Henares v LTFRB
GR No. 158290
October 23, 2006
FACTS:
Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents Land Transportation Franchising and
Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to require public utility
vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel.
ISSUES:
(1) Do petitioners have legal personality to bring this petition before us?
(2) Should mandamus issue against respondents to compel PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel?
APPLICABLE LAWS:
• Section 414 of Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999." SEC. 4. Recognition
of Rights. – Pursuant to the above-declared principles, the following rights of citizens are hereby sought to be recognized
and the State shall seek to guarantee their enjoyment:
a) The right to breathe clean air;
b) The right to utilize and enjoy all natural resources according to the principle of sustainable development;
c) The right to participate in the formulation, planning, implementation and monitoring of environmental policies and
programs and in the decision-making process;
d) The right to participate in the decision-making process concerning development policies, plans and programs, projects or
activities that may have adverse impact on the environment and public health;
e) The right to be informed of the nature and extent of the potential hazard of any activity, undertaking or project and to be
served timely notice of any significant rise in the level of pollution and the accidental or deliberate release into the
atmosphere of harmful or hazardous substances;
f) The right of access to public records which a citizen may need to exercise his or her rights effectively under this Act;
g) The right to bring action in court or quasi-judicial bodies to enjoin all activities in violation of environmental laws and
regulations, to compel the rehabilitation and cleanup of affected area, and to seek the imposition of penal sanctions against
violators of environmental laws; and
h) The right to bring action in court for compensation of personal damages resulting from the adverse environmental and
public health impact of a project or activity.
RULING:
(1) YES. There is no dispute that petitioners have standing to bring their case before this Court. Moreover, as held
previously, a party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which may, in the exercise of the Court's
discretion, be set aside in view of the importance of the issue raised. We brush aside this issue of technicality under the
principle of the transcendental importance to the public, especially so if these cases demand that they be settled promptly.
(2) NO. plain, speedy and adequate remedy herein sought by petitioners, i.e., a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to require PUVs to use CNG, is unavailing. Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act
specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order
owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. Mandamus will not generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate
branch, for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other.
It appears that more properly, the legislature should provide first the specific statutory remedy to the complex environmental
problems bared by herein petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus is taken.
2. Whether respondents NHA and RBI were given the power and authority by DENR to reclaim foreshore and submerged lands
3. Whether respondent RBI can acquire reclaimed foreshore and submerged lands considered as alienable and outside the commerce of
man
4. Whether respondent RBI can acquire reclaimed lands when there was no declaration that said lands are no longer needed for public use
6. Whether the transfer of reclaimed lands to RBI was done by public bidding
7. Whether RBI, being a private corporation, is barred by the Constitution to acquire lands of public domain
8. Whether respondents can be compelled to disclose all information related to the SMDRP
HELD:
1. Executive Order 525 reads that the PEA shall be primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation
projects for and on behalf of the National Government. This does not mean that it shall be responsible for all. The requisites for a valid
and legal reclamation project are approval by the President (which were provided for by MOs), favourable recommendation of PEA
(which were seen as a part of its recommendations to the EXECOM), and undertaken either by PEA or entity under contract of PEA or
by the National Government Agency (NHA is a government agency whose authority to reclaim lands under consultation with PEA is
derived under PD 727 and RA 7279).
2. Notwithstanding the need for DENR permission, the DENR is deemed to have granted the authority to reclaim in the Smokey Mountain
Project for the DENR is one of the members of the EXECOM which provides reviews for the project. ECCs and Special Patent Orders
were given by the DENR which are exercises of its power of supervision over the project. Furthermore, it was the President via the
abovementioned MOs that originally authorized the reclamation. It must be noted that the reclamation of lands of public domain is
reposed first in the Philippine President.
3. The reclaimed lands were classified alienable and disposable via MO 415 issued by President Aquino and Proclamation Nos. 39 and
465 by President Ramos.
4. Despite not having an explicit declaration, the lands have been deemed to be no longer needed for public use as stated in Proclamation
No. 39 that these are to be “disposed to qualified beneficiaries.” Furthermore, these lands have already been necessarily reclassified as
alienable and disposable lands under the BOT law.
5. Letter I of Sec. 6 of PD 757 clearly states that the NHA can acquire property rights and interests and encumber or otherwise dispose of
them as it may deem appropriate.
6. There is no doubt that respondent NHA conducted a public bidding of the right to become its joint venture partner in the Smokey
Mountain Project. It was noted that notices were published in national newspapers. The bidding proper was done by the Bids and
Awards Committee on May 18, 1992.
7. RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 explicitly states that a contractor can be paid “a portion as percentage of the reclaimed land” subject
to the constitutional requirement that only Filipino citizens or corporation with at least 60% Filipino equity can acquire the same. In
addition, when the lands were transferred to the NHA, these were considered Patrimonial lands of the state, by which it has the power to
sell the same to any qualified person.
8. This relief must be granted. It is the right of the Filipino people to information on matters of public concerned as stated in Article II,
Sec. 28, and Article III, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution.
9. When the petitioner filed the case, the JVA had already been terminated by virtue of MOA between RBI and NHA. The properties and
rights in question after the passage of around 10 years from the start of the project’s implementation cannot be disturbed or questioned.
The petitioner, being the Solicitor General at the time SMDRP was formulated, had ample opportunity to question the said project, but
did not do so. The moment to challenge has passed.