Segovia v. CCC

Question 1

G.R. No.
Date
Ponente

Answer 1

G.R. No. 211010
March 7, 2017
Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa

Question 2

Petitioners and Respondents

Answer 2

Petitioners: Carless People of the Philippines, Parents, Representing their children, who in turn represent “Children of the Future and Car-owners who would rather not have cars if good public transportation were safe, convenient, accessible, available, and reliable.”

Respondents: Climate Change Commission, DOTC, DPWH, DILG, DENR, DBM, MMDA, DA,and John Does Representing Unnamed LGUs and Natural Persons Who Fail or Refuse to Implement the Law or Cooperate in the Implementation of the Law

Question 3

Case involves what?

Answer 3

This case involves a petition for the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus filed by several environmental advocates to compel the implementation of several environmental laws and executive issuances.

Question 4

The petitioners wanted to compel the respondents to implement which laws and executive issuances?

Answer 4

• RA 9729 (Climate Change Act)
• RA 8749 (Clean Air Act)
• EO 774 (Reorganizing The Presidential Task Force On Climate Change)
• AO 254 s. 2009 (Mandating DOTr and Communications To Lead In Formulating A National Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) for the PH), and
• AO 171 s. 2007 (Creating The Presidential Task Force On Climate Change)

Question 5

Petitioners sought to compel what?

Answer 5

a) Public Respondents
- implement the Road Sharing Principle in all roads;
- divide all roads lengthwise, 1/2 for all-weather sidewalk and bicycling, the other for Filipino-made transport vehicles;
- submit a time-bound action plan to implement the Road Sharing Principle throughout the country

b) Office of the Pres, Cabinet Officials, and Public Employees of Cabinet Members
- reduce their fuel consumption by 50%
- take public transportation 50% of the time

c) DPWH
- demarcate and delineate the road right-of-way in all roads and sidewalks

d) DBM
- instantly release funds for Road Users’ Tax (RUT)

Question 6

What did Former Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued.

Answer 6

Former Pres. Gloria Arroyo issued AO 171 on 20 Feb 2017 which created the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change to address the clamor for a more tangible response to climate change.

Question 7

What issuance reorganized the Presidential Task Force? and How was the body reorganized?

Answer 7

The body was reorganized through EO 774 which designated the Pres as Chair, and Cabinet Secretaries as members of the Task Force.

Question 8

What did EO 774 express regarding the Road Sharing Principle?

Answer 8

Section 9. Task Group on Fossil Fuels. (TGFF) — (a) To reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, DOTC shall lead a Task Group to reform the transportation sector. The new paradigm in the movement of men and things must follow a simple principle: “Those who have less in wheels must have more in road.” The system shall favor nonmotorized locomotion and collective transportation system (walking, bicycling, and the man-powered mini-train).

Question 9

In 2009, AO 254 was issued for what purpose?

Answer 9

In 2009, AO 254 was issued mandating DOTC, lead agency for TGFF, to formulate a national Environmentally Sustainable Transport System (EST) for the PH, which also mentioned RSP.

Question 10

What did Congress pass after AO 254 which created a new commission?

Answer 10

Congress also passed the Climate Change Act that created the CCC, absorbing the PTFCC functions and became the lead policy-making body of the government tasked to coordinate, monitor, and evaluate the programs and action plans of the govt related to climate change.

Question 11

What did the petitioners do regarding their pleas and what did they demand?

Answer 11

Petitioners wrote to respondents regarding their please and demanded a reform of the road and transportation system within 30 days from receipt of letter through the bifurcation of roads and reduction of official and govt fuel consumption by 50%.

Question 12

Why did the petitioners filed the petitioner after writing to the respondents?

Answer 12

Claiming to have not received a response, they filed the petition.

Question 13

The petitioners claimed they were entitled to the issuance of the extraordinary writs because?

Answer 13

They claim they are entitled to the issuance of the extraordinary writs due to:
1) the alleged failure and refusal of respondents to perform an act mandated by envi laws
2) The violation of envi laws resulting in envi damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, and property of all Filipinos

Question 14

The petitioners claimed the following violations in their petition:

Answer 14

Violations:
1) Government’s violation of
- “atmospheric trust” (Article XI, Section 1, Constitution)
- government’s thoughtless extravagance in the midst of acute public want (Article 25, Civil Code) for failure to reduce personal and official consumption of fossil fuels by at least 50%

2) DOTC and DPWH’s failure to implement RSP (EO 774)
3) DA’s failure to devote public open spaces along sidewalks, roads and parking lots to sustainable urban farming (Section 12 (b), EO 774)
4) DILG’s failure to coordinate with LGUs to guide them on the RSP (Section 9 (g), EO 774)
5) DENR’s failure to reduce air pollutant emissions
6) DBM’s failure to make available RUT (Section 9 (e), EO 774.)

Question 15

What did the petitioners contend and decry?

Answer 15

Petitioners contend that respondents’ failure to implement these laws and executive issuances resulted in the continuous degradation of air quality in Metro Manila, in violation of their reight to a balanced and healthful ecology and may even be tantamount to deprivation of life and of life sources (land, water, air) by the govt without due process of law.

Petitioners also decry the unequal protection of laws in the prevailing scheme claiming that a) 98% of Filipinos are discriminated against by the law when car-owning 2% is given almost all of the road space, and b) while large budgets are allocated for construction and maintenance of roads, hardly any budget is given for sidewalks, bike lanes, and non-motorized transportation system

Question 16

What did the respondents do after the petition was filed? What did they seek?

Answer 16

Respondents, through the Office of SolGen, filed their Comment seeking the outright dismissal of the petition for
- lack of standing and
- failure to adhere to te doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

They also argue that petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

Question 17

The respondents assert that the petitioners are not entitled to the writ of kalikasan because?

Answer 17

They assert that petitioners are not entitled to the writ of kalikasan for failure to:
- show respondents are guilty of an unlawful act or omission
- state envi laws violated
- show envi damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants of 2 or more citiies
- prove that non implementation of RSP will cause envi damage.

Question 18

The respondents assert that the petitioners are not entitled to the writ of continuing mandamus because?

Answer 18

They also assert that petitioners are not entitled to the writ of continuing mandamus because:

• there is no showing of a direct or personal injury or a clear legal right to the thing demanded
• the writ will not compel a discretionary act or anything not in a public officer’s duty to do (manner by which RSP will be applied, and to compel DA to exercise jurisdiction over roadside lands);
• DBM cannot be compelled to make an instant release of funds since it requires an appropriation made by law (Article VI, Section 29 [1], Constitution) and that the use of RUT (more appropriately, the Motor Vehicle Users’ Charge MVUC) requires prior approval of the Road Board.

Question 19

When the respondents denied the violations, they stated they have taken and continue to take measures to improve the traffic in the PH through what projects and programs?

Answer 19

Respondents denied the specific violations, stating they have taken and continue to take measures to improve traffic situation in PH roads and to improve envi conditions through projects and programs:
1) Priority tagging of expenditures for climate change adaptation and mitigation
2) Integrated Transport System aimed to decongest major thoroughfares
3) Truck Ban
4) Anti-Smoke Belching Campaign
5) Anti-Colorum
6) Mobile Bike Service Programs
7) Urban Re-Greening Programs.

Question 20

What else did the respondents assert regarding the consideration of the impact of the transport sector on the environment?

Answer 20

They assert they consider the impact of the transport sector on envi, as shown in the Philippine National Implementation Plan on Environment Improvement in the Transport Sector which targets air pollution improvement actions, greenhouse gases emission mitigation, and updating of noise pollution standards for the transport sector.

Question 21

What did the petitioners do after respondents filed their Comment?

Answer 21

Petitioners filed their Reply reiterating the arguments raised in the petition.

Question 22

What are the issues of the case?

Answer 22

1) Whether or not the petitioners have standing to file the petition;
2) Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for failing to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts;
3) Whether or not a writ of Kalikasan and/or Continuing Mandamus should issue.

Question 23

What was the ruling of the Supreme Court? (general - on the petition)

Answer 23

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

Question 24

What is the ruling of the Supreme Court on the procedural issue of standing to file?

Answer 24

SC agrees with the petitioners that the RPEC liberalized the requirements on standing, allowing the filing of citizen’s suit for enforcement of rights and obligations under envi laws.

However, the SC noted that there is a difference between the petition for the issuance of a WK and WCM. WK it is sufficient that the person filing represents the inhabitants prejudiced by the environmental damage subject of the writ. WCM is only availble to one who is personally aggrieved by the unlawful act or omission.

Question 25

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

Answer 25

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.

Question 26

What was the ruling of the Supreme Court on the requisites for issuance of writ of kalikasan?

Answer 26

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.

Question 27

What was the ruling of the Supreme Court on the requisites for issuance of writ of continuing mandamus?

Answer 27

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.

Question 28

What is the ruling of the Supreme Court on the Road Sharing Principle?

Answer 28

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.

Question 29

What is the ruling of the Supreme Court on the Road Users’ Tax?

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

What is the ruling of the Supreme Court on other causes of action?

Answer 30

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.