G.R. No. 158290 October 23, 2006 · Over 2,000 people die prematurely.

This loss is valued at

about US$140 million.
HILARION M. HENARES, JR., VICTOR C. AGUSTIN,
ALFREDO L. HENARES, DANIEL L. HENARES, ENRIQUE · Over 9,000 people suffer from chronic bronchitis, which is
BELO HENARES, and CRISTINA BELO HENARES, valued at about US$120 million.
petitioners,
vs. · Nearly 51 million cases of respiratory symptom days in Metro
LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND Manila (averaging twice a year in Davao and Cebu, and five to
REGULATORY BOARD and DEPARTMENT OF six times in Metro Manila and Baguio), costs about US$170
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, respondents. million. This is a 70 percent increase, over a decade, when
compared with the findings of a similar study done in 1992 for
Metro Manila, which reported 33 million cases.9
RESOLUTION
Petitioners likewise cite the University of the Philippines'
studies in 1990-91 and 1994 showing that vehicular emissions
QUISUMBING, J.: in Metro Manila have resulted to the prevalence of chronic
obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD); that pulmonary
Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus tuberculosis is highest among jeepney drivers; and there is a
commanding respondents Land Transportation Franchising 4.8 to 27.5 percent prevalence of respiratory symptoms among
and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of school children and 15.8 to 40.6 percent among child vendors.
Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to require public The studies also revealed that the children in Metro Manila
utility vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed natural gas (CNG) showed more compromised pulmonary function than their rural
as alternative fuel. counterparts. Petitioners infer that these are mostly due to the
emissions of PUVs.
Citing statistics from the Metro Manila Transportation and
Traffic Situation Study of 1996,1 the Environmental To counter the aforementioned detrimental effects of emissions
Management Bureau (EMB) of the National Capital Region,2 a from PUVs, petitioners propose the use of CNG. According to
study of the Asian Development Bank,3 the Manila petitioners, CNG is a natural gas comprised mostly of methane
Observatory4 and the Department of Environment and Natural which although containing small amounts of propane and
Resources5 (DENR) on the high growth and low turnover in butane,10 is colorless and odorless and considered the
vehicle ownership in the Philippines, including diesel-powered cleanest fossil fuel because it produces much less pollutants
vehicles, two-stroke engine powered motorcycles and their than coal and petroleum; produces up to 90 percent less CO
concomitant emission of air pollutants, petitioners attempt to compared to gasoline and diesel fuel; reduces NOx emissions
present a compelling case for judicial action against the bane by 50 percent and cuts hydrocarbon emissions by half; emits
of air pollution and related environmental hazards. 60 percent less PMs; and releases virtually no sulfur dioxide.
Although, according to petitioners, the only drawback of CNG
Petitioners allege that the particulate matters (PM) – complex is that it produces more methane, one of the gases blamed for
mixtures of dust, dirt, smoke, and liquid droplets, varying in global warming.11
sizes and compositions emitted into the air from various engine
combustions – have caused detrimental effects on health, Asserting their right to clean air, petitioners contend that the
productivity, infrastructure and the overall quality of life. bases for their petition for a writ of mandamus to order the
Petitioners particularly cite the effects of certain fuel emissions LTFRB to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel, lie
from engine combustion when these react to other pollutants. in Section 16,12 Article II of the 1987 Constitution, our ruling in
For instance, petitioners aver, with hydrocarbons, oxide of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,13 and Section 414 of Republic Act No.
nitrogen (NOx) creates smog; with sulfur dioxide, it creates 8749 otherwise known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of
acid rain; and with ammonia, moisture and other compounds, it 1999."
reacts to form nitric acid and harmful nitrates. Fuel emissions
also cause retardation and leaf bleaching in plants. According Meantime, following a subsequent motion, the Court granted
to petitioner, another emission, carbon monoxide (CO), when petitioners' motion to implead the Department of Transportation
not completely burned but emitted into the atmosphere and and Communications (DOTC) as additional respondent.
then inhaled can disrupt the necessary oxygen in blood. With
prolonged exposure, CO affects the nervous system and can In his Comment for respondents LTFRB and DOTC, the
be lethal to people with weak hearts.6 Solicitor General, cites Section 3, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules
of Court and explains that the writ of mandamus is not the
correct remedy since the writ may be issued only to command
Petitioners add that although much of the new power a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do an act that is
generated in the country will use natural gas while a number of required to be done, when he or it unlawfully neglects the
oil and coal-fired fuel stations are being phased-out, still with performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
the projected doubling of power generation over the next 10 duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or unlawfully
years, and with the continuing high demand for motor vehicles, excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or
the energy and transport sectors are likely to remain the major office to which such other is entitled, there being no other plain,
sources of harmful emissions. Petitioners refer us to the study speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.15
of the Philippine Environment Monitor 20027, stating that in Further citing existing jurisprudence, the Solicitor General
four of the country's major cities, Metro Manila, Davao, Cebu explains that in contrast to a discretionary act, a ministerial act,
and Baguio, the exposure to PM10, a finer PM which can which a mandamus is, is one in which an officer or tribunal
penetrate deep into the lungs causing serious health problems, performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
is estimated at over US$430 million.8 The study also reports obedience to a mandate of legal authority, without regard to or
that the emissions of PMs have caused the following: the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or
impropriety of an act done.

1
 According to petitioners, Section 16,21 Article II of the 1987
The Solicitor General also notes that nothing in Rep. Act No. Constitution is the policy statement that bestows on the people
8749 that petitioners invoke, prohibits the use of gasoline and the right to breathe clean air in a healthy environment. This
diesel by owners of motor vehicles. Sadly too, according to the policy is enunciated in Oposa.22 The implementation of this
Solicitor General, Rep. Act No. 8749 does not even mention policy is articulated in Rep. Act No. 8749. These, according to
the existence of CNG as alternative fuel and avers that unless petitioners, are the bases for their standing to file the instant
this law is amended to provide CNG as alternative fuel for petition. They aver that when there is an omission by the
PUVs, the respondents cannot propose that PUVs use CNG as government to safeguard a right, in this case their right to clean
alternative fuel. air, then, the citizens can resort to and exhaust all remedies to
challenge this omission by the government. This, they say, is
The Solicitor General also adds that it is the DENR that is embodied in Section 423 of Rep. Act No. 8749.
tasked to implement Rep. Act No. 8749 and not the LTFRB nor
the DOTC. Moreover, he says, it is the Department of Energy Petitioners insist that since it is the LTFRB and the DOTC that
(DOE), under Section 2616 of Rep. Act No. 8749, that is are the government agencies clothed with power to regulate
required to set the specifications for all types of fuel and fuel- and control motor vehicles, particularly PUVs, and with the
related products to improve fuel compositions for improved same agencies' awareness and knowledge that the PUVs emit
efficiency and reduced emissions. He adds that under Section dangerous levels of air pollutants, then, the responsibility to
2117 of the cited Republic Act, the DOTC is limited to see that these are curbed falls under respondents' functions
implementing the emission standards for motor vehicles, and and a writ of mandamus should issue against them.
the herein respondents cannot alter, change or modify the
emission standards. The Solicitor General opines that the The Solicitor General, for his part, reiterates his position that
Court should declare the instant petition for mandamus without the respondent government agencies, the DOTC and the
merit. LTFRB, are not in a position to compel the PUVs to use CNG
as alternative fuel. The Solicitor General explains that the
Petitioners, in their Reply, insist that the respondents possess function of the DOTC is limited to implementing the emission
the administrative and regulatory powers to implement standards set forth in Rep. Act No. 8749 and the said law only
measures in accordance with the policies and principles goes as far as setting the maximum limit for the emission of
mandated by Rep. Act No. 8749, specifically Section 218 and vehicles, but it does not recognize CNG as alternative engine
Section 21.19 Petitioners state that under these laws and with fuel. The Solicitor General avers that the petition should be
all the available information provided by the DOE on the addressed to Congress for it to come up with a policy that
benefits of CNG, respondents cannot ignore the existence of would compel the use of CNG as alternative fuel.
CNG, and their failure to recognize CNG and compel its use by
PUVs as alternative fuel while air pollution brought about by Patently, this Court is being asked to resolve issues that are
the emissions of gasoline and diesel endanger the not only procedural. Petitioners challenge this Court to decide
environment and the people, is tantamount to neglect in the if what petitioners propose could be done through a less
performance of a duty which the law enjoins. circuitous, speedy and unchartered course in an issue that
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in his ponencia in the
Lastly, petitioners aver that other than the writ applied for, they Oposa case,24 describes as "inter-generational responsibility"
have no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the and "inter-generational justice."
ordinary course of law. Petitioners insist that the writ in fact
should be issued pursuant to the very same Section 3, Rule 65 Now, as to petitioners' standing. There is no dispute that
of the Revised Rules of Court that the Solicitor General petitioners have standing to bring their case before this Court.
invokes. Even respondents do not question their standing. This petition
focuses on one fundamental legal right of petitioners, their right
In their Memorandum, petitioners phrase the issues before us to clean air. Moreover, as held previously, a party's standing
as follows: before this Court is a procedural technicality which may, in the
exercise of the Court's discretion, be set aside in view of the
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS HAVE THE importance of the issue raised. We brush aside this issue of
PERSONALITY TO BRING THE PRESENT ACTION technicality under the principle of the transcendental
importance to the public, especially so if these cases demand
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT ACTION IS that they be settled promptly.
SUPPORTED BY LAW
Undeniably, the right to clean air not only is an issue of
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS THE paramount importance to petitioners for it concerns the air they
AGENCY RESPONSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT THE breathe, but it is also impressed with public interest. The
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE OF REQUIRING PUBLIC consequences of the counter-productive and retrogressive
UTILITY VEHICLES TO USE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS effects of a neglected environment due to emissions of motor
(CNG) vehicles immeasurably affect the well-being of petitioners. On
these considerations, the legal standing of the petitioners
IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT CAN BE deserves recognition.
COMPELLED TO REQUIRE PUBLIC UTILITY VEHICLES TO
USE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS THROUGH A WRIT OF Our next concern is whether the writ of mandamus is the
MANDAMUS20 proper remedy, and if the writ could issue against respondents.

Briefly put, the issues are two-fold. First, Do petitioners have Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, mandamus lies
legal personality to bring this petition before us? Second, under any of the following cases: (1) against any tribunal which
Should mandamus issue against respondents to compel PUVs unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
to use CNG as alternative fuel? specifically enjoins as a duty; (2) in case any corporation,
board or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act

2
which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, mandamus commanding the respondents to require PUVs to
or station; and (3) in case any tribunal, corporation, board or use CNG as an alternative fuel. Although both are general
person unlawfully excludes another from the use and mandates that do not specifically enjoin the use of any kind of
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is legally fuel, particularly the use of CNG, there is an executive order
entitled; and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate implementing a program on the use of CNG by public vehicles.
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Executive Order No. 290, entitled Implementing the Natural
Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport (NGVPPT), took
In University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,25 we effect on February 24, 2004. The program recognized, among
said, others, natural gas as a clean burning alternative fuel for
vehicle which has the potential to produce substantially lower
…It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the pollutants; and the Malampaya Gas-to-Power Project as
performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its representing the beginning of the natural gas industry of the
main objective. It does not lie to require anyone to fulfill Philippines. Paragraph 1.2, Section 1 of E.O. No. 290 cites as
contractual obligations or to compel a course of conduct, nor to one of its objectives, the use of CNG as a clean alternative fuel
control or review the exercise of discretion. On the part of the for transport. Furthermore, one of the components of the
petitioner, it is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus program is the development of CNG refueling stations and all
that he should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded related facilities in strategic locations in the country to serve
and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the needs of CNG-powered PUVs. Section 3 of E.O. No. 290,
the act required. It never issues in doubtful cases. While it may consistent with E.O. No. 66, series of 2002, designated the
not be necessary that the duty be absolutely expressed, it must DOE as the lead agency (a) in developing the natural gas
however, be clear. The writ will not issue to compel an official industry of the country with the DENR, through the EMB and
to do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty (b) in formulating emission standards for CNG. Most
not to do, or give to the applicant anything to which he is not significantly, par. 4.5, Section 4 tasks the DOTC, working with
entitled by law. The writ neither confers powers nor imposes the DOE, to develop an implementation plan for "a gradual shift
duties. It is simply a command to exercise a power already to CNG fuel utilization in PUVs and promote NGVs [natural gas
possessed and to perform a duty already imposed. (Emphasis vehicles] in Metro Manila and Luzon through the issuance of
supplied.) directives/orders providing preferential franchises in present
day major routes and exclusive franchises to NGVs in newly
In this petition the legal right which is sought to be recognized opened routes…" A thorough reading of the executive order
and enforced hinges on a constitutional and a statutory policy assures us that implementation for a cleaner environment is
already articulated in operational terms, e.g. in Rep. Act No. being addressed. To a certain extent, the instant petition had
8749, the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999. Paragraph (a), been mooted by the issuance of E.O. No. 290.
Section 21 of the Act specifically provides that when PUVs are
concerned, the responsibility of implementing the policy falls on Regrettably, however, the plain, speedy and adequate remedy
respondent DOTC. It provides as follows: herein sought by petitioners, i.e., a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG, is
SEC 21. Pollution from Motor Vehicles. - a) The DOTC shall unavailing. Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of
implement the emission standards for motor vehicles set an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is no
pursuant to and as provided in this Act. To further improve the law that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to
emission standards, the Department [DENR] shall review, order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. At most the
revise and publish the standards every two (2) years, or as the LTFRB has been tasked by E.O. No. 290 in par. 4.5 (ii),
need arises. It shall consider the maximum limits for all major Section 4 "to grant preferential and exclusive Certificates of
pollutants to ensure substantial improvement in air quality for Public Convenience (CPC) or franchises to operators of NGVs
the health, safety and welfare of the general public. based on the results of the DOTC surveys."

Paragraph (b) states: Further, mandamus will not generally lie from one branch of
government to a coordinate branch, for the obvious reason that
b) The Department [DENR] in collaboration with the DOTC, neither is inferior to the other.27 The need for future changes
DTI and LGUs, shall develop an action plan for the control and in both legislation and its implementation cannot be preempted
management of air pollution from motor vehicles consistent by orders from this Court, especially when what is prayed for is
with the Integrated Air Quality Framework . . . . (Emphasis procedurally infirm. Besides, comity with and courtesy to a
supplied.) coequal branch dictate that we give sufficient time and leeway
for the coequal branches to address by themselves the
There is no dispute that under the Clean Air Act it is the DENR environmental problems raised in this petition.
that is tasked to set the emission standards for fuel use and
the task of developing an action plan. As far as motor vehicles In the same manner that we have associated the fundamental
are concerned, it devolves upon the DOTC and the line agency right to a balanced and healthful ecology with the twin
whose mandate is to oversee that motor vehicles prepare an concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-
action plan and implement the emission standards for motor generational justice" in Oposa,28 where we upheld the right of
vehicles, namely the LTFRB. future Filipinos to prevent the destruction of the rainforests, so
do we recognize, in this petition, the right of petitioners and the
In Oposa26 we said, the right to a balanced and healthful future generation to clean air. In Oposa we said that if the right
ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from to a balanced and healthful ecology is now explicitly found in
impairing the environment. We also said, it is clearly the duty of the Constitution even if the right is "assumed to exist from the
the responsible government agencies to advance the said inception of humankind,… it is because of the well-founded
right. fear of its framers [of the Constitution] that unless the rights to
a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated
Petitioners invoke the provisions of the Constitution and the as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting
Clean Air Act in their prayer for issuance of a writ of their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a

3
solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance
the second, the day would not be too far when all else would
be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to
come. . ."29

It is the firm belief of this Court that in this case, it is timely to

reaffirm the premium we have placed on the protection of the
environment in the landmark case of Oposa. Yet, as serious as
the statistics are on air pollution, with the present fuels deemed
toxic as they are to the environment, as fatal as these
pollutants are to the health of the citizens, and urgently
requiring resort to drastic measures to reduce air pollutants
emitted by motor vehicles, we must admit in particular that
petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an
indubitable legal duty on respondents that will justify a grant of
the writ of mandamus compelling the use of CNG for public
utility vehicles. It appears to us 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.

WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of a writ of

mandamus is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

4
Henares v LTFRB (Environmental Law)
Henares v LTFRB (2) NO. plain, speedy and adequate remedy herein sought by
GR No. 158290 petitioners, i.e., a writ of mandamus commanding the
October 23, 2006 respondents to require PUVs to use CNG, is unavailing.
Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act
FACTS: specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is no law
that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order
Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. Mandamus will not
commanding respondents Land Transportation Franchising generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate
and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of branch, for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the
Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to require public other.
utility vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed natural gas (CNG)
as alternative fuel. It appears that more properly, the legislature should provide
first the specific statutory remedy to the complex environmental
ISSUES: problems bared by herein petitioners before any judicial
recourse by mandamus is taken.
(1) Do petitioners have legal personality to bring this petition
before us? HILARION M. HENARES, JR., et al. vs. LAND
(2) Should mandamus issue against respondents to compel TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY
PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel? BOARD (LTFRB devotions) et al.

APPLICABLE LAWS: G.R. No. 158290 October 23, 2006

• Section 16,12 Article II of the 1987 Constitution FACTS

The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and Citing statistics from National and International agencies,
harmony of nature. petitioners prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding
respondents Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory
• Section 414 of Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise known as the Board (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation and
"Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999." SEC. 4. Recognition of Communications (DOTC) to require public utility vehicles
Rights. – Pursuant to the above-declared principles, the (PUVs) to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as alternative
following rights of citizens are hereby sought to be recognized fuel. Petitioners allege that the particulate matters (PM) –
and the State shall seek to guarantee their enjoyment: complex mixtures of dust, dirt, smoke, and liquid droplets,
a) The right to breathe clean air; varying in sizes and compositions emitted into the air from
b) The right to utilize and enjoy all natural resources according various engine combustions – have caused detrimental effects
to the principle of sustainable development; on health, productivity, infrastructure and the overall quality of
c) The right to participate in the formulation, planning, life. In addition, they allege that with the continuing high
implementation and monitoring of environmental policies and demand for motor vehicles, the energy and transport sectors
programs and in the decision-making process; are likely to remain the major sources of harmful emissions.
d) The right to participate in the decision-making process They cited studies showing that vehicular emissions in Metro
concerning development policies, plans and programs, projects Manila have resulted to the prevalence of chronic obstructive
or activities that may have adverse impact on the environment pulmonary diseases (COPD); that pulmonary tuberculosis is
and public health; highest among jeepney drivers; and that the children in Metro
e) The right to be informed of the nature and extent of the Manila showed more compromised pulmonary function than
potential hazard of any activity, undertaking or project and to their rural counterparts. Petitioners infer that these are mostly
be served timely notice of any significant rise in the level of due to the emissions of PUVs.
pollution and the accidental or deliberate release into the
atmosphere of harmful or hazardous substances; Asserting their right to clean air, petitioners contend that the
f) The right of access to public records which a citizen may bases for their petition for a writ of mandamus to order the
need to exercise his or her rights effectively under this Act; LTFRB to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel, lie
g) The right to bring action in court or quasi-judicial bodies to in Section 16,12 Article II of the 1987 Constitution, in Oposa v.
enjoin all activities in violation of environmental laws and Factoran, Jr. and Section 414 of Republic Act No. 8749
regulations, to compel the rehabilitation and cleanup of otherwise known as the “Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999.”
affected area, and to seek the imposition of penal sanctions
against violators of environmental laws; and Petitioners insist that since it is the LTFRB and the DOTC that
h) The right to bring action in court for compensation of are the government agencies clothed with power to regulate
personal damages resulting from the adverse environmental and control motor vehicles, particularly PUVs, and with the
and public health impact of a project or activity. same agencies’ awareness and knowledge that the PUVs emit
dangerous levels of air pollutants, then, the responsibility to
RULING: see that these are curbed falls under respondents’ functions
and a writ of mandamus should issue against them.
(1) YES. There is no dispute that petitioners have standing to
bring their case before this Court. Moreover, as held On the other hand, the Solicitor General said that the
previously, a party's standing before this Court is a procedural respondent government agencies, the DOTC and the LTFRB,
technicality which may, in the exercise of the Court's discretion, are not in a position to compel the PUVs to use CNG as
be set aside in view of the importance of the issue raised. We alternative fuel. He explained that the function of the DOTC is
brush aside this issue of technicality under the principle of the limited to implementing the emission standards set forth in
transcendental importance to the public, especially so if these Rep. Act No. 8749 and the said law only goes as far as setting
cases demand that they be settled promptly. the maximum limit for the emission of vehicles, but it does not

5
recognize CNG as alternative engine fuel. He recommended In response to this problem, the Petitioners brought before the
that the petition should be addressed to Congress for it to Supreme Court a petition for a writ of mandamus compelling
come up with a policy that would compel the use of CNG as the authorities to switch the fuel used in public vehicles from
alternative fuel. petrol and diesel to CNG, which was considered the cleanest
fossil fuel. The evidence before the Court was that CNG
produced up to 90 percent less carbon monoxide than diesel or
petrol; 50 percent less nitrous oxide and hydrocarbons; 60
ISSUES percent less particulate matter; and released virtually no sulfur
dioxide.
Whether the respondent is the agency responsible to
implement the suggested alternative of requiring public utility Decision and Reasoning
vehicles to use compressed natural gas (cng) The Supreme Court did not grant the writ of mandamus. It first
Whether the respondent can be compelled to require public recognized that the Petitioners had standing by virtue of the
utility vehicles to use compressed natural gas through a writ of effect on pollution on their rights to health and to a balanced
mandamus and healthful ecology, as well as because of public interest
RULING considerations.

Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act However, it held that while air pollution was a serious
specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is no law environmental and health issue, the Petitioners could not point
that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order to a law that mandated the provision of CNG. As the writ of
owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. At most the LTFRB has mandamus was only available to enforce a specific duty under
been tasked by E.O. No. 290 in par. 4.5 (ii), Section 4 “to grant law, the Petitioners could not point to general obligations under
preferential and exclusive Certificates of Public Convenience the Constitution and environmental legislation. The Petitioners
(CPC) or franchises to operators of NGVs based on the results needed to point to a law that specifically required the
of the DOTC surveys.” authorities to mandate the use of CNG instead of petrol or
In addition, under the Clean Air Act, it is the DENR that is diesel. Additionally, mandamus could not be used by one
tasked to set the emission standards for fuel use and the task branch of government against another, because of the equality
of developing an action plan. As far as motor vehicles are of the branches of the government. It was therefore
concerned, it devolves upon the DOTC and the line agency inappropriate to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the
whose mandate is to oversee that motor vehicles prepare an executive to order the legislature to bring in new environmental
action plan and implement the emission standards for motor regulations.
vehicles, namely the LTFRB.
Decision Excerpts
No. Petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an “Regrettably, however, the plain, speedy and adequate remedy
indubitable legal duty on respondents that will justify a grant of herein sought by petitioners, i.e., a writ of mandamus
the writ of mandamus compelling the use of CNG for public commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG, is
utility vehicles. The legislature should provide first the specific unavailing. Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of
statutory remedy to the complex environmental problems an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is no
bared by herein petitioners before any judicial recourse by law that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to
mandamus is taken. order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG.” Page 7.
In addition, the petition had been mooted by the issuance of
Executive Order No. 290, which implemented a program on the “It is the firm belief of this Court that in this case, it is timely to
use of CNG by public vehicles. The court was assured that the reaffirm the premium we have placed on the protection of the
implementation for a cleaner environment is being addressed. environment in the landmark case of Oposa. Yet, as serious as
the statistics are on air pollution, with the present fuels deemed
Henares, et al. v. Land Transportation Franchising and toxic as they are to the environment, as fatal as these
Regulatory Board, et al. pollutants are to the health of the citizens, and urgently
G.R. No. 158290 requiring resort to drastic measures to reduce air pollutants
Judgment Details emitted by motor vehicles, we must admit in particular that
Country: Philippines petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an
Region: Asia indubitable legal duty on respondents that will justify a grant of
Year: 2006 the writ of mandamus compelling the use of CNG for public
Court: Supreme Court utility vehicles. It appears to us that more properly, the
Health Topics: Chronic and noncommunicable diseases, legislature should provide first the specific statutory remedy to
Environmental health, Infectious diseases the complex environmental problems bared by herein
Human Rights: Right to a clean environment petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus is
Tags: Air pollution, Contamination, Environmental degradation, taken.” Page 8.
Environmental hazards, Pollution, Respiratory diseases, TB,
Tuberculosis
Facts Hilarion M. Henares, et al v. LTFRB
The Petitioners sought to require the Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board and the Department of FACTS:
Transport and Communications to use compressed natural gas Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus
(CNG) in their public utility vehicles. They alleged that commanding respondents LTFRB and DOTC to require PUVs
particulate matter emitted from vehicles had caused serious to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel.
health problems and lowered the overall quality of life, and Asserting their right to clean air, petitioners contend that the
contended that this problem was likely to grow as vehicle bases for their petition for a writ of mandamus to order the
ownership in the Philippines increased. LTFRB to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel, lie
in Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, our ruling in

6
Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., and Section 4 of Republic Act No. The petitioners challenged the Court to issue a writ of
8749otherwise known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of mandamus commanding the respondents, Land Transportation
1999." Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the
ISSUE: Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), to
WON LTFRB can be compelled to require PUVs to use CNG require public utility vehicles to use compressed natural gas
through a writ of Mandamus? (CNG) as alternative fuel.
HELD:
NO. Petitioners invoke the provisions of the Constitution and There were two main legal issues. First, whether the
the Clean Air Act in their prayer for issuance of a writ of petitioners had standing to sue. Second, whether the writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents to require PUVs to mandamus could be issued against the respondents.
use CNG as an alternative fuel. Although both are general
mandates that do not specifically enjoin the use of any kind of Concerning the first issue, the Court recognised the
fuel, particularly the use of CNG, there is an executive order petitioners’ standing to sue, taking into account the petitioners’
implementing a program on the use of CNG by public vehicles. fundamental rights to clean air and the principle of the
Executive Order No. 290, entitled Implementing the Natural transcendental importance to the public.
Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport (NGVPPT), took
effect on February 24, 2004. A thorough reading of the However, as regard to the second issue, the Court determined
executive order assures us that implementation for a cleaner that mandamus was available only to compel the doing of an
environment is being addressed. To a certain extent, the act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Since the petitioners
instant petition had been mooted by the issuance of E.O. No. were unable to establish that there was an indubitable legal
290. duty on the respondents to order owners of public vehicles to
Regrettably, however, a writ of mandamus is unavailing. use CNG, a grant of the writ of mandamus was not justified.
Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act
specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is no law HILARION M. HENARES, JR., VICTOR C. AGUSTIN,
that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order ALFREDO L. HENARES, DANIEL L. HENARES, ENRIQUE
owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. Further, mandamus will BELO HENARES, and CRISTINA BELO HENARES,
not generally lie from one branch of government to a petitioners,
coordinate branch, for the obvious reason that neither is vs.
inferior to the other. The need for future changes in both LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND
legislation and its implementation cannot be preempted by REGULATORY BOARD and DEPARTMENT OF
orders from this Court, especially when what is prayed for is TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, respondents.
procedurally infirm. Besides, comity with and courtesy to a
coequal branch dictate that we give sufficient time and leeway FACTS:
for the coequal branches to address by themselves the • Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of
environmental problems raised in this petition. In the same mandamus commanding respondents Land Transportation
manner that we have associated the fundamental right to a Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the
balanced and healthful ecology with the twin concepts of "inter- Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to
generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice" in require public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed
Oposa, where we upheld the right of future Filipinos to prevent natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel.
the destruction of the rainforests, so do we recognize, in this • To counter the aforementioned detrimental effects of
petition, the right of petitioners and the future generation to emissions from PUVs, petitioners propose the use of CNG.
clean air. In Oposa we said that if the right to a balanced and According to petitioners, CNG is a natural gas comprised
healthful ecology is now explicitly found in the Constitution mostly of methane which although containing small amounts of
even if the right is "assumed to exist from the inception of propane and butane,10 is colorless and odorless and
humankind, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers considered the cleanest fossil fuel because it produces much
[of the Constitution] that unless the rights to a balanced and less pollutants than coal and petroleum
healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies ISSUES:
by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing 1. Whether or not petitioners herein have legal capacity
importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to to bring this petition to the Court.
preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day 2. Whether or not mandamus can be validly issue
would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the against respondents so as to compel PUVs to use CNG as
present generation, but also for those to come."It is the firm alternative fuel.
belief of this Court that in this case, it is timely to reaffirm the Held:
premium we have placed on the protection of the environment 1. The SC ruled in the first issue presented that there is
in the landmark case of Oposa. Yet, as serious as the statistics no dispute that petitioners have a legal right which is sought to
are on air pollution, with the present fuels deemed toxic as they be recognized and enforced to bring the case before this
are to the environment, as fatal as these pollutants are to the Court. The petitioners’ standing hinges to the fact that a party's
health of the citizens, and urgently requiring resort to drastic standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which
measures to reduce air pollutants emitted by motor vehicles, may, in the exercise of the Court's discretion, be set aside in
we must admit in particular that petitioners are unable to view of the importance of the issue raised. We brush aside this
pinpoint the law that imposes an indubitable legal duty on issue of technicality under the principle of the transcendental
respondents that will justify a grant of the writ of mandamus importance to the public, especially so if these cases demand
compelling the use of CNG for public utility vehicles. It appears that they be settled promptly.
to us that more properly, the legislature should provide first the 2. On the second issue, however, the SC ruled in the
specific statutory remedy to the complex environmental negative such that the writ of mandamus commanding the
problems bared by herein petitioners before any judicial respondents to require PUV’s to use CNG is unavailing.
recourse by mandamus is taken. Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act
specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is no law
Abstract that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order

7
owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. Mandamus will not However, according to Henares, these agencies possess the
generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate administrative and regulatory powers to implement measures
branch, for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the in accordance with the policies and principles mandated by
other. R8749. LTFRB and DOTC cannot ignore the existence of
Therefore, the Court believes that it is only timely to reaffirm CNG, and their failure to recognize CNG and failure to compel
the premium that has placed on the protection of the its use by PUVs as alternative fuel is tantamount to neglect in
environment. However serious the problem in pollution may be the performance of a duty.
and how fatal these pollutants are to the health of the citizens,
and urgently requiring resort to drastic measures to reduce air LTFRB and DOTC contend that nothing in RA 8749 prohibits
pollutants emitted by motor vehicles, we must admit in the use of gasoline and diesel by owners of motor vehicles.
particular that petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that RA8749 does not even mention the existence of CNG as
imposes an indubitable legal duty on respondents that will alternative fuel. Also, it is the DENR that is tasked to
justify a grant of the writ of mandamus compelling the use of implement RA 8749 and not the LTFRB nor the DOTC. It is
CNG for public utility vehicles. likewise argued that it is the Department of Energy (DOE) that
is required to set the specifications for all types of fuel and fuel-
HENARES VS LTFRB & DOTC related products to improve fuel compositions for improved
G.R. No. 158290 October 23, 2006 efficiency and reduced emissions. DOTC is limited to
QUISUMBING, J.: implementing the emission standards for motor vehicles, and
LTFRB and DOTC cannot alter, change or modify the emission
FACTS: Asserting their right to clean air pursuant to the standards.
RA8749, their Constitutional right, and the principle of "inter-
generational responsibility", Henares et al filed a petition to ISSUE: WON the writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to
issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS commanding LTFRB and compel PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel
DOTC to require public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use
COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) as alternative fuel. HELD: NO. As to the petitioners' standing, there is no dispute
that petitioners have standing to bring their case before the
To present a compelling case for this judicial action, Henares Court since what is being assailed here is the right to clean air.
cited the high growth and low turnover in vehicle ownership in The right to clean air is an issue of paramount importance for it
the Philippines, including diesel-powered vehicles, two-stroke concerns the air they breathe. It is also impressed with public
engine powered motorcycles and their emission of air interest. The consequences of the effects of a neglected
pollutants, as the cause of air pollution and other related environment due to emissions of motor vehicles immeasurably
environmental hazards. Due to the continuing high demand for affect the well-being of petitioners. However, the plain, speedy
motor vehicles, the energy and transport sectors are likely to and adequate remedy herein sought by petitioners, i.e., a writ
remain the major sources of harmful emissions. of mandamus commanding to require PUVs to use CNG, is
unavailing.
Petitioners allege that the complex mixtures of dust, dirt,
smoke, and liquid droplets emitted into the air from various Mandamus lies under any of the following cases: (1)
engine combustions have caused detrimental effects on health, against any tribunal which unlawfully neglects the performance
productivity, infrastructure and the overall quality of life. Some of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty; (2) in
of the effects of the fuel emissions when they react to other case any corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the
pollutants are the formation of smog, acid rain, and nitric acid performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting
and harmful nitrates. Fuel emissions also cause retardation from an office, trust, or station; and (3) in case any tribunal,
and leaf bleaching in plants. Also, when carbon monoxide (CO) corporation, board or person unlawfully excludes another from
has not been completely burned but emitted into the the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other
atmosphere and then inhaled can disrupt the necessary is legally entitled; and there is no other plain, speedy, and
oxygen in blood which, in the long run, affects the nervous adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The writ
system and can be lethal to people with weak hearts. neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a
command to exercise a power already possessed and to
To counter the said detrimental effects of emissions perform a duty already imposed.
from PUVs, petitioners propose the use of CNG. CNG is a
natural gas comprised mostly of methane. It is colorless and Here, petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that
odorless and considered the cleanest fossil fuel. Compared to imposes an indubitable legal duty on LTFRB and DOTC that
coal and petroleum, CNG produces much less pollutants. CNG will justify a grant of the writ of mandamus compelling the use
produces up to 90 percent less CO compared to gasoline and of CNG for public utility vehicles. It was proven that the
diesel fuel. It reduces NOx emissions by 50 percent and cuts DOTC’s duty is to implement the emission standards and set
hydrocarbon emissions by half. It emits 60 percent less the maximum limit for the emission of motor vehicles set
particulate matters and releases virtually no sulfur dioxide. The pursuant to and as provided in RA8749. The LTFRB has been
only drawback of CNG is that it produces more methane, one tasked "to grant preferential and exclusive Certificates of Public
of the gases blamed for global warming. Convenience (CPC) or franchises to operators of NGVs based
on the results of the DOTC surveys."
LTFRB and DOTC explains that the writ of mandamus
is not the correct remedy since the writ may be issued only to Further, mandamus will not generally lie from one
command a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do an act branch of government to a coordinate branch, for the obvious
that is required to be done, when he or it unlawfully neglects reason that neither is inferior to the other. The need for future
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as changes in both legislation and its implementation cannot be
a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or unlawfully preempted by orders from the Court, especially when what is
excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or prayed for is procedurally infirm. Besides, comity with and
office to which such other is entitled, there being no other plain, courtesy to a coequal branch dictate that sufficient time and
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. leeway be given for the coequal branches to address by

8
themselves the environmental problems raised in this petition. generational justice" in Oposa, where we upheld the right of
The legislature should provide first the specific statutory future Filipinos to prevent the destruction of the rainforests, so
remedy to the complex environmental problems before any do we recognize, in this petition, the right of petitioners and the
judicial recourse by mandamus is taken. future generation to clean air. In Oposa we said that if the right
to a balanced and healthful ecology is now explicitly found in
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED the Constitution even if the right is "assumed to exist from the
inception of humankind, it is because of the well-founded fear
of its framers [of the Constitution] that unless the rights to a
Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accordwith the state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting
rhythm and harmony of nature. their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a
Doctrines solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance
The LTFRB and the DOTC cannot order owners of PUV to the second, the day would not be too far when all else would
useCNG as an alternative to gasoline. Mandamus is available be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to
onlyto compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law come."
as aduty. Here, there is no law that mandates the
respondentsLTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of motor It is the firm belief of this Court that in this case, it is timely to
vehicles to useCNG. reaffirm the premium we have placed on the protection of the
Henares v. LTFRB environment in the landmark case of Oposa. Yet, as serious as
, GR 158290, October 23, 2006. the statistics are on air pollution, with the present fuels deemed
toxic as they are to the environment, as fatal as these
HENARES V. LTFRB pollutants are to the health of the citizens, and urgently
Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of requiring resort to drastic measures to reduce air pollutants
mandamuscommanding respondents LTFRB and DOTC to emitted by motor vehicles, we must admit in particular that
require PUVs touse compressed natural gas (CNG) as petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an
alternative fuel.Asserting their right to clean air, petitioners indubitable legal duty on respondents that will justify a grant of
contend that thebases for their petition for a writ of mandamus the writ of mandamus compelling the use of CNG for public
to order theLTFRB to require PUVs to use CNG as an utility vehicles. It appears to us that more properly, the
alternative fuel, lie inSection 16, Article II of the 1987 legislature should provide first the specific statutory remedy to
Constitution, our ruling in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., and Section 4 the complex environmental problems bared by herein
of Republic Act No. 8749otherwise known as the "Philippine petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus is taken
Clean Air Act of 1999."

Issue: WON LTFRB CAN BE COMPELLED TO

REQUIREPUVs TO USE CNG THROUGH A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS?

Held: NO. Petitioners invoke the provisions of the

Constitutionand the Clean Air Act in their prayer for issuance of
a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to require
PUVs touse CNG as an alternative fuel. Although both are
generalmandates that do not specifically enjoin the use of any
kind of fuel, particularly the use of CNG, there is an executive
order implementing a program on the use of CNG by public
vehicles.Executive Order No. 290, entitled Implementing the
Natural GasVehicle Program for Public Transport (NGVPPT),
took effect onFebruary 24, 2004. A thorough reading of the
executive order assures us that implementation for a cleaner
environment isbeing addressed. To a certain extent, the instant
petition hadbeen mooted by the issuance of E.O. No. 290.

Regrettably, however, a writ of mandamus 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. Further, 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. The need for future changes in both
legislation and its implementation cannot be preempted by
orders from this Court, especially when what is prayed for is
procedurally infirm. Besides, comity with and courtesy to a
coequal branch dictate that we give sufficient time and leeway
for the coequal branches to address by themselves the
environmental problems raised in this petition.

In the same manner that we have associated the fundamental

right to a balanced and healthful ecology with the twin
concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-