[MMDA,] DENR, et al v.

Concerned Residents [of Manila Bay]

Velasco, Jr., J. | G.R. No. 171947 | Dec. 18, 2008
Topic: International Environmental Law
Nature: Rule 45 petition
Memory Aid: Continuing Mandamus
PARTIES 
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS,1 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE
COAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME GROUP, and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
petitioners, vs.

CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and joined by DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL
SANTOS, JR., DINAH DELA PEÑA, PAUL DENNIS QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA CALOZA, FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE
SEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA, SARAH JOELLE LINTAG, HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS, FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, and JAIME AGUSTIN R.
OPOSA, respondents.
DISPUTED MATTER 
As a member of the International Marine Organization and a signatory to the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the Philippines must ensure the provision of adequate reception facilities at ports
and terminals for the reception of sewage from the ships docking in Philippine ports
SYNOPSIS 
Concerned residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the RTC against several government agencies, among
them the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. The complaint alleged that the
water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically PD 1152.
Respondents, as plaintiffs, prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a
concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose. RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondents, ordering the
defendant-government agencies to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay.

Petitioners, before the CA, argued that PD 1152 relates only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not
cover cleaning in general .Apart from raising concerns about the lack of funds, petitioners also asserted that the
cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act, which can be compelled by mandamus. The CA denied petitioners
appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto, stressing that the trial courts decision did not require petitioners
to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions under existing laws. Hence, this petition.

The issue in this case is W/N petitioners can be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila
Bay - YES

The Supreme Court held that the Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay can be compelled by mandamus.
Petitioners’ obligations to perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such
duties, on the other, are two different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks may entail a
decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is
ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. The MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as
may be noted, is set forth not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter as well.

(Important) Also, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) is tasked to adopt such measures as are necessary to prevent
the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters
from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators. When the vessels are not docked at ports but within
Philippine territorial waters, it is the PCG and PNP Maritime Group that have jurisdiction over said vessels
DOCTRINE  
 As a member of the International Marine Organization and a signatory to the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended by MARPOL 73/78,28 the Philippines, through the Philippine Ports
Authority, must ensure the provision of adequate reception facilities at ports and terminals for the reception of sewage
from the ships docking in Philippine ports.

This case turns on government agencies and their officers who, by the nature of their respective offices or by direct
statutory command, are tasked to protect and preserve, at the first instance, our internal waters, rivers, shores, and
seas polluted by human activities. To most of these agencies and their official complement, the pollution menace does
not seem to carry the high national priority it deserves, if their track records are to be the norm. Their cavalier attitude
towards solving, if not mitigating, the environmental pollution problem, is a sad commentary on bureaucratic efficiency
and commitment.

FACTS
Respondent Concerned citizens of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the RTC of Imus, Cavite against several
government agencies, among them the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation and protection of Manila Bay.
 Respondents alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards
set by Presidential Decree No. 1152 (PD 1152) of the Philippine Environment Code.
 The continued neglect of the petitioners in abating the pollution in Manila Bay constitutes a violation of
numerous environmental laws, including international laws.
 The trial of the case started off with a hearing at the Manila Yacht Club followed by an ocular inspection of the
Manila Bay. The water samples collected from different beaches around the Manila Bay showed that the
amount of fecal coliform content ranged from 50,000 to 80,000 most probable number (MPN)/ml when what
DENR Administrative Order No. 34-90 prescribed as a safe level for bathing and other forms of contact
recreational activities, or the "SB" level, is one not exceeding 200 MPN/100 ml.
 Thus, respondents pray that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and to submit a concrete plan of
action for the purpose.

The RTC ordered petitioners to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay. The dispositive portion reads
“WHEREFORE, finding merit in the complaint, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the abovenamed defendant-
government agencies, jointly and solidarily, to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to SB
classification to make it fit for swimming, skin-diving and other forms of contact recreation.

To attain this, defendant agencies, with defendant DENR as the lead agency, are directed, within six (6) months
from receipt hereof, to act and perform their respective duties by devising a consolidated, coordinated and
concerted scheme of action for the rehabilitation and restoration of the bay. In particular:
1. Defendant MWSS is directed to install, operate and maintain adequate [sewerage] treatment facilities in strategic places
under its jurisdiction and increase their capacities.
2. Defendant LWUA, to see to it that the water districts under its wings, provide, construct and operate sewage facilities for
the proper disposal of waste.
3. Defendant DENR, which is the lead agency in cleaning up Manila Bay, to install, operate and maintain
waste facilities to rid the bay of toxic and hazardous substances.
4. (Important) Defendant PPA, to prevent and also to treat the discharge not only of ship-generated wastes but
also of other solid and liquid wastes from docking vessels that contribute to the pollution of the bay.
5. Defendant MMDA, to establish, operate and maintain an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and/or adequate solid
waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal system such as re-use or recycling of wastes.
6. Defendant DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, to revitalize the marine life in Manila Bay and
restock its waters with indigenous fish and other aquatic animals.
7. Defendant DBM, to provide and set aside an adequate budget solely for the purpose of cleaning up and rehabilitation of
Manila Bay.
8. Defendant DPWH, to remove and demolish structures and other nuisances that obstruct the free flow of waters to the bay.
These nuisances discharge solid and liquid wastes which eventually end up in Manila Bay. As the construction and
engineering arm of the government, DPWH is ordered to actively participate in removing debris, such as carcass of
sunken vessels, and other non-biodegradable garbage in the bay.
9. Defendant DOH, to closely supervise and monitor the operations of septic and sludge companies and require them to
have proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks.
10. Defendant DECS, to inculcate in the minds and hearts of the people through education the importance of preserving and
protecting the environment. Defendant Philippine Coast Guard and the PNP Maritime Group, to protect at all costs the
Manila Bay from all forms of illegal fishing.”

Before the CA, petitioners contend that

1. The provisions of the Environment Code relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not
cover cleaning in general.
2. Also, cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus. CA affirmed
the RTC decision in toto. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUES/ HELD
(1) W/N the cleaning or rehabilitation of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act of petitioners that can be
compelled by mandamus - NO
Petitioners Respondents Supreme Court
(Agencies) (Citizens)
Petitioners argue On the other hand, The petitioners’ obligation to perform their duties as defined by law,
that MMDA’s duty to respondents alleges on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the
take measures and that the statutory other, are two different concepts. While the implementation of the
maintain adequate command for the MMDAs mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the
solid waste and petitioners is clear enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts
liquid disposal and their duty to to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by
system necessarily comply with and act mandamus.
involves policy according to the
evaluation and the clear mandate of the The MMDAs duty in the area of solid waste disposal, is set forth not
 Petitioners Respondents Supreme Court
(Agencies) (Citizens)
exercise of judgment law does not require only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and the Ecological Solid
on the part of the the exercise of Waste Management Act (RA 9003), but in its charter as well. This
agency concerned. discretion. duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be
characterized as discretionary, for discretion presupposes the
power or right given by law to public functionaries to act officially
according to their judgment or conscience.

Concept: A discretionary duty is one that allows a person to exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to
perform. Any suggestion that the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform its solid waste disposal-related
duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal basis. The Petitioners’ enabling laws and issuances are in themselves
clear, categorical, and complete as to their obligations and mandate. The Court need not belabor the issue that their
tasks include the cleanup of the Manila Bay.

(Important) Also, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) is tasked to adopt such measures as are necessary to
prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay
waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators.
 When the vessels are not docked at ports but within Philippine territorial waters, it is the PCG and PNP
Maritime Group that have jurisdiction over said vessels
 As a member of the International Marine Organization and a signatory to the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended by MARPOL 73/78,28 the Philippines, through the
Philippine Ports Authority, must ensure the provision of adequate reception facilities at ports and terminals for
the reception of sewage from the ships docking in Philippine ports.

(2) W/N Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not
cover cleaning in general RULING - No

The disputed sections are quoted as follows:

 Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality -Where the quality of water has deteriorated to a degree where its
state will adversely affect its best usage, the government agencies concerned shall take such measures as
may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribed water quality standards.
 Section 20. Clean-up Operations .It shall be the responsibility of the polluter to contain, remove and clean-
up water pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the government agencies
concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean-up operations and expenses incurred in said
operations shall be charged against the persons and/or entities responsible for such pollution.
 Section 16 of the Clean Water Act amended Section 20 of the Environment Code in this wise: SEC. 16.
Cleanup Operations .

Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 15 and 26 hereof, any person who causes pollution in or pollutes water
bodies in excess of the applicable and prevailing standards shall be responsible to contain, remove and clean
up any pollution incident at his own expense to the extent that the same water bodies have been rendered
unfit for utilization and beneficial use:
 Provided, That in the event emergency cleanup operations are necessary and the polluter fails to
immediately undertake the same, the [DENR] in coordination with other government agencies concerned,
shall undertake containment, removal and cleanup operations.
 Expenses incurred in said operations shall be reimbursed by the persons found to have caused such
pollution under proper administrative determination x x x. Reimbursements of the cost incurred shall be
made to the Water Quality Management Fund or to such other funds where said disbursements were
sourced.

Petitioners (Agencies) Respondents (Residents) Supreme Court

Secs. 17 and 20 of the Petitioners’ parochial view
Environment Code on environmental issues,
concern themselves coupled with their narrow
only with the matter of reading of their respective
cleaning up in specific mandated roles, has
pollution incidents, as contributed to the worsening
opposed to cleanup in water quality of the Manila
general. Bay.
Assuming, respondents
assert, that petitioners are
correct in saying that the
The Court ruled that respondents are correct.
For one thing, said Sec. 17 does not in any way state that
the government agencies concerned ought to confine
themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning
operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On
the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the
absence of a specific pollution incident, as long as water
quality has deteriorated to a degree where its state will
adversely affect its best usage.
In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water
 Petitioners (Agencies) Respondents (Residents)
cleanup coverage of Sec. 20
of PD 1152 is constricted by
the definition of the phrase
cleanup operations
embodied in Sec. 62(g),
Sec. 17 is not hobbled by
such limiting definition. As
pointed out, the phrases
cleanup operations and
accidental spills do not
appear in said Sec. 17, not
even in the chapter where
said section is found.
Supreme Court
is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution
incident. For another, a perusal of Sec. 20 of the
Environment Code, as couched, indicates that it is
properly applicable to a specific situation in which the
pollution is caused by polluters who fail to clean up the
mess they left behind. The cleanup and/or restoration of
the Manila Bay is only an aspect and the initial stage of
the long-term solution. The preservation of the water
quality of the bay after the rehabilitation process is as
important as the cleaning phase.

CONCLUSION: Continuing Mandamus

It thus behooves the Court to put the heads of the petitioner-department-agencies and the bureaus and offices under
them on continuing notice about, and to enjoin them to perform, their mandates and duties towards cleaning up the
Manila Bay and preserving the quality of its water to the ideal level. Under what other judicial discipline describes as
continuing mandamus. the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of
ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference.

DISPOSITIVE
The petition is DENIED. The RTC decision is affirmed with modifications. In particular:
(1) The DENR is directed to fully implement its Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation, restoration, and
conservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest possible time. It is ordered to call regular coordination meetings with concerned government
departments and agencies to ensure the successful implementation of the aforesaid plan of action.
(2) The DILG shall direct all LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all factories, commercial
establishments, and private homes along the banks of the major river systems in their respective areas of jurisdiction to determine whether
they have wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed by existing laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations. If none
be found, these LGUs shall be ordered to require non-complying establishments and homes to set up said facilities or septic tanks within a
reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes, sewage water, and human wastes from flowing into these rivers, waterways, esteros, and the
Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of fines and other sanctions.
(3) The MWSS is directed to provide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary adequate waste water treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal,
and Cavite where needed at the earliest possible time.
(4) The LWUA, through the local water districts and in coordination with the DENR, is ordered to provide, install, operate, and maintain sewerage
and sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan,
Pampanga, and Bataan where needed at the earliest possible time.
(5) The DA, through the BFAR, is ordered to improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay. It is also directed to assist the LGUs in Metro
Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan in developing, using recognized methods, the fisheries and aquatic resources
in the Manila Bay.
(6) The PCG and the PNP Maritime Group, in coordination with each other, shall apprehend violators of PD 979, RA 8550, and other existing laws
and regulations designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.
(7) The PPA is ordered to immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-
generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators.
(8) The MMDA in coordination with the DPWH, DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating
Council (HUDCC), and other agencies, shall dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachments established or built
in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers,
the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH in coordination with the
DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, HUDCC, and other concerned government agencies, shall remove and demolish all structures,
constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando
(Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other rivers, connecting waterways, and esteros
that discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay. In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish, operate, and maintain a sanitary landfill within a
period of one (1) year from finality of this Decision. On matters within its territorial jurisdiction and in connection with the discharge of its duties
on the maintenance of sanitary landfills and like undertakings, it is also ordered to cause the apprehension and filing of the appropriate criminal
cases against violators of the respective penal provisions on existing laws on pollution.
(9) The DOH shall, within one (1) year from finality of this Decision, determine if all licensed septic and sludge companies have the proper facilities
for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks. The DOH shall give the companies, if found to be non-
complying, a reasonable time within which to set up the necessary facilities under pain of cancellation of its environmental sanitation clearance.
(10) The DepEd shall integrate lessons on pollution prevention, waste management, environmental protection, and like subjects in the school
curricula of all levels.
(11) The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequate budget in the General Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover the
expenses relating to the cleanup, restoration, and preservation of the water quality of the Manila Bay.
(12) The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG, and also of MWSS,
LWUA, and PPA, in line with the principle of continuing mandamus, shall, from finality of this Decision, each submit to the Court a quarterly
progressive report of the activities undertaken in accordance with this Decision