Delgado, Rhen

Ninal, Kryscel Czarinah

LLB 1-Manresa
ThF 5PM-6PM
September 7, 2016
1) Identify the legal issue.
Two legal issues of different nature are identified in the case herein. The first
one, a procedural issue, is whether or not the farmers have locus standi to file an
instant petition against BT Industries. The second legal issue, which is the
fundamental issue, is whether or not the levels of sulfur dioxide as an air pollutant
emitted by the powerhouse exceed the limits set forth in Republic Act 8749 or the
"Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999."
2) Select three cases that have similar facts with the given.

Henares vs LTO and DOTC (G.R. No. 158290, October 23, 2006)
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait vs
Secretary Angelo Reyes (G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015)
Arigo vs Swift (G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014)

3) Identify the holding of each case. Are they similar?

In the case of Henares vs LTO and DOTC, the court held that the petitioners
have standing to bring their case before the Court as their petition focuses on their
fundamental legal right to clean air. The consequences of the counter-productive and
retrogressive effects of a neglected environment due to emissions immmeasurably
affect the well-being of petitioners. Furthermore, the right to clean air not only is an
issue of paramount importance to them for it concerns the air they breathe, but it is
also impressed with public interest. With regards to whether the writ of mandamus
they're praying for is the proper remedy and if the writ could issue against
respondents, the court held that the mandamus is unavailang as there is no law that
mandates the respondents to order owners of motor vehicles to use compressed
natural gas as alternative fuel.
In the case of Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon
Strait vs Secretary Angelo Reyes, the petitioners representing the marine mammals of
Tanon Strait were declared by the Court to possess the legal standing to file the
petition, having shown in their petition that there may be possible violations of laws
concerning the habitat of these mammals. They, being Filipino citizens acting as
stewards of nature, are allowed to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws.
Their petition was furthermore granted by the court as there was no law specifically
allowing oil exploration and/or extraction in the Tanon Strait, therefore no energy
resource exploitation and utilization may be done in said protecting seascape.
The same issue of locus standi of petitioners was present in the case of Arigo

vs Swift in which the Court upheld the Rules that allow the filing of a citizen suit in
environmental cases and recognized the petitioners as stewards of nature with a public
right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
The cases are similar to the present case of the farmers vs BT Industries in that
they involve petitions which concern the environment and the same procedural issue
of whether or not the petitioners have legal standing to file the petition.

4) Write the Case Note Essay for each of these cases.

Henares vs LTFRB & DOTC
G.R. No. 158290 (October 23, 2006)
Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board and the Department of
Transportation and Communications pray to require public utility vehicles to use
compressed natural gas as alternative fuel. Petitioners allege that the matters emitted
have caused detrimental effects on health, productivity, infrastructure and the overall
quality of life. They cited studies showing that vehicular emissions in Metro Manila
have resulted to the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases which they
infer are mostly due to the emissions of PUVs. Moreover, asserting their right to clean
air, petitioners contend that the bases for their petition for a writ of mandamus to
order the LTFRB to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel. Also, petitioners
insist that since it is the LTFRB and the DOTC that are the government agencies that
regulate and control motor vehicles, particularly PUVs, and with the same agencies
awareness and knowledge that the PUVs emit dangerous levels of air pollutants, then,
the responsibility to see that these are curbed falls under respondents functions and a
writ of mandamus should issue against them.
The legal issue in this case is: 1) Whether the respondent is the agency
responsible to implement the suggested alternative of requiring public utility vehicles
to use compressed natural gas 2) Whether the respondent can be compelled to require
public utility vehicles to use compressed natural gas through a writ of mandamus
The court ruled that 1) there is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB
and the DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. The DENR is tasked to
set the emission standards for fuel use and the task of developing an action plan. As
far as motor vehicles are concerned, it devolves upon the DOTC and the line agency
whose mandate is to oversee that motor vehicles prepare an action plan and
implement the emission standards for motor vehicles, namely the LTFRB. 2) No, they
cannot require PUVs to use CNG through a writ of mandamus compelling the use of
CNG for public utility vehicles. The legislature should provide first the specific
statutory remedy to the complex environmental problems bared by the petitioners
before any judicial recourse by mandamus is taken.

Arigo vs Swift
G.R. No. 206510 (September 16, 2014)
In 2013, the USS Guardian of the US Navy ran aground on an area near the
Tubbataha Reefs, a marine habitat of which entry and certain human activities are
prevented and afforded protection by a Philippine law. The grounding incident
prompted the petitioners to seek for issuance of Writ of Kalikasan with Temporary
Environmental Protection Order from the Supreme Court. Petitioners claimed that the
grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian violated
their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology since these events
caused and continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude as to affect
other provinces surrounding the Tubbataha Reefs. Aside from damages, they sought a
directive from the SC for the institution of civil, administrative and criminal suits for
acts committed in violation of environmental laws and regulations in connection with
the grounding incident. They also prayed for the annulment of some Visiting Forces
Agreement provisions for being unconstitutional.
In this case, the legal issue is whether the petitioner should file their claim for
damages on environmental law violated separately.
The waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal
jurisdiction and not to special civil actions. Since jurisdiction cannot be had over the
respondents for being immune from suit, there is no way damages which resulted
from violation of environmental laws could be awarded to petitioners.
In any case, the rule on Writ of Kalikasan provides that a criminal case against
a person charged with a violation of an environmental law is to be filed separately.
Hence, a ruling on the application or non-application of criminal jurisdiction
provisions of the VFA to a US personnel who may be found responsible for the
grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province of a
petition for a writ of Kalikasan.

Resident Marine Mammal vs Reyes

G.R. No. 180771 (April 21, 2015)
Two sets of petitioners filed separate cases challenging the legality of Service
Contract No. 46 (SC-46) awarded to Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. (JAPEX). The
service contract allowed JAPEX to conduct oil exploration in the Taon Strait during
which it performed seismic surveys and drilled one exploration well. The first
petition was brought on behalf of resident marine mammals in the Taon Strait by two
individuals acting as legal guardians and stewards of the marine mammals. The
second petition was filed by a non-governmental organization representing the
interests of fisher folk, along with individual representatives from fishing
communities impacted by the oil exploration activities. The petitioners filed their
cases in 2007, shortly after JAPEX began drilling in the strait. In 2008, JAPEX and
the government of the Philippines mutually terminated the service contract and oil
exploration activities ceased. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases for the
purpose of review.
In its decision, the Supreme Court first addressed the important procedural
point of whether the case was moot because the service contract had been terminated.
The Court declared that mootness is not a magical formula that can automatically
dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Due to the alleged grave constitutional
violations and paramount public interest in the case, not to mention the fact that the
actions complained of could be repeated, the Court found it necessary to reach the
merits of the case even though the particular service contract had been terminated.
The legal issue in this case is 1) whether marine mammals, through their
stewards, have legal standing to pursue the case; and 2) whether the service contract
violated the Philippine Constitution or other domestic laws.
As to standing, the Court declined to extend the principle of standing beyond
natural and juridical persons, even though it recognized that the current trend in
Philippine jurisprudence moves towards simplification of procedures and facilitating
court access in environmental cases. Instead, the Court explained, the need to give
the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by our Rules,
which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our
environmental laws.
The Court then held that while SC-46 was authorized Presidential Decree No.
87 on oil extraction, the contract did not fulfill two additional constitutional
requirements. Section 2 Article XII of the 1987 Constitution requires a service
contract for oil exploration and extraction to be signed by the president and reported
to congress. Because the JAPEX contract was executed solely by the Energy
Secretary, and not reported to the Philippine congress, the Court held that it was
unconstitutional.
In addition, the Court also ruled that the contract violated the National
Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992, which generally prohibits exploitation
of natural resources in protected areas. In order to explore for resources in a protected
area, the exploration must be performed in accordance with an environmental impact
assessment. The Court noted that JAPEX started the seismic surveys before any EIA

was performed; therefore its activity was unlawful. Furthermore, the Tanon Strait is a
NIPAS area, and exploration and utilization of energy resources can only be
authorized through a law passed by the Philippine Congress. Because Congress had
not specifically authorized the activity in Taon Strait, the Court declared that no
energy exploration should be permitted in that area.
5) Write a short essay of the farmers' defense using the three cases to
substantiate your answer.
As declared in RA 8749 or "The Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999", citizens
have the right to breathe clean air and utilize and enjoy all natural resources according
to the principles of sustainable development. With this is the right to bring action in
court or quasijudicial bodies to enjoin all activities in violation of environmental laws
and regulations, to compel the rehabilitation and cleanup of affected area, and to seek
the imposition of penal sanctions against violators of environmental laws as well as
the right to bring action for compensation of personal damages resulting from the
adverse environmental and public health impact of a project or activity.
Sulfur dioxide is one of the emissions declared by the same Act as a hazardous
air pollutant that is detrimental to health and to the environment. It is being emitted by
the BT Industries' powehouse at a rate of 500 pounds per hour to which the farmers,
herein petitioners, are exposed. The right to clean air is not only an issue of paramount
importance to the petitioners for it concerns the air they breathe, but it is also
impressed with public interest.
In the cases of Henares vs LTO and DOTC, Resident Marine Mammals vs
Secretary Reyes, and Arigo vs Swift, the citizen petitioners were declared to possess
legal standing to file their petition based on the rationale that litigants must be enabled
to enforce environmental rights to file their cases as citizen suits to further encourage
the protection of the environment.