En Banc March 7, 2017 G.R. No. 211010 VICTORIA SEGOVIA, RUEL LAGO, CLARIESSE JAMI CHAN, REPRESENTING THE CARLESS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; GABRIEL ANASTACIO, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER GRACE ANASTACIO, DENNIS ORLANDOSANGALANG, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER MAY ALILI SANGALANG, MARIA PAULINA CASTANEDA, REPRESENTED BY HER MO
Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, March 7, 2017
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- writ of kalikasan
- continuing mandamus
- climate change
- road sharing principle
- environmental laws enforcement
- standing
- doctrine of hierarchy of courts
I. Facts of the Case
Petitioners, including representatives of carless people, children, and carowners, sought writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus to compel government respondents to implement specific climate-change and environmental measures, particularly the Road Sharing Principle. They alleged that respondents failed to implement the Climate Change Act, Clean Air Act, and related executive and administrative issuances, including road-bifurcation, fuel-consumption reduction, and release of road users’ tax funds.
February 20, 2007
Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Administrative Order No. 171 creating the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC).
The PTFCC was reorganized through Executive Order No. 774, designating the President as Chairperson and cabinet secretaries as members of the Task Force, and articulating a “Road Sharing Principle,” including favoring non-motorized and collective transportation.
Administrative Order No. 254 (s. 2009) was issued, directing the DOTC (as lead agency for the Task Group on Fossil Fuels) to formulate a National Environmentally Sustainable Transport Strategy for the Philippines, also referencing the Road Sharing Principle.
Congress enacted the Climate Change Act, Republic Act No. 9729, which created the Climate Change Commission and absorbed the functions of the PTFCC as the lead policy-making and coordinating body on climate change.
Petitioners demanded, within thirty (30) days, reforms to the road and transportation system nationwide, including implementing the Road Sharing Principle through road bifurcation and reducing official and government fuel consumption by fifty percent (50%).
After respondents did not respond, petitioners filed a petition for issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus to compel implementation of enumerated environmental laws and issuances.
Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Comment seeking dismissal for lack of standing and for failure to observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, and asserted they were already taking measures to improve traffic and the environment through various projects and programs.
Petitioners filed a Reply, reiterating their arguments.
March 7, 2017
The Supreme Court, En Banc, dismissed the petition for lack of showing of an actual or threatened violation of petitioners’ constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology that would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed for.
II. Issues
Whether or not the petitioners have standing to file the petition.
Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for failing to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Whether or not a writ of Kalikasan and/or Continuing Mandamus should issue.
III. Ruling
Whether or not the petitioners have standing to file the petition.
The petitioners failed to sufficiently establish that they had standing to file the petition for the writs sought.
How the Court reasoned
- A petition for environmental remedies must demonstrate that the case involves an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
- The allegations and evidence presented by petitioners were found insufficient to show such actual or threatened violation attributable to the respondents’ unlawful act or omission or unlawful neglect.
- Because the petition did not adequately connect petitioners’ asserted interests to a qualifying environmental harm, petitioners’ invocation of standing was not satisfied.
- The Court therefore concluded that petitioners’ submissions did not meet the threshold required for the extraordinary environmental writs.
“In fine, the allegations and supporting evidence in the petition fall short in showing an actual or threatened violation of the petitioners' constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology arising from an unlawful act or omission by, or any unlawful neglect on the part of, the respondents that would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed for.”
Rule applied
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC), including Section 1, Rule 7 and Rule 8, Section 1, and Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution; see also standing-related environmental cases such as Oposa v. Factoran, Arigo v. Swift, and International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-BioTech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines).
Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for failing to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
The Court dismissed the petition, which was effectively treated as procedurally untenable for failing to comply with the doctrine of hierarchy of courts as raised by respondents.
How the Court reasoned
- Respondents raised dismissal on procedural grounds based on non-observance of the hierarchy of courts.
- The Court’s resolution resulted in dismissal of the petition, rendering the requested extraordinary relief unavailable on the petition’s procedural and substantive deficiencies.
“The petition must be dismissed.”
Rule applied
Doctrine of hierarchy of courts (invoked as a ground for dismissal by respondents), in relation to petitions under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
Whether or not a writ of Kalikasan and/or Continuing Mandamus should issue.
A writ of kalikasan and/or continuing mandamus would not issue because petitioners did not show an actual or threatened violation of their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology caused by respondents’ unlawful act, omission, or neglect.
How the Court reasoned
- For issuance of environmental writs, the petition must establish an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
- The Court found that the allegations and supporting evidence did not establish such an actual or threatened violation arising from unlawful acts or omissions or unlawful neglect on the part of respondents.
- Accordingly, the case did not meet the substantive thresholds for the extraordinary relief of a writ of kalikasan and/or continuing mandamus.
- Since the requisites were not met, the petition could not proceed to mandate implementation as demanded by petitioners.
“The petition must be dismissed.”
Rule applied
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC), including Section 1, Rule 7 and Rule 8, Section 1; Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution; and relevant environmental writ doctrines.
Doctrines
For the issuance of a writ of kalikasan (and related environmental remedies under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases), the petition must show an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology arising from an unlawful act or omission, or unlawful neglect, on the part of the respondents.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.
Notes
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition based on insufficiency of allegations and supporting evidence to establish the requisites for the extraordinary environmental writs sought.