants in at least two cities or provinces. Petitioners failed to show any specific unlawful omission by respondents or causal link to air-quality deterioration. Submitted data (2005-2011) evidenced a downward trend in total suspended particulates. Respondents demonstrated active measures to improve air quality. The writ of kalikasan was
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 211010)
Background
- En Banc, G.R. No. 211010, decided March 7, 2017; reported at 806 Phil. 1019.
- Petition for writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus.
- Seeks enforcement of:
• Republic Act No. 9729 (Climate Change Act)
• Republic Act No. 8749 (Clean Air Act)
• Executive Order No. 774 (Road Sharing Principle)
• Administrative Order No. 171, s. 2007 (PTFCC creation)
• Administrative Order No. 254, s. 2009 (EST formulation)
Parties
- Petitioners: Carless People of the Philippines; parents representing their children (“Children of the Future”); car-owners preferring good public transport.
- Respondents: Climate Change Commission (CCC); DOTC; DPWH and Road Board; DILG; DENR; DBM; MMDA; DA; unnamed LGUs (John Does).
Factual Context
- AO 171 (2007): created Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC).
- EO 774: reorganized PTFCC under the President; introduced “Those who have less in wheels must have more in road” (Road Sharing Principle).
- AO 254 (2009): DOTC to craft National Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) Strategy, reiterating Road Sharing Principle.
- RA 9729 (2009): created CCC to absorb PTFCC’s functions.
- Petitioners wrote respondents demanding:
• nationwide road bifurcation (half for non-motorized, half for vehicles)
• 50 % reduction in fuel use and official public transport use
• demarcation of road rights-of-way
• immediate release of Road Users’ Tax funds - No respondent replies; petition filed.
Petitioners’ Allegations
- Failure/refusal to perform mandatory acts under environmental laws and issuances.
- Violations:
• Atmospheric trust duty (Const. art. XI, § 1) and Civil Code art. 25 (extravagance)
• DOTC/DPWH neglect of Road Sharing Principle (EO 774)
• DA’s failure to devote public open spaces to urban farming (EO 774, § 12[b])
• DIL