CASE DIGEST

MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

Constitutional Law

Date December 18, 2008

Plaintiff-Appellee Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA)
Accused-Appellants Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
Ponente Velasco, Jr.,
Overview A case regarding the clean-up of Manila Bay
Relevant topic Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Art. II, Sec. 16

The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

RELEVANT CHARACTERS:

FACTS:
 On January 29, 1999, respondents filed a complaint before the RTC in Imus, Cavite among several
government agencies, including petitioner, for the clean-up, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay
 Complaint alleged that the water quality of Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standard set by law,
specifically PD No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code)
 Petitioners allege that neglect of petitioners in abating pollution in Manila Bay constitutes a violation of:
1. Respondents’ constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced ecology
2. Environment code
3. E.O. No. 192 (act providing for reorganization of the DENR)
4. Etc.
 Respondents prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concret plan
of action for such purpose
 Trial started off with a hearing followed by ocular inspection of Manila Bay
 Rebecca de Vera of MWSS, and in behalf of other petitioners, testified about MWSS’ efforts to reduce
pollution along Manila Bay
 Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) also testified regarding its own efforts
 RTC ruled in favour of the respondents
 CA sustained the RTCs decision

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUES HELD
1) WON petitioners can be compelled by mandamus to clean up and YES
rehabilitate the Manila Bay

RATIO:
 The cleaning or rehabilitation of Manila Bay can be compelled by mandamus
- A judicial writ commanding a lower court or ordering a person to perform a public or statutory duty
- Writ of mandamus lies to require the exercise of a ministerial duty
 Ministerial duty requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment; nothing is left to
the discretion of the person executing the act
 As opposed to discretionary duty
- Respondents maintain that the petitioners’ obligation to enforce the law is a ministerial duty; Court agrees
- Such duty is expressly provided for in the mandate of petitioners; they are enjoined as a matter of
statutory obligation, to perform certain functions relating to the clean-up, rehabilitation, protection, and
preservation of Manila Bay; this duty is not left to their discretion
1. MMDA via RA 7924, the act creating the MMDA
2. DENR via E.O. 192, designating DENR as primary government agency responsible for the
conservation, management, development, and proper use of the country’s environment and natural
resources
3. DENR via RA 9275, relating to maintenance of high water quality
4. MWSS, under RA 6234, etc.

Page 1 of 2
CASE DIGEST
MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
Constitutional Law

 In fact, as in Oposa v. Factoran, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the
Constitution. It is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the
inception of mankind
- Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up
the bay, they and the men and women representing them, cannot escape their obligation to future
generations

RULING:
WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED. The Sept. 28, 2005 Decision of the CA and the Sept. 13, 2002 Decision of the
RTC are AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATIONS.

Page 2 of 2