HENARES VS LTFRB GR No. 158290 October 23, 2006 FACTS
Peti Petiti tion oner ers s chal challe leng nge e this this Cour Courtt to issu issue e a writ writ of mand mandam amus us commanding respondents Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to reuire pu!lic utility "ehicles (P#$s) to use compressed natural gas (C%&) as alternati"e fuel' !SS"ES
() Do petitioners ha"e legal personality to !ring this petition !efore us (*) +hould mandamus issue against respondents respondents to compel P#$s to use C%& as alternati"e fuel A##L!CABLE LA$S
+ection ,-* .rticle // of the 012 Constitution The +tate shall protect and ad"ance the right of the people to a !alanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature' +ection 33 of Repu!lic .ct %o' 1230 otherwise 4nown as the 5Philippine Clean .ir .ir .ct .ct of 000'5 +6C' 3' Recognitio Recognition n of Rights' 7 Pursuant to the a!o"e8declared principles- the following rights of citi9ens are here!y sought to !e recogni9ed and the +tate shall see4 to guarantee their en:oyment; a) The right to !reathe clean air< !) The right to utili9e and en:oy all natural resources according to the principle of sustaina!le de"elopment< c) The right to participate in the formulation- planning- implementation and monitoring of en"ironmental policies and programs and in the decision8 ma4ing process< d) The right to participate participate in the decision8ma4ing decision8ma4ing process concerning concerning de"elopment policies- plans and programs- pro:ects or acti"ities that may ha"e ad"erse impact on the en"ironment and pu!lic health< e) The right to !e informed of the nature and e=tent of the potential ha9ard of any acti"ity- underta4ing or pro:ect and to !e ser"ed timely notice of any any sign signif ific ican antt rise rise in the the le"e le"ell of poll pollut utio ion n and and the the acci accide dent ntal al or del deli!e i!erate rate rel releas ease int into the the atmo atmosp sphe here re of harmf armful ul or ha9a ha9ard rdou ous s su!stances< f) The right of access to pu!lic records which a citi9en may need to e=ercise his or her rights effecti"ely under this .ct< g) The right to !ring action in court or uasi8:udicial !odies to en:oin all acti"ities in "iolation of en"ironmental laws and regulations- to compel the reha!ilitation and cleanup of affected area- and to see4 the imposition of penal sanctions against "iolators of en"ironmental laws< and h) The right to !ring action in court for compensation of personal damage damages s resul resulti ting ng from from the the ad"e ad"ers rse e en"iro en"ironm nment ental al and and pu!l pu!lic ic heal health th impact of a pro:ect pro :ect or acti"ity'
R"L!NG
() >6+' There is no dispute that petitioners ha"e standing to !ring their case !efore this Court' ?oreo"er- as held pre"iously- a party@s standing !efore this Court is a procedural technicality which may- in the e=ercise of the Court@s discretion- !e set aside in "iew of the importance of the issue raised' Ae !rush aside this issue of technicality under the principle of the transcendental importance to the pu!lic- especially so if these cases demand that they !e settled promptly' (*) %O' plain- speedy and adeuate remedy herein sought !y petitioners- i'e'- a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reuire P#$s to use C%&- is una"ailing' ?andamus is a"aila!le only to compel the doing of an act specifically en:oined !y law as a duty' erethere is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of motor "ehicles to use C%&' ?andamus will not generally lie from one !ranch of go"ernment to a coordinate !ranch- for the o!"ious reason that neither is inferior to the other' /t appears that more properly- the legislature should pro"ide first the specific statutory remedy to the comple= en"ironmental pro!lems !ared !y herein petitioners !efore any :udicial recourse !y mandamus is ta4en'
