Segovia v. CCC Flashcards

Question

What is the ruling of the Supreme Court on the procedural issue on hierarchy of courts?

Answer 1

Under the RPEC, WK is an extraordinary remedy covering envi damage of such magnitude that will prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces Its purpose is to accord a stronger protection for envi rights, aiming for speedy and effective resolution of a case involving violation of constitutional right to a healthful and balanced ecology that transcends political and territorial boundaries, and to address the potentially exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats. The magnitude of ecological problems under RPEC satisfies at least 1 of the exceptions to the rule on hierarchy when direct resort is allowed where it is dictated by public welfare. RPEC allows direct resort to SC and it is within its discretion whether or not to accept petitions brought directly before it.

Answer 2

The Court finds that the petitioners failed to establish the requisites for the issuance of the writs prayed for. For WK to issue, the ff requites must occur: (Sec. 1, Rule 7) 1) actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; 2) actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; 3) actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an envi damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces Party claiming the privilege for the issuance of WK has to show that a law, rule, or regulation was violated or would be violated. In this case, petitioners just repeatedly revoked their constitutional right and bare allegations that such was violated. They failed to show the respondents are guilty of any unlawful act or omission that causes or constitutes bad air quality They were also unable to show the respondents failed to execute the laws cited. They only adduced expert testimony on the adverse effects of air pollution but did not go beyond mere allegations in establishing the unlawful acts or omissions that have causal link or reasonable connection to actual or threatened violation of the right of such magnitude contemplated under the RPEC. The National Air Quality Status Report (NAQSR) for 2005-2007 belies their claim that the DENR ifailed to reduce pollutant emissions. The NAQSR shows that the National Ambient Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) value used to determine air quality has steadily declined from 2004-2007. While the value still exceeds air quality guideline value, it has remained on the downward trend. The respondents also sufficiently showed they did not unlawfully refuse to implement or neglect the laws, EOs, and AOs. They enumerated the projects and programs they are taking to improve air quality. The NAQSR shows that DENR was and is taking concrete steps to improve national air quality through: 1) Information campaigns 2) Free emission testing to complement anti-smoke-belching program 3) Other programs to reduce emissions from industrial smokestacks and open burning of waste.

Answer 3

The writ of continuing mandamus cannot issue. The requirements for WCM is stated reiterated (Sec. 1, Rule 8). SC held that petitioners failed to prove direct or personal injury arising from acts attributable to respondents to be entitled to the writ. While the requirement of standing is liberalized, the general rule of real party in interest applied to petition for WCM.

Answer 4

RSP is precisely as it is denominated— a principle. It cannot be considered as an absolute imposition to encroach upon the province of the respondent to determine the manner by which the principle is applied or considered in policy decisions. A mandamus compels the performance of duties that are purely ministerial in nature, not discretionary (manner of implementation). Officials can only be directed act but not to act in one way or the other. The duty being enjoined must be according tot he terms provided in the law itselfs. The petitioners wanted the respondents to act one way to implement the RSP (to bifurcate roads). There is nothing in EO 774 or AO 254 or other issuance that require this specific action. There is no textual basis in law or issuances to be considered an act enjoined by the law as a duty. Absence a showing that executive is guilty of “gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice or palpable excess of authority” the general rule applied that discretion cannot be checked via this petition.

Answer 5

The demand for immediate and unilateral release of the funds has no basis in law. The RUT or the MVUC imposed on owners of motor vehicles in RA 8794 (RUT Law). Amounts in special trust accounts of MVUC are solely and used exclusively for: 1) Road maintenance and improvement of road drainage 2) Installation of adequate and efficient traffic lights and road safety devices 3) Air pollution control and utilization These are subject to management of Road Board. The issuances do not rise to the level of law that can supplant the provisions of RA 8794 that require approval of Road board for the use of monies in the trust fund. The provisions on the release fo funds by DBM in EO 774 is subject to the conditions set forth in RA 8794. RA 9729 as amended by RA 10174 provides for establishment of People’s Survival Fund (PSF) that may be tapped for adaptation activities requires approval from PSF Board. The claim that hardly any budget is allotted to mitigate envi pollution is belief by the priority given to programs aimed at addressing and mitigating climate change that DBM and CCC had been tagging and tracking as priority expenditures since 2013.

Answer 6

Petitioners’ failure to show any violation renders it unnecessary to rule on other allegations of violation. Allegations and supporting evidence in petition fal short in showing actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right.