The Philippines

H.M. Henares, Jr. et al. v. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board et al.

Year filed: N/A
Year of most recent ruling: 2006
Court(s): Supreme Court at Manila
Status: Decided
Plaintiff(s): H.M Henares, Jr. and others
Respondent(s): Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board; Department of Transportation and Communications

Facts

Citing air pollution and related environmental and health hazards, a group of individuals petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus mandating that public utility vehicles utilize compressed natural gas (CNG), an allegedly ‘cleaner’ energy alternative, instead of gasoline and diesel fuels. The petitioners argued that CNG released less “particulate matter” (PM) – a complex and health-detrimental mixture of dust, dirt, smoke and liquid droplets of varying size and competition – and was therefore a less harmful option, despite the fact that its use resulted in higher methane emissions than other alternatives. Grounding their claim in judicial precedent, the 1987 State Constitution and the right to clean air, the petitioners insisted that the government respondents could not ignore the existence of CNG as an alternative fuel and that, further, the respondents possessed the administrative and regulatory powers to compel its use. The respondents’ failure to do so, the petition alleged, represented neglect in the performance of their legal duties.

Decision

As a preliminary matter, the Court held that the petitioners did have legal standing to bring suit because the issue at hand concerned a violation of their fundamental right to a healthy environment (R2HE). Despite that, the Court ultimately sided with the respondents and denied the petitioners relief, finding that a writ of mandamus was not an appropriate remedy. Although the respondent agencies were responsible for regulating emissions and had a legal obligation to make environmentally friendly decisions where possible, the writ of mandamus was available only to compel positive obligations specifically established by law, and here the Court found no law mandating that the agencies compel use of CNG by motorists or public vehicles. Additionally, although the Court confirmed it was a duty incumbent upon the State to advance the R2HE and protect the environment, it held that here the necessary action belonged to the legislature, not the judiciary.