Republic Act No.

8479

February 10, 1998

AN ACT DEREGULATING THE DOWNSTREAM OIL INDUSTRY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 4. Definition of Terms. For purposes of this Act, the following terms are hereinbelow defined:
(a) Basel Convention shall refer to the international accord which governs the trade or movement of hazardous and
toxic wastes across borders;
(b) Board shall refer to the Energy Regulatory Board;
(c) BOI shall refer to the Board of Investments;
(d) Crude Oil shall refer to oil in its natural state before the same has been refined or otherwise treated, but excluding
water, bottoms, sediments and foreign substances;
(e) Dealer shall refer to any person, whether natural or juridical, who is engaged I the marketing and direct selling of
petroleum products to motorists, end users, and other consumers;
(f) DOE shall refer to the Department of Energy;
(g) DOJ shall refer to the Department of Justice;
(h) Downstream Oil Industry(DOI) or Industry shall refer to the business of importing; exporting, re-exporting,
shipping, transporting, processing, refining, storing, distributing, marketing and/or selling crude oil, gasoline, diesel,
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), kerosene, and other petroleum products;
(i) Hauler shall refer to any person, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the transport, distribution, hauling, and
carriage of petroleum products, whether in bulk or packed form, from the oil companies and independent marketers
to the petroleum dealers and other consumers;
(j) LPG Distributor shall refer to any person or entity, whether natural or juridical, engaged in exporting, refilling,
transporting, marketing, and/or selling of LPG to end users and other consumers;
(k) New Industry Participants shall refer to new participants in a particular sub-sector of the downstream oil industry
with investments and initial business operations commencing after January 1, 1994;
(l) Person shall refer to any person, whether natural or juridical, who is engaged in any activity of the downstream oil
industry;
(m) Petroleum shall refer to the naturally occurring mixture of compounds of hydrogen and carbon with a small
proportion of impurities and shall include any mineral oil, petroleum gas, hydrogen gas, bitumen, asphalt, mineral
wax, and all other similar or naturally-associated substances, with the exception of coal, peat, bituminous shale
and/or other stratified mineral fuel deposits;
(n) Petroleum Products shall refer to products formed in the case of refining crude petroleum through distillation,
cracking, solvent refining and chemical treatment coming out as primary stocks from the refinery such as, but not
limited to: LPG, naphtha, gasolines, solvents, kerosenes, aviation fuels, diesel oils, fuel oils, waxes and petrolatums,
asphalt, bitumens, coke and refinery sludges, or other such refinery petroleum fractions which have not undergone
any process or treatment as to produce separate chemically-defined compounds in a pure or commercially pure state
and to which various substances may have been added to render them suitable for particular uses: Provided, That
the resultant product contains not less than fifty percent (50%) by weight of such petroleum products;
(o) Singapore Import Parity(SIP) shall refer to the deemed landed cost of a petroleum product imported from
Singapore at a free-on-board price equal to the average Singapore Posting for that product at the time of loading;

(p) Singapore Posting shall refer to the price of petroleum products periodically posted by oil refineries in Singapore
and reported by independent international publications; and
(q) Wholesale Posted Price (WPP) shall refer to the ceiling price of petroleum products set by the Board based on its
duly approved automatic pricing formula.
Section 5. Liberalization of the Industry. Any law to the contrary notwithstanding, any person or entity may import
or purchase any quantity of crude oil and petroleum products from a foreign or domestic source, lease or own and
operate refineries and other downstream oil facilities and market such crude oil and petroleum products either in a
generic name or his or its own trade name, or use the same for his or its own requirement: Provided,That any person
who shall engage in any such activity shall give prior notice thereof to the DOE for monitoring purposes: Provided,
further, That such notice shall exempt such person or entity from securing certificates of quality, health and safety and
environmental clearance from the proper governmental agencies: Provided, furthermore, That such person or entity
shall, for monitoring purposes, report to the DOE his or its every importation/exportation: Provided, finally, That all oil
importations shall be in accordance with the Basel Convention.
Section 6. Tariff Treatment. (a) Any law to the contrary notwithstanding and starting with the effectivity of this Act,
a single and uniform tariff duty shall be imposed and collected both on imported crude oil and imported refined
petroleum products at the rate of three percent (3%): Provided, however, That the President of the Philippines may, in
the exercise of his powers, reduce such tariff rate when in his judgment such reduction is warranted, pursuant to
Republic Act No. 1937, as amended, otherwise known as the Tariff and Customs Code:Provided, further, That
beginning January 1, 2004 or upon implementation of the Uniform Tariff Program under the World Trade Organization
and ASEAN Free Trade Area commitments, the tariff rate shall be automatically adjusted to the appropriate level
notwithstanding the provisions under this Section.
(b) For as long as the National Power Corporation (NPC) enjoys exemptions from taxes and duties on petroleum
products used for power generation, the exemption shall apply to purchases through the local refineries and to the
importation of fuel oil and diesel.
Section 16. Phases of Deregulation. In order to provide a smooth implementation of deregulation, the policy shift
shall be done in two (2) phases: Phase I (Transition Phase) and Phase II (Full Deregulation Phase).
Section 18. Automatic Oil Pricing Mechanism. To enable the domestic price of petroleum products to
approximate and promptly reflect the prices of oil in the international market, an automatic pricing mechanism shall be
established. To this end, the following laws are hereby amended:
(a) Paragraph (a), Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6173, as amended by Section 3 of Executive Order No.
172, to read as follows:
"SEC. 8. Powers of the Board Upon Notice and Hearing. The Board shall have the power:
"(a) To set the wholesale posted price of petroleum products during the Transition Phase.
"For this purpose and for the protection of the public interest, the Board shall, after due notice and
hearing, at which any consumer of petroleum products and other parties who may be affected may
appear and be heard, and within one (1) month after the effectivity of this Act, approve a marketoriented formula to determine the WPP of petroleum products based solely on the changes of
either the Singapore Posting of refined petroleum products, the SIP or the crude landed cost.
"Thereafter, the Board shall at the proper times automatically adjust the WPP of petroleum products
based on the approved formula, through appropriate orders, without the need for notice and
hearing.
"The Board shall, on the dates of effectivity of the automatic oil pricing formula, the initial WPP or
the adjusted WPP, publish the same, together with the corresponding computation in two (2)
national newspapers of general circulation."
(b) Paragraph 1 of Letter of Instruction No. 1441, to read as follows:

"1. To review and reset the prices of domestic petroleum products up or down as necessary on or
before the third Monday of each month to reflect the new WPP of refined petroleum products based
on the approved automatic pricing formula."
(c) Paragraph 2 of Letter of Instruction No. 1441 is hereby deleted. In lieu thereof a new paragraph is
inserted to read as follows:
"2. The price adjustment shall be reflected automatically in the approved WPP of each petroleum
product."
(d) The provisions of Section 3 (a) and (c) and Section 5 of Executive Order No. 172 to the contrary
notwithstanding, the Board shall, during the Transition Phase, maintain the current margin of dealers and
rates charged by water transport operators, haulers and pipeline concessionaires. Depending on the basis
of the APM, the Board shall, within one (1) month after the effectivity of this Act and after proper notice and
full public hearing, prescribe a formula which will automatically set the margins of marketers and dealers,
and the rates charged by water transport operators, haulers and pipeline concessionaires: Provided, That
such formula shall take effect simultaneously with the effectivity of the automatic oil pricing formula.
Thereafter, the Board shall set the said margins and rates based on the approved formula without the
necessity for public notice and hearing.
The Board shall, on the day of the effectivity of the aforesaid formula, publish in at least two (2) newspapers
of general circulation the mechanics of the formula for the information of the public.
Section 20. Jurisdiction on Pricing of Piped Gas. Section 3 of Executive Order No. 172, is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"SEC. 3. Jurisdiction, Powers and Functions of the Board. The Board shall, upon proper notice and
hearing, fix and regulate the rate of schedule or prices of piped gas to be charged by duly franchised gas
companies which distribute gas by means of underground pipe system."
Section 24. Penal Sanction. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Act shall suffer the penalty of
three (3) months to one (1) year imprisonment and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P 50,000.00) to Three
hundred thousand pesos (P 300,000.00).
Section 25. Public Information Campaign. The DOE, in coordination with the Board and the Philippine
Information Agency (PIA), shall undertake an information campaign to educate the public on the deregulation
program of the Industry.
Section 28. Repealing Clause. All laws, Presidential decrees, executive orders, issuances, rules and regulations
or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or immediately modified
accordingly.
Section 29. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect upon its complete publication in at least two (2) national
newspapers of general circulation.
G.R. No. 158290

October 23, 2006

HILARION M. HENARES, JR., VICTOR C. AGUSTIN, ALFREDO L. HENARES, DANIEL L. HENARES, ENRIQUE
BELO HENARES, and CRISTINA BELO HENARES, petitioners,
vs.
LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD and DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, respondents.

RESOLUTION

QUISUMBING, J.:
Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to
require public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel.
Citing statistics from the Metro Manila Transportation and Traffic Situation Study of 1996,1 the Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB) of the National Capital Region,2 a study of the Asian Development Bank,3 the Manila
Observatory4 and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources5 (DENR) on the high growth and low
turnover in vehicle ownership in the Philippines, including diesel-powered vehicles, two-stroke engine powered
motorcycles and their concomitant emission of air pollutants, petitioners attempt to present a compelling case for
judicial action against the bane of air pollution and related environmental hazards.
Petitioners allege that the particulate matters (PM) complex mixtures of dust, dirt, smoke, and liquid droplets,
varying in sizes and compositions emitted into the air from various engine combustions have caused detrimental
effects on health, productivity, infrastructure and the overall quality of life. Petitioners particularly cite the effects of
certain fuel emissions from engine combustion when these react to other pollutants. For instance, petitioners aver,
with hydrocarbons, oxide of nitrogen (NOx) creates smog; with sulfur dioxide, it creates acid rain; and with ammonia,
moisture and other compounds, it reacts to form nitric acid and harmful nitrates. Fuel emissions also cause
retardation and leaf bleaching in plants. According to petitioner, another emission, carbon monoxide (CO), when not
completely burned but emitted into the atmosphere and then inhaled can disrupt the necessary oxygen in blood. With
prolonged exposure, CO affects the nervous system and can be lethal to people with weak hearts.6
Petitioners add that although much of the new power generated in the country will use natural gas while a number of
oil and coal-fired fuel stations are being phased-out, still with the projected doubling of power generation over the
next 10 years, and with the continuing high demand for motor vehicles, the energy and transport sectors are likely to
remain the major sources of harmful emissions. Petitioners refer us to the study of the Philippine Environment
Monitor 20027, stating that in four of the country's major cities, Metro Manila, Davao, Cebu and Baguio, the exposure
to PM10, a finer PM which can penetrate deep into the lungs causing serious health problems, is estimated at over
US$430 million.8 The study also reports that the emissions of PMs have caused the following:
Over 2,000 people die prematurely. This loss is valued at about US$140 million.
Over 9,000 people suffer from chronic bronchitis, which is valued at about US$120 million.
Nearly 51 million cases of respiratory symptom days in Metro Manila (averaging twice a year in Davao and
Cebu, and five to six times in Metro Manila and Baguio), costs about US$170 million. This is a 70 percent
increase, over a decade, when compared with the findings of a similar study done in 1992 for Metro Manila,
which reported 33 million cases.9
Petitioners likewise cite the University of the Philippines' studies in 1990-91 and 1994 showing that vehicular
emissions in Metro Manila have resulted to the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD); that
pulmonary tuberculosis is highest among jeepney drivers; and there is a 4.8 to 27.5 percent prevalence of respiratory
symptoms among school children and 15.8 to 40.6 percent among child vendors. The studies also revealed that the
children in Metro Manila showed more compromised pulmonary function than their rural counterparts. Petitioners infer
that these are mostly due to the emissions of PUVs.
To counter the aforementioned detrimental effects of emissions from PUVs, petitioners propose the use of CNG.
According to petitioners, CNG is a natural gas comprised mostly of methane which although containing small
amounts of propane and butane,10 is colorless and odorless and considered the cleanest fossil fuel because it
produces much less pollutants than coal and petroleum; produces up to 90 percent less CO compared to gasoline
and diesel fuel; reduces NOx emissions by 50 percent and cuts hydrocarbon emissions by half; emits 60 percent less
PMs; and releases virtually no sulfur dioxide. Although, according to petitioners, the only drawback of CNG is that it
produces more methane, one of the gases blamed for global warming.11

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, lie in Section 16,12 Article II of the 1987 Constitution,
our ruling in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,13 and Section 414 of Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise known as the "Philippine
Clean Air Act of 1999."
Meantime, following a subsequent motion, the Court granted petitioners' motion to implead the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC) as additional respondent.
In his Comment for respondents LTFRB and DOTC, the Solicitor General, cites Section 3, Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court and explains that the writ of mandamus is not the correct remedy since the writ may be issued only to
command a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do an act that is required to be done, when he or it unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled,
there being no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.15 Further citing existing
jurisprudence, the Solicitor General explains that in contrast to a discretionary act, a ministerial act, which a
mandamus is, is one in which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
obedience to a mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or
impropriety of an act done.
The Solicitor General also notes that nothing in Rep. Act No. 8749 that petitioners invoke, prohibits the use of
gasoline and diesel by owners of motor vehicles. Sadly too, according to the Solicitor General, Rep. Act No. 8749
does not even mention the existence of CNG as alternative fuel and avers that unless this law is amended to provide
CNG as alternative fuel for PUVs, the respondents cannot propose that PUVs use CNG as alternative fuel.
The Solicitor General also adds that it is the DENR that is tasked to implement Rep. Act No. 8749 and not the LTFRB
nor the DOTC. Moreover, he says, it is the Department of Energy (DOE), under Section 2616 of Rep. Act No. 8749,
that is required to set the specifications for all types of fuel and fuel-related products to improve fuel compositions for
improved efficiency and reduced emissions. He adds that under Section 2117 of the cited Republic Act, the DOTC is
limited to implementing the emission standards for motor vehicles, and the herein respondents cannot alter, change
or modify the emission standards. The Solicitor General opines that the Court should declare the instant petition for
mandamus without merit.
Petitioners, in their Reply, insist that the respondents possess the administrative and regulatory powers to implement
measures in accordance with the policies and principles mandated by Rep. Act No. 8749, specifically Section 218 and
Section 21.19 Petitioners state that under these laws and with all the available information provided by the DOE on the
benefits of CNG, respondents cannot ignore the existence of CNG, and their failure to recognize CNG and compel its
use by PUVs as alternative fuel while air pollution brought about by the emissions of gasoline and diesel endanger
the environment and the people, is tantamount to neglect in the performance of a duty which the law enjoins.
Lastly, petitioners aver that other than the writ applied for, they have no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law. Petitioners insist that the writ in fact should be issued pursuant to the very same Section 3,
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court that the Solicitor General invokes.
In their Memorandum, petitioners phrase the issues before us as follows:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS HAVE THE PERSONALITY TO BRING THE PRESENT ACTION
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT ACTION IS SUPPORTED BY LAW
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT THE
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE OF REQUIRING PUBLIC UTILITY VEHICLES TO USE COMPRESSED
NATURAL GAS (CNG)
IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT CAN BE COMPELLED TO REQUIRE PUBLIC UTILITY
VEHICLES TO USE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS THROUGH A WRIT OF MANDAMUS20
Briefly put, the issues are two-fold. First, Do petitioners have legal personality to bring this petition before us?
Second, Should mandamus issue against respondents to compel PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel?

According to petitioners, Section 16,21 Article II of the 1987 Constitution is the policy statement that bestows on the
people the right to breathe clean air in a healthy environment. This policy is enunciated in Oposa.22 The
implementation of this policy is articulated in Rep. Act No. 8749. These, according to petitioners, are the bases for
their standing to file the instant petition. They aver that when there is an omission by the government to safeguard a
right, in this case their right to clean air, then, the citizens can resort to and exhaust all remedies to challenge this
omission by the government. This, they say, is embodied in Section 423 of Rep. Act No. 8749.
Petitioners insist that since it is the LTFRB and the DOTC that are the government agencies clothed with power to
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 Solicitor General, for his part, reiterates his position that the respondent government agencies, the DOTC and
the LTFRB, are not in a position to compel the PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel. The Solicitor General explains
that the function of the DOTC is limited to implementing the emission standards set forth in Rep. Act No. 8749 and
the said law only goes as far as setting the maximum limit for the emission of vehicles, but it does not recognize CNG
as alternative engine fuel. The Solicitor General avers that the petition should be addressed to Congress for it to
come up with a policy that would compel the use of CNG as alternative fuel.
Patently, this Court is being asked to resolve issues that are not only procedural. Petitioners challenge this Court to
decide if what petitioners propose could be done through a less circuitous, speedy and unchartered course in an
issue that Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in his ponencia in the Oposa case,24 describes as "inter-generational
responsibility" and "inter-generational justice."
Now, as to petitioners' standing. There is no dispute that petitioners have standing to bring their case before this
Court. Even respondents do not question their standing. This petition focuses on one fundamental legal right of
petitioners, their right to clean air. Moreover, as held previously, a party's standing before this Court is a procedural
technicality which may, in the exercise of the Court's discretion, be set aside in view of the importance of the issue
raised. We brush aside this issue of technicality under the principle of the transcendental importance to the public,
especially so if these cases demand that they be settled promptly.
Undeniably, the right to clean air not only is an issue of paramount importance to petitioners for it concerns the air
they breathe, but it is also impressed with public interest. The consequences of the counter-productive and
retrogressive effects of a neglected environment due to emissions of motor vehicles immeasurably affect the wellbeing of petitioners. On these considerations, the legal standing of the petitioners deserves recognition.
Our next concern is whether the writ of mandamus is the proper remedy, and if the writ could issue against
respondents.
Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, mandamus lies under any of the following cases: (1) against any
tribunal which unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty; (2) in case
any corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station; and (3) in case any tribunal, corporation, board or person unlawfully excludes
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is legally entitled; and there is no other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
In University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,25 we said,
It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a
ministerial duty, this being its main objective. It does not lie to require anyone to fulfill contractual
obligations or to compel a course of conduct, nor to control or review the exercise of discretion. On
the part of the petitioner, it is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that he should have a
clear legal rightto the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to
perform the act required. It never issues in doubtful cases. While it may not be necessary that the
duty be absolutely expressed, it must however, be clear. The writ will not issue to compel an official
to do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to do, or give to the applicant
anything to which he is not entitled by law. The writ neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is
simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.
(Emphasis supplied.)

In this petition the legal right which is sought to be recognized and enforced hinges on a constitutional and a statutory
policy already articulated in operational terms, e.g. in Rep. Act No. 8749, the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999.
Paragraph (a), Section 21 of the Act specifically provides that when PUVs are concerned, the responsibility of
implementing the policy falls on respondent DOTC. It provides as follows:
SEC 21. Pollution from Motor Vehicles. - a) The DOTC shall implement the emission standards for motor
vehicles set pursuant to and as provided in this Act. To further improve the emission standards, the
Department [DENR] shall review, revise and publish the standards every two (2) years, or as the need
arises. It shall consider the maximum limits for all major pollutants to ensure substantial improvement in air
quality for the health, safety and welfare of the general public.
Paragraph (b) states:
b) The Department [DENR] in collaboration with the DOTC, DTI and LGUs, shall develop an action plan
for the control and management of air pollution from motor vehicles consistent with the Integrated Air
Quality Framework . . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
There is no dispute that under the Clean Air Act it is the DENR that 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.
In Oposa26 we said, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment. We also said, it is clearly the duty of the responsible government agencies to advance the
said right.
Petitioners invoke the provisions of the Constitution and the Clean Air Act in their prayer for issuance of a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel. Although both are
general mandates that do not specifically enjoin the use of any kind of fuel, particularly the use of CNG, there is an
executive order implementing a program on the use of CNG by public vehicles. Executive Order No. 290,
entitled Implementing the Natural Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport (NGVPPT), took effect on February 24,
2004. The program recognized, among others, natural gas as a clean burning alternative fuel for vehicle which has
the potential to produce substantially lower pollutants; and the Malampaya Gas-to-Power Project as representing the
beginning of the natural gas industry of the Philippines. Paragraph 1.2, Section 1 of E.O. No. 290 cites as one of its
objectives, the use of CNG as a clean alternative fuel for transport. Furthermore, one of the components of the
program is the development of CNG refueling stations and all related facilities in strategic locations in the country to
serve the needs of CNG-powered PUVs. Section 3 of E.O. No. 290, consistent with E.O. No. 66, series of 2002,
designated the DOE as the lead agency (a) in developing the natural gas industry of the country with the DENR,
through the EMB and (b) in formulating emission standards for CNG. Most significantly, par. 4.5, Section 4 tasks the
DOTC, working with the DOE, to develop an implementation plan for "a gradual shift to CNG fuel utilization in PUVs
and promote NGVs [natural gas vehicles] in Metro Manila and Luzon through the issuance of directives/orders
providing preferential franchises in present day major routes and exclusive franchises to NGVs in newly opened
routes" A thorough reading of the executive order assures us that implementation for a cleaner environment is
being addressed. To a certain extent, the instant petition had been mooted by the issuance of E.O. No. 290.
Regrettably, however, the plain, speedy and adequate remedy herein sought by petitioners, i.e., a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG, is unavailing. Mandamus is available only to compel the
doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB
and the DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. At most the LTFRB has been tasked by E.O. No. 290
in par. 4.5 (ii), Section 4 "to grant preferential and exclusive Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) or franchises to
operators of NGVs based on the results of the DOTC surveys."
Further, mandamus will not generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate branch, for the obvious
reason that neither is inferior to the other.27 The need for future changes in both legislation and its implementation
cannot be preempted by orders from this Court, especially when what is prayed for is procedurally infirm. Besides,
comity with and courtesy to a coequal branch dictate that we give sufficient time and leeway for the coequal branches
to address by themselves the environmental problems raised in this petition.

In the same manner that we have associated the fundamental right to a balanced and healthful ecology with the twin
concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice" in Oposa,28 where we upheld the right of
future Filipinos to prevent the destruction of the rainforests, so do we recognize, in this petition, the right of petitioners
and the future generation to clean air. In Oposa we said that if the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is now
explicitly found in the Constitution even if the right is "assumed to exist from the inception of humankind, it is
because of the well-founded fear of its framers [of the Constitution] that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful
ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing
importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the
second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for
those to come. . ."29
It is the firm belief of this Court that in this case, it is timely to reaffirm the premium we have placed on the protection
of the environment in the landmark case of Oposa. Yet, as serious as the statistics are on air pollution, with the
present fuels deemed toxic as they are to the environment, as fatal as these pollutants are to the health of the
citizens, and urgently requiring resort to drastic measures to reduce air pollutants emitted by motor vehicles, we must
admit in particular that petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an indubitable legal duty on
respondents that will justify a grant of the writ of mandamus compelling the use of CNG for public utility vehicles. It
appears to us that more properly, the legislature should provide first the specific statutory remedy to the complex
environmental problems bared by herein petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus is taken.
WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
REPUBLIC ACT 9003 January 26, 2001
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ECOLOGICAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, CREATING THE
NECESSARY INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS AND INCENTIVES, DECLARING CERTAIN ACTS PROHIBITED
AND PROVIDING PENALTIES, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 3. Definition of Terms - For the purposes of this Act:
(l) Ecological solid waste management shall refer to the systematic administration of activities which provide for
segregation at source, segregated transportation, storage, transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal of solid
waste and all other waste management activities which do not harm the environment;
(kk) Solid waste shall refer to all discarded household, commercial waste, non-hazardous institutional and industrial
waste, street sweepings, construction debris, agricultural waste, and other non-hazardous/non-toxic solid waste.
Unless specifically noted otherwise, the term "solid waste" as used in this Act shall not include:
(1) Waste identified or listed as hazardous waste of a solid, liquid, contained gaseous or semisolid form
which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious or incapacitating reversible illness, or
acute/chronic effect on the health of persons and other organisms;
(2) Infectious waste from hospitals such as equipment, instruments, utensils, and fomites of a disposable
nature from patients who are suspected to have or have been diagnosed as having communicable diseases
and must therefore be isolated as required by public health agencies, laboratory wastes such as
pathological specimens (i.e. all tissues, specimens of blood elements, excreta, and secretions obtained from
patients or laboratory animals) and disposable fomites that may harbor or transmit pathogenic organisms,
and surgical operating room pathologic materials from outpatient areas and emergency rooms; and
(3) Waste resulting from mining activities, including contaminated soil and debris.

Section 9. Visitorial Powers of the Department. - The Department or its duly authorized representative shall have
access to, and the right to copy therefrom, the records required to be maintained pursuant to the provisions of this
Act. The Secretary or the duly authorized representative shall likewise have the right to enter the premises of any
generator, recycler or manufacturer, or other facilities any time to question any employee or investigate any fact,
condition or matter which may be necessary to determine any violation, or which may aid in the effective enforcement
of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations. This Section shall not apply to private dwelling places unless
the visitorial power is otherwise judicially authorized.
Section 10. Role of LGUs in Solid Waste Management - Pursuant to the relevant provisions of R.A. No. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local government code, the LGUs shall be primarily responsible for the implementation and
enforcement of the provisions of this Act within their respective jurisdictions.
Segregation and collection of solid waste shall be conducted at the barangay level specifically for biodegradable,
compostable and reusable wastes: Provided, That the collection of non-recyclable materials and special wastes shall
be the responsibility of the municipality or city.
Section 21. Mandatory Segregation of Solid Wastes - The LGUs shall evaluate alternative roles for the public and
private sectors in providing collection services, type of collection system, or combination of systems, that best meet
their needs: Provided, That segregation of wastes shall primarily be conducted at the source, to include household,
institutional, industrial, commercial and agricultural sources: Provided, further; That wastes shall be segregated into
the categories provided in Sec. 22 of this Act.
For premises containing six (6) or more residential units, the local government unit shall promulgate regulations
requiring the owner or person in charge of such premises to:
(a) provide for the residents a designated area and containers in which to accumulate source separated
recyclable materials to be collected by the municipality or private center; and
(b) notify the occupants of each buildings of the requirements of this Act and the regulations promulgated
pursuant thereto.
Section 30. Prohibition on the Use of Non-Environmentally Acceptable Packaging - No person owning, operating or
conducting a commercial establishment in the country shall sell or convey at retail or possess with the intent to sell or
convey at retail any products that are placed, wrapped or packaged in or on packaging which is not environmentally
acceptable packaging: Provided, That the Commission shall determine a phaseout period after proper consultation
and hearing with the stakeholders or with the sectors concerned. The presence in the commercial establishment of
non-environmentally acceptable packaging shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of intent to sell or convey the
same at retail to customers.
Any person who is a manufacturer, broker or warehouse operator engaging in the distribution or transportation of
commercial products within the country shall file a report with the concerned local government within one (1) year
from the effectivity of this Act, and annually thereafter, a listing of any products in packaging which is not
environmentally acceptable. The Commission shall prescribe the form of such report in its regulations.
A violation of this Section shall be sufficient grounds for the revocation, suspension, denial or non-renewal of any
license for the establishment in which the violation occurs.
Section 37. Prohibition Against the Use of Open Dumps for Solid Waste - No open dumps shall be established and
operated, nor any practice or disposal of solid waste by any person, including LGUs, which constitutes the use of
open dumps for solid wastes, be allowed after the effectivity of this Acts: Provided, That within three (3) years after
the effectivity of this Act, every LGU shall convert its open dumps into controlled dumps, in accordance with the

guidelines set in Sec. 41 of this Act: Provided, further, That no controlled dumps shall be allowed five (5) years
following the effectivity of this Act.
Section 48. Prohibited Acts - The following acts are prohibited:
(1) Littering, throwing, dumping of waste matters in public places, such as roads, sidewalks, canals, esteros
or parks, and establishment, or causing or permitting the same;
(2) Undertaking activities or operating, collecting or transporting equipment in violation of sanitation
operation and other requirements or permits set forth in established pursuant;
(3) The open burning of solid waste;
(4) Causing or permitting the collection of non-segregated or unsorted wastes;
(5) Squatting in open dumps and landfills;
(6) Open dumping, burying of biodegradable or non-biodegradable materials in flood prone areas;
(7) Unauthorized removal of recyclable material intended for collection by authorized persons;
(8) The mixing of source-separated recyclable material with other solid waste in any vehicle, box, container
or receptacle used in solid waste collection or disposal;
(9) Establishment or operation of open dumps as enjoined in this Act, or closure of said dumps in violation of
Sec. 37;
(10) The manufacture, distribution or use of non-environmentally acceptable packaging materials;
(11) Importation of consumer products packaged in non-environmentally acceptable materials;
(12) Importation of toxic wastes misrepresented as "recyclable" or "with recyclable content";
(13) Transport and dumplog in bulk of collected domestic, industrial, commercial, and institutional wastes in
areas other than centers or facilities prescribe under this Act;
(14) Site preparation, construction, expansion or operation of waste management facilities without an
Environmental Compliance Certificate required pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586 and this Act and
not conforming with the land use plan of the LGU;
(15) The construction of any establishment within two hundred (200) meters from open dumps or controlled
dumps, or sanitary landfill; and
(16) The construction or operation of landfills or any waste disposal facility on any aquifer, groundwater
reservoir, or watershed area and or any portions thereof.
Section 50. Administrative Sanctions - Local government officials and officials of government agencies concerned
who fail to comply with and enforce rules and regulations promulgated relative to this Act shall be charged
administratively in accordance with R.A. 7160 and other existing laws, rules and regulations

Section 51. Mandatory Public Hearings - Mandatory public hearings for national framework and local government
solid waste management plans shall be undertaken by the Commission and the respective Boards in accordance with
process to be formulated in the implementing rules and regulations.
Section 52. Citizens Suits - For the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act or its implementing rules and
regulations, any citizen may file an appropriate civil, criminal or administrative action in the proper courts/bodies
against:
(a) Any person who violates or fails to comply with the provisions of this Act its implementing rules and
regulations; or
(b) The Department or other implementing agencies with respect to orders, rules and regulations issued
inconsistent with this Act; and/or
(c) Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the performance of an act specifically enjoined as a
duty by this Act or its implementing rules and regulations; or abuses his authority in the performance of his
duty; or, in any many improperly performs his duties under this Act or its implementing rules and
regulations; Provided, however, That no suit can be filed until after thirty-day (30) notice has been given to
the public officer and the alleged violator concerned and no appropriate action has been taken thereon.
The Court shall exempt such action from the payment of filing fees and statements likewise, upon prima facieshowing
of the non-enforcement or violation complained of, exempt the plaintiff from the filing of an injunction bond for the
issuance of preliminary injunction.
In the event that the citizen should prevail, the Court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, moral damages and
litigation costs as appropriate.
Section 53. Suits and Strategic Legal Action Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and the Enforcement of this ActWhere a suit is brought against a person who filed an action as provided in Sec. 52 of this Act, or against any person,
institution or government agency that implements this Act, it shall be the duty of the investigating prosecutor or the
Court, as the case may be, to immediately make a determination not exceeding thirty (30) days whether said legal
action has been filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle such legal recourses of the person complaining of
or enforcing the provisions of this Act. Upon determination thereof, evidence warranting the same, the Court shall
dismiss the complaint and award the attorney's fees and double damages.
This provision shall also apply and benefit public officers who are sued for acts committed in their official capacity,
there being no grave abuse of authority, and done in the course of enforcing this Act.