FACTS:

The petitioners in this case are seeking the implementation of various environmental laws and executive issuances related to climate change and clean air. They are specifically requesting the public respondents to implement the Road Sharing Principle in all roads, divide roads lengthwise for sidewalk and transport vehicles, submit a time-bound action plan for the Road Sharing Principle, reduce fuel consumption and use public transportation by cabinet officials and employees, demarcate road right-of-way, and release funds for Road Users' Tax.

Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Administrative Order No. 171 in 2007, which created the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC). This body was reorganized through Executive Order No. 774, designating the President as Chairperson and cabinet secretaries as members. EO 774 expressed the "Road Sharing Principle" which favored non-motorized locomotion and collective transportation systems.

In 2009, Administrative Order No. 254 was issued, mandating the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to formulate a national Environmentally Sustainable Transport Strategy (EST) for the Philippines, which also mentioned the Road Sharing Principle.

Congress later passed the Climate Change Act, creating the Climate Change Commission as the lead policy-making body for climate change-related programs and action plans.

The petitioners wrote to the respondents demanding the implementation of the Road Sharing Principle but claim to have not received a response. They filed this petition, arguing that the respondents' failure to implement environmental laws and executive issuances resulted in the degradation of air quality and violation of their constitutional rights.

In summary, the petitioners allege the respondents' violations of environmental laws, including the failure to reduce fuel consumption, implement the Road Sharing Principle, devote public open spaces to urban farming, coordinate with local government units, reduce air pollutant emissions, and release funds for Road Users' Tax. They claim that these failures have resulted in the degradation of air quality and violated their rights to a balanced and healthful ecology.

The petitioners in this case, represented by the group of activists called "The Vibrant 54", filed a Petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan and continuing mandamus. The petition alleges that the petitioners, who represent the "99% non­-car-owning population", are being discriminated against by the law due to the unequal allocation of road space and the lack of budget for sidewalks, bike lanes, and non-motorized transportation systems.

The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondents, filed a Comment seeking the dismissal of the petition. The respondents argue that the petitioners lack standing to bring the petition and have failed to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Furthermore, the respondents argue that the relief sought by the petitioners is not warranted.

The respondents assert that the petitioners are not entitled to a writ of kalikasan because they have failed to show that the public respondents are guilty of an unlawful act or omission, identify the environmental laws violated, demonstrate environmental damage of significant magnitude, or prove that the non-implementation of the Road Sharing Principle will cause environmental damage. The respondents also argue that the petitioners are not entitled to a Continuing Mandamus because there is no showing of a direct injury or a clear legal right, the writ cannot compel a discretionary act, and the Department of Budget and Management cannot be compelled to release funds without prior approval from the Road Board.

In response, the petitioners filed a Reply, reiterating their arguments raised in the Petition.

The main issues for resolution in this case are whether or not the petitioners have standing to file the petition, whether or not the petition should be dismissed for failing to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, and whether or not a writ of Kalikasan and/or Continuing Mandamus should be granted.

The court ruled that the petition must be dismissed. The court agreed with the petitioners' argument that the requirements on standing have been relaxed in cases involving environmental laws. However, the court noted that there is a difference between a petition for a writ of kalikasan, where it is sufficient for the person filing to represent the inhabitants prejudiced by the environmental damage, and a petition for a writ of continuing mandamus, which requires the petitioner to be personally aggrieved by the unlawful act or omission. The court also noted that the petitioners failed to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts in filing their petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioners have legal standing to file a writ of kalikasan and continuing mandamus.

2. Whether the petitioners violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

3. Whether the petitioners have standing to be entitled to the writ of continuing mandamus.

4. Whether the Road Sharing Principle can be imposed as an absolute requirement in policy decisions.

5. Whether there is a showing of unlawful neglect to perform a duty by the respondents.

6. Whether the petitioners can compel the release of the Road Users' Tax by the DBM.

7. Whether the amounts in the special trust accounts of the MVUC can be unilaterally released by the DBM without approval from the Road Board.

8. Whether the executive issuances relied upon by the petitioners have the force of law.

RULING:

1. The petitioners failed to establish the requisites for the issuance of the writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus. They did not show that the public respondents committed any unlawful act or omission that violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Additionally, the National Air Quality Status Report submitted by the petitioners showed that the DENR had been taking steps to improve air quality.

2. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts does not apply in this case. Direct recourse to the Supreme Court is allowed under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. The magnitude of the ecological problems contemplated under the Rules satisfies the exception to the rule on hierarchy of courts, as direct resort to the Supreme Court is dictated by public welfare.

3. The petitioners failed to prove direct or personal injury arising from acts attributable to the respondents, therefore they do not have standing to be entitled to the writ of continuing mandamus.

4. The Road Sharing Principle cannot be considered an absolute imposition and cannot supplant the executive department's discretion in implementing it.

5. There is no showing of unlawful neglect on the part of the respondents to perform any act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. The respondents have actively implemented projects and programs to improve air quality.

6. The petitioners cannot compel the release of the Road Users' Tax as it is earmarked solely and used exclusively for specific purposes under the Road Users' Tax Law.

7. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and ruled that:

8. The amounts in the special trust accounts of the MVUC cannot be unilaterally released by the DBM without approval from the Road Board. The provisions of RA 8794 require the approval of the Road Board for the use of the monies in the trust fund. The executive issuances relied upon by the petitioner, namely EO 774 and AO 254, are necessarily subject to the conditions set forth in RA 8794.

9. The executive issuances relied upon by the petitioner, namely EO 774 and AO 254, do not rise to the level of law that can supplant the provisions of RA 8794 that require the approval of the Road Board for the use of the monies in the trust fund.

PRINCIPLES:

• Legal standing is a procedural technicality that the court may set aside in its discretion.

• The writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy that provides stronger protection for environmental rights and allows for a speedy and effective resolution of cases involving violations of the right to a healthful and balanced ecology.

• The requisites for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan are: an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; the violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and the 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.

• The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be set aside when direct resort to the Supreme Court is allowed by law.

• The general rule of real party-in-interest applies in a petition for continuing mandamus, and the petitioners must prove direct or personal injury arising from acts attributable to the respondents.

• Mandamus lies to compel the performance of duties that are purely ministerial in nature and not discretionary.

• The determination of the means to be taken in implementing or actualizing any stated legislative or executive policy relating to the environment requires the use of discretion, and a petition for continuing mandamus cannot control the exercise of such discretion.

• The release of the Road Users' Tax is subject to the provisions of the Road Users' Tax Law and can only be used for specific purposes as provided by law.

• The amounts in the special trust accounts of the MVUC are earmarked solely and used exclusively for road maintenance, road drainage improvement, installation of traffic lights and road safety devices, and air pollution control.

• The provisions of RA 8794 require the approval of the Road Board for the use of the monies in the trust fund.

• Executive issuances such as EO 774 and AO 254 do not have the force of law to supplant the provisions of RA 8794.

• In order to show a violation of a constitutional right, there must be an actual or threatened violation arising from an unlawful act or omission by the respondents.