Other Means of Regulation a.
They assert their right to clean air and contend that their basis
Henaras v LTFRB
Quisimbuing
Petitioners applied for writ of mandamus to compel LTFRB and DOTC to
require that PUV’s use compressed natural gas as an alternative to gasoline
and diesel for the sake of clean air. Petitioners cite the Constitution as well
as the Court’s ruling in Oposa v Factoran. The SC here held that mandamus
cannot lie because nowhere was the LTFRB or DOTC mandated to require
such use of alternative gas. Court held that mandamus was an unavailable
remedy.
DOCTRINE
a. Regrettably, the plain, speedy, adequate remedy sought by
petitioners is unavailing – it is available only to compel the doing
of an act specifically enjoined by law as duty. There is no law
that mandates LTFRB and DOTC to order owners of motor
vehicles to use CNG.
b. At most, LTFRB has been tasked, via Executive Order, to grant
preferential and exclusive CPC or franchises to operators
based on the results of the DOTC emission surveys.
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque ac erat
placerat turpis suscipit congue id quis erat. Curabitur lobortis metus ut purus
venenatis…
FACTS
1. Private petitioners Henares challenge this Court to issue a writ of
mandamus commanding LTFRB and the DOTC to require public utility
vehicles to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel.
a. They cite various statistics and studies on the high growth and
low turnover of vehicle ownership in the Phils and the
concomitant emission of air pollutants to justify their prayer.
2. Petitioners allege that particulate matters (PM) due to smoke, exhaust,
etc. caused detrimental effects on quality of life
3. Petitioners, to counter the aforementioned detrimental effects of PUV
emissions, prpose the use of CNG which is comprised mostly of
methane and trace amounts of propane and butane as this is considered
the cleanest fossil fuel producing significantly less polluntants than coal
and petrol.
for their petition lies in Article 2 Sec 16 of the Constitution as well
as the ruling of the Court in Oposa v Factoran. Lastly, they rely
on RA 8749 – Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999.
4. In its comment for LTFRB and DOTC, the Sol. Gen. cites Rule 65 Sec 3
of the ROC and explains that the writ of mandamus is not the correct
remedy as this may be issued only to command a tribunal, corporation,
board, or person to do an act required to be done when he or it
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins.
5. The Sol. Gen. also notes that nothing in RA 8749 prohibits the use of
gasoline and diesel and does not even mention CNG as an alternative
fuel source
6. Further, the Sol. Gen. notes that it is the DENR that is tasked to
implement RA 8749 and not the LTFRB nor the DOTC. He adds that it is
the Department of Energy that is required to set the specifications of all
fuel types and fuel-related products.
7. In their reply, petitioners:
a. Insist that respondents LTFRB and DOTC possess the
administrative and regulatory powers to implement measures in
accordance with RA 8749.
b. They also aver that they have no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy and thus the writ should lie.
ISSUE with HOLDING
2. W/N petitioners have standing – yes.
a. Even respondents do not question their standing. Oposa v
Factoran set precedent.
b. Moreover, Court has held that in the exercise of its discretion,
procedural technicality may be set aside under the principle of
transcendental importance to the public.
3. W/N writ of mandamus may issue – NO.
a. Mandamus lies in the following cases:
i. Against any tribunal unlawfully neglecting performance
of act which law specifically enjoins as duty
ii. In case any corporation/board/person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins
as duty resulting from an office
iii. In case any tribunal/corp/board/person unlawfully
excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right
to which said person is legally entitled and there is no
other PSA remedy in the ordinary course of law.
b. In this petition, the legal right sought to be recognized and
enforced hinges on a constitutional and statutory policy already
articulated in operational terms.
1
 c. RA 8749 itself provides that when PUVs are concerned, the
responsibility of implementing the policy falls on respondent
DOTC:
i. DOTC: Set emission standards; review/revise/publish
standards ever 2 years.
ii. DENR + DOTC: Develop an action plan for the control
and management of air pollution from motor vehicles.
d. Regrettably, the PSA remedy sought by petitioners is unavailing
– it is available only to compel the doing of an act specifically
enjoined by law as duty. There is no law that mandates LTFRB
and DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG.
e. At most, LTFRB has been tasked, via Executive Order, to grant
preferential and exclusive CPC or franchises to operators
based on the results of the DOTC emission surveys.
f. Further, mandamus will not lie from one branch to a coordinate
branch for the reason that neither is inferior to another.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Dismissed for lack of merit

OTHER NOTES
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque ac erat
placerat turpis suscipit congue id quis erat. Curabitur lobortis metus ut purus
venenatis…

DIGESTER: Reggie Perez 