7. Vivares v. St. Theresa's College, GR No.

202666, [September 29, 2014], 744 PHIL 451-480

FACTS:
Julia and Julienne, both minors, were graduating high school students at STC, Cebu City. In 2012, while
changing into their swimsuits for a beach party, said minors, along with several others, took digital
pictures of themselves clad only in their undergarments. These pictures were then uploaded by Angela on
her Facebook (FB) profile.

At school, Escudero, a computer teacher at STC, learned from her students that some seniors at STC
posted pictures online, depicting themselves from the waist up, dressed only in brassieres. Escudero then
asked her students if they knew who the girls in the photos are; they identified Julia, Julienne, and Chloe,
among others. Escudero's students logged in to their respective personal FB accounts and showed her
photos of the identified students, which include: (a) Julia and Julienne drinking hard liquor and smoking
cigarettes inside a bar; and (b) Julia and Julienne along the streets of Cebu wearing articles of clothing
that show virtually the entirety of their black brassieres. Escudero's students also claimed that there were
times when access to or the availability of the identified students' photos was not confined to the girls' FB
friends, but were, in fact, viewable by any FB user. 

Escudero reported the matter and following an investigation, STC found the identified students to have
deported themselves in a manner proscribed by the school and accordingly, they were barred from joining
the commencement exercises.

Petitioners filed before the RTC a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data. However, the RTC
dismissed the same on the following grounds:

1. Petitioners failed to prove the existence of an actual or threatened violation of the minors' right to
privacy, one of the preconditions for the issuance of the writ of habeas data;
2. That the photos, having been uploaded on Facebook without restrictions as to who may view
them, lost their privacy in some way; and that
3. STC gathered the photographs through legal means and for a legal purpose, that is, the
implementation of the school's policies and rules on discipline.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in the life, liberty, or
security of the subject minors and thus, the Writ of Habeas Data should be issued?

RULING:
No, there was no actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in the life, liberty, or security of the
subject minors and thus, issuance of the Writ of Habeas Data is not necessary.

The Court held that STC did not violate petitioners’ daughters’ right to privacy as the subject digital photos
were viewable either by the minors’ Facebook friends, or by the public at large. Without any evidence to
corroborate the minors’ statement that the images were visible only to the five of them, and without their
challenging Escudero’s claim that the other students were able to view the photos, their statements are,
at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant consideration.

It is well to note that not one of petitioners disputed Escudero’s sworn account that her students, who are
the minors’ Facebook “friends,” showed her the photos using their own Facebook accounts. This only
goes to show that no special means to be able to view the allegedly private posts were ever resorted to
by Escudero’s students, and that it is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the photos were, in reality,
viewable either by (1) their Facebook friends, or (2) by the public at large. Considering that the default
setting for Facebook posts is “Public,” it can be surmised that the photographs in question were viewable
to everyone on Facebook, absent any proof that petitioners’ children positively limited the disclosure of
the photograph. If such were the case, they cannot invoke the protection attached to the right to
informational privacy which the Writ of Habeas Data was designed to protect; that such writ can be
availed of as an independent remedy to enforce one's right to privacy, more specifically the right to
informational privacy. The remedies against the violation of such right can include the updating,
rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or information or files in possession or in control
of respondents. However, the same cannot be availed in this case by the petitioners as discussed above.
8. Osmena vs. Garganera, et al. GR No. 231164, March 20, 2018 (En Banc)

FACTS:
In 1993, the DENR issued an ECC to the Inayawan landfill. The landfill served as the garbage disposal
area of Cebu City. In 2011, the City of Cebu resolved to close the landfill. Resolutions were issued for the
preparation of closure and rehabilitation plan. As a result, said landfill was partially closed and all wastes
from Cebu City were disposed in a privately operated landfill in Consolacion. By 2015, the landfill was
formally closed.

In 2016, Mayor Osmeña requested EMB to allow the City to temporarily open the Inayawan landfill. EMB
interposed no objection to its plan provided that the City will faithfully comply with all its commitments and
subject to regular monitoring by the EMB. Later, EMB issued a notice of violation regarding the City's
operation of the landfill and its violations of the ECC. Moreover, the DOH recommended the immediate
closure of the landfill due to the lack of sanitary requirements, environmental, health and community
safety issues.

Garganera, in representation of the People of the Cities of Cebu and Talisay and the future generations
including the unborn, filed a petition for writ of kalikasan before the CA asserting the following: 1) that the
continued operation of the Inayawan landfill causes serious environmental damage which threatens and
violates their right to a balanced and healthful ecology; 2) that the Inayawan landfill has already outgrown
its usefulness and has become ill-suited for its purpose; and 3) that its reopening and continued operation
violates several environmental laws and government regulations.

The CA granted the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the grant of the privilege of the writ of kalikasan was proper?

RULING:
Yes, the grant of the privilege of the writ of kalikasan was proper.

The Court ruled that the requirements for the grant of the privilege of the writ of kalikasan were sufficiently
established. Under Section 1 of Rule 7 of the RPEC, the following requisites must be present to avail of
this extraordinary remedy: (1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the actual or threatened
violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

In this case, the record discloses that the City's resumption of the garbage dumping operations at the
Inayawan landfill has raised serious environmental concerns as can be gleaned from the following facts:

1.) The dumping operation at the Inayawan landfill has violated the proper leachate collection and
treatment at the landfill and the regular water quality monitoring of surface and ground waters and
effluent, as well as gas emissions thereat;
2.) The landfill has already been converted to a dumpsite operation despite its original design as
sanitary landfill which is violative of R.A. 9003 expressly prohibiting open dumps as final disposal
sites;
3.) The air pollution has affected resident not just from Cebu City but also from the neighboring city
of Talisay;
4.) The scope of the possible environmental damage herein has expanded to encompass not just the
City of Cebu but other localities as well that connects to such strait. Since leachate is
contaminated liquid from decomposed waste; and that
5.) The DOH found that the residents, commercial centers, shanties and scavengers near the dump
site are at high risk of acquiring different types of illness due to pollution, considering the current
tatus of the dump site.
9. Braga vs Abaya, GR No. 223076 September 16, 2016 (En Banc)

FACTS:
The Port of Davao is a seaport located in Mindanao. It is composed of several ports, all within the gulf of
Davao, but its base port is the Sasa Wharf, Davao City. In 2011, the Sasa Wharf was pegged for
privatization under the PPP scheme and so the DOTC commissioned the conduct of a study which served
as one of the primary considerations for the current Sasa Wharf expansion project. In 2014, the Regional
Development Council for Region XI endorsed the project subject to certain conditions. In 2015, the DOTC
published an invitation to pre-qualify and bid for the Project.

In 2016, the petitioners, all stakeholders from Davao City and Samal, Davao del Norte, filed the Urgent
Petition for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus and/or Writ of Kalikasan. The petitioners seek to restrain the
implementation of the Project, including its bidding and award, until the respondents secure an ECC and
comply with the Local Government Code. The respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General
argue that the allegations do not warrant the issuance of a writ of kalikasan because the petitioners failed
to prove the threat of environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a writ of kalikasan should be issued?

RULING:
No, a writ of kalikasan should not be issued.

The Court held that the writ is a remedy to anyone whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is violated or threatened with violation by an lawful act or omission. However, the violation must
involve environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces in order to arrant the issuance of the writ.

In this case, the petition failed to identify the particular threats from the Project itself. All it does is cite the
negative impacts of operating a port inside a city based on the Synthesis Report. However, these impacts
already exist because the subject port has been operating since 1900. The Project is not for the creation
of a new port but the modernization of an existing one. At best, the allegations in support of the
application for the writ of kalikasan are hazy and speculative.

Moreover, the petition is misleading because it only identified the risks but neglected to mention the
existence and availability of mitigating measures.

Finally, there is no environmental risk that threatens to prejudice the inhabitants of two or more cities or
municipalities if the conduct of the bidding process is not stopped. The bidding process is not equivalent
to the implementation of the project and that the bidding process itself cannot conceivably cause any
environmental damage.
10. Segovia, et al. vs Climate Change Commission, GR No. 211010 March 7, 2017 (En Banc)

FACTS:
Former President GMA issued AO 171 which created the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change
which was reorganized through BO 774 expressed what is now referred to by the petitioners as the "Road
Sharing Principle" that aims to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels by adhering to the principle: "Those
who have less in wheels must have more in road."

Petitioners are Carless People of the Philippines, parents, representing their children, who in turn
represent "Children of the Future, and Car-owners who would rather not have cars if good public
transportation were safe, convenient, accessible, available, and reliable”. They wrote respondents
regarding their pleas for implementation of the Road Sharing Principle. They claim that they are entitled to
the issuance of the extraordinary writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus due to the alleged failure
and refusal of respondents to perform an act mandated by environmental laws resulting to massive
environmental damage and in violation of the petitioners' constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology and may even be tantamount to deprivation of life, and of life sources or "land, water, and air" by
the government without due process of law.

Respondents deny, however, the specific violations alleged by the petitioners. They stated that measures
were taken and are continually taken to improve the traffic situation in Philippine roads and to improve the
environment’s condition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a Writ of Kalikasan should be issued?

RULING:
No, a Writ of Kalikasan should not be issued.

The Court held that for the Writ of Kalikasan to be issued, the following requisites must concur:

1) There is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology;
2) The actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity; and
3) The actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces.

In this case, the petitioners failed to show that public respondents are guilty of any unlawful act or
omission that constitutes a violation of the petitioners' right to a balanced and healthful ecology which is a
requisite for the writ to be issued. The petitioner’s allegations were also bare and wanting with respect to
evidence showing that respondents failed to execute any of the laws petitioners’ cited. 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.
11. Gios-Samar vs. DOTC, GR No. 217158 March 12, 2019 (En Banc)

FACTS:
In 2014, the DOTC and its attached agency, the CAAP, posted an invitation for the bidding on the
development, operations, and maintenance of several airports (collectively, Projects) with a total cost of
P116.23 Billion. The Projects will be awarded through competitive bidding, following the procurement
rules and procedure prescribed under the law. The instructions to bidders were issued for said bidding
which are now bundled into two groups (collectively, the Bundled Projects), namely: Bundle 1: Bacolod-
Silay and Iloilo & Bundle 2: Davao, Laguindingan, and New Bohol (Panglao).

The general procedure for the bidding of the Bundled Projects stated that "prospective bidders may bid
for only Bundle 1 or Bundle 2, or bid for both Bundle 1 and Bundle 2. xxx The [Pre-Qualification, Bids and
Awards Committee shall announce its policy on whether a prospective bidder may be awarded both
bundles or whether a prospective bidder may only be awarded with one (1) bundle."

Petitioner GIOS-SAMAR, a non-governmental organization composed of subsistence fisherfolks and

Respondent argued that Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution is not applicable to the bidding process
assailed by petitioner and the bundling of the Projects does not violate the prohibitions on monopolies or
combinations in restraint of trade, among others.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the “bundling” of the Projects is constitutional?

RULING:
Yes, the “bundling” of the Projects is constitutional.

The Court held that the Constitution does not prohibit the operation of monopolies per se; that with
particular respect to the operation of public utilities or services, the Court, in Anglo-Fil Trading Corporation
v. Lazaro, further clarified that "by their very nature, certain public services or public utilities such as those
which supply water, electricity, transportation, telephone, telegraph, etc. must be given exclusive
franchises if public interest is to be served. Such exclusive franchises are not violative of the law against
monopolies."

In this case, the grant of a concession agreement to an entity, as a winning bidder, for the exclusive
development, operation, and maintenance of any or all of the Projects, does not by itself create a
monopoly violative of the provisions of the Constitution. Otherwise stated, while the grant may result in a
monopoly, it is a type of monopoly not violative of law. In any event, the Constitution provides that the
State may, by law, prohibit or regulate monopolies when the public interest so requires. Petitioner has
failed to point to any provision in the law, which specifically prohibits the bundling of bids, a detail supplied
by the respondent DOTC as implementing agency for the PPP program for airports.