Victoria Segovia, et. al.

vs The Climate Change Commission

G.R. No. 211010, March 17, 2017

FACTS:

This is a petition for the issuance of Writs of Kalikasan an

continuin! mandamus
en%iron"enta# to co"pe#
#a$s an e&ecuti%etheissuances
i"p#e"entation of Act
' Repu(#ic the No.
fo##o$in!
)RA*
1 2
+72+ )C#i"ate Chan!e Act*, an RA 7-+ )C#ean Air Act* /&ecuti%e rer No.
77- ) 77-* A 23-, s. 200+ - )A 23-* an A"inistrati%e rer No. 171,
s. 20073 )A 171*.

4n !ist, petitioners conten that responents5 fai#ure to i"p#e"ent the fore!oin!

#a$s an e&ecuti%e issuances resu#te in the continue e!raation of air
6ua#it, particu#ar# in Metro Mani#a, in %io#ation of the petitioners5
constitutiona# ri!ht to a (a#ance an hea#thfu# eco#o!, 1- an "a e%en (e
tanta"ount to epri%ation of #ife, an of #ife sources or 8#an, $ater, an air8 (
the !o%ern"ent $ithout ue process of #a$. 13

Responents, throu!h the ffice of the So#icitor Genera#, assert that petitioners
are not entit#e to a $rit of kalikasan (ecause the fai#e to sho$ that the
pu(#ic responents are !ui#t of an un#a$fu# act or o"ission state the
en%iron"enta# #a$9s %io#ate sho$ en%iron"enta# a"a!e of such "a!nitue
as to preuice the #ife, hea#th or propert of inha(itants of t$o or "ore cities
an pro%e that non' i"p#e"entation of Roa Sharin! ;rincip#e $i## cause
en%iron"enta# a"a!e.

ISSUES

Whether or not a $rit of Kalikasan an9or Continuin! Mandamus shou#

issue.

RULING

N.

For a $rit of kalikasan to issue, the fo##o$in! re6uisites "ust concur:

1. there is an actua# or threatene %io#ation of the constitutiona# ri!ht to a

(a#ance an hea#thfu# eco#o!

2. the actua# or threatene %io#ation arises fro" an un#a$fu# act or o"ission of

a pu(#ic officia# or e"p#oee, or pri%ate ini%iua# or entit an
. the actua# or threatene %io#ation in%o#%es or $i## #ea to an en%iron"enta#
a"a!e of such "a!nitue as to preuice the #ife, hea#th or propert of
inha(itants in t$o or "ore cities or pro%inces. -

4t is $e##'sett#e that a part c#ai"in! the pri%i#e!e for the issuance of a $rit
of kalikasan has to sho$ that a #a$, ru#e or re!u#ation $as %io#ate or $ou# (e
%io#ate.3

4n this case, apart fro" repeate in%ocation of the constitutiona# ri!ht to hea#th
an to a (a#ance an hea#thfu# eco#o! an (are a##e!ations that their ri!ht
$as %io#ate, the petitioners fai#e to sho$ that pu(#ic responents are !ui#t of
an un#a$fu# act or o"ission that constitutes a %io#ation of the petitioners5
ri!ht to a (a#ance an hea#thfu# eco#o!.

Si"i#ar#, the $rit of continuin! mandamus cannot issue.

Mandamus #ies to co"pe# the perfor"ance of uties that are pure# "inisteria#
in nature, not those that are iscretionar, an the officia# can on# (e irecte
( mandamus to act (ut not to act one $a or the other. At its core, $hat the
petitioners are see<in! to co"pe# is not the perfor"ance of a "inisteria# act,
(ut a iscretionar act ' the "anner of i"p#e"entation of the Roa Sharin!
;rincip#e. C#ear#, petitioners5 preferre specific course of action (i.e. the
(ifurcation of roas to e%ote for a##'$eather sie$a#< an (icc#in! an
Fi#ipino'"ae transport %ehic#es* to i"p#e"ent the Roa Sharin! ;rincip#e
fins no te&tua# (asis in #a$ or e&ecuti%e issuances for it to (e consiere an
act enoine ( #a$ as a ut, #eain! to the necessar conc#usion that the
continuin! mandamus prae for see<s not the i"p#e"entation of an
en%iron"enta# #a$, ru#e or re!u#ation, (ut to contro# the e&ercise of iscretion
of the e&ecuti%e as to ho$ the princip#e enunciate in an e&ecuti%e issuance
re#atin! to the en%iron"ent is (est i"p#e"ente. =ence, the
continuin! mandamus cannot issue.

WHEREFORE, the petition is IS!ISSE"