Victoria Segovia, et. al. vs The Climate Change Commission G.R. No. 211010, March 17, 2017 FACTS This is a petition for the issuance of Writs of Kalikasan and continuing andaus to copel copel the iple ipleent entati ation on of the follo! follo!ing ing en"iro en"irone nenta ntall la!s and e#ecuti"e issuances $ Repu%lic &ct No. 'R&( )72) '*liate *hange &ct(, and R& +7) '*lean &ir &ct(- #ecuti"e /rder No. 77 '/ 77(- &/ 2, s. 200) '&/ 2(and &dinistrati"e /rder No. 171, s. 2007 '&/ 171(. n gist, petitioners contend that respondents3 failure to ipleent the foregoing la!s la!s and e#ecut e#ecuti"e i"e issuanc issuances es result resulted ed in the contin continued ued degrad degradati ation on of air 4ualit5 4ualit5,, partic particular ularl5 l5 in Metro Metro Manila, Manila, in "iolat "iolation ion of the petiti petitione oners3 rs3 consti constitut tution ional al right right to a 1 %alanced and healthful ecolog5, and a5 e"en %e tantaount to depri"ation of life, and of life sources or 6land, !ater, and air6 %5 the go"ernent !ithout due process of la!.1 Respondent Respondents, s, through through the /ffice of the olicitor General, assert that petitione petitioners rs are not entitled to a !rit of kalikasan %ecause the5 failed to sho! that the pu%lic respondents are guilt5 of an unla!ful act or oission- state the en"ironental la!8s "iolated- sho! en"ironental daage of such agnitude as to pre9udice the life, health or propert5 of inha%itants of t!o or ore cities- and pro"e that non$ ipleentation of Road haring :rinciple !ill cause en"ironental daage. ISSUES Whether or not a !rit of Kalikasan and8or *ontinuing Mandaus should should %e issued. RULING N/. ;or a !rit of kalikasan to issue, the follo!ing re4uisites ust concur< 1. the here re is an actu actual al or thre hreaten atene ed "iol "iolat atio ion n of the constitutional right to a %alanced and healthful ecolog52. the actual or threatened "iolation arises fro an unla!ful act or oission of a pu%lic official or eplo5ee, or pri"ate indi"idual or entit5- and
=. the actual or threatened "iolation in"ol"es or !ill lead to an en"ironental daage of such agnitude as to pre9udice the life, health or propert5 of inha%itants in t!o or ore cities or pro"inces. t is !ell$settled that a part5 claiing the pri"ilege for the issuance of a !rit of kalikasan has to sho! that a la!, rule or regulation !as "iolated or !ould %e "iolated. n this case, apart fro repeated in"ocation of the constitutional right to health and to a %alanced and healthful ecolog5 and %are allegations that their right !as "iolated, the petitioners failed to sho! that pu%lic respondents are guilt5 of an5 unla!ful act or oission that constitutes a "iolation of the petitioners3 right to a %alanced and healthful ecolog5. iilarl5, the !rit of continuing andaus cannot issue. Mandaus lies to copel the perforance of duties that are purel5 inisterial in nature, not those that are discretionar5, and the official can onl5 %e directed %5 andaus to act %ut not to act one !a5 or the other. &t its core, !hat the petitioners are seeking to copel is not the perforance of a inisterial act, %ut a discretionar5 act $ the anner of ipleentation of the Road haring :rinciple. *learl5, petitioners3 preferred specific course of action 'i.e. the %ifurcation of roads to de"ote for all$!eather side!alk and %ic5cling and ;ilipino$ade transport "ehicles( to ipleent the Road haring :rinciple finds no te#tual %asis in la! or e#ecuti"e issuances for it to %e considered an act en9oined %5 la! as a dut5, leading to the necessar5 conclusion that the continuing andaus pra5ed for seeks not the ipleentation of an en"ironental la!, rule or regulation, %ut to control the e#ercise of discretion of the e#ecuti"e as to ho! the principle enunciated in an e#ecuti"e issuance relating to the en"ironent is %est ipleented. >ence, the continuing andaus cannot issue.
WEREF!RE, the petition is "IS#ISSE".
