What is the writ of mandamus?

A writ issued in the name of the state, to an inferior court, tribunal, corporation, board,
officer, or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station. (rule 65, Section 3 ROC)

Grounds: When any TCBOP 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 the other is
entitled.

Purpose: to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty. It does not lie to
control the exercise of official discretion or judgment, or to alter or review the action takin
in the proper exercise of discretion or judgment, for the writ cannot be used as a writ of
error or other mode of direct review.

What is the Writ of Continuing Mandamus?

It is a relief given by a court of law through a series of ongoing orders over a long period of
time, directing an authority to do its duty or fulfill an obligation in general public interest,
as and when a need arises over the duration of a case lies with the court, with the court
choosing not to dispose the case off in finality.

How is this different from a writ of mandamus?

In a writ of mandamus, once the court rules in favor of the petitioner and grants the writ of
mandamus, the case is closed and the execution of the court’s judgment is left to the sheriff.
The respondent is not required to report its compliance with the court’s decision.

In a writ of continuing mandamus, if the court issues the writ of continuing mandamus, it
orders the respondent to comply with what is mandated in the decision and to make
periodic reports to the court regarding the progress of its compliance with the said
mandate. Technically, the case remains open until full compliance with the court’s mandate
by the respondent.

This happens in a situation which cannot be remedied instantaneously but requires a

solution over a long time, at times going on for years.

 Secretariat of the Sub-committee of Rules, Supreme Court, Manila, Republic of the Philippines
(2010). "Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-
SC)" (PDF). Philippine Judicial Academy, p.103, 140.

History
The writ of continuing mandamus, although it wasn’t termed as such yet, was first applied
in India, where its Consitution, particularly Articles 32 and 226, gave the courts the power
to create remedies for the enforcement of rights. In the exercise of this power, the Courts of
India allowed Public Interest Litigations, where requirements of locus standi were
dispensed with in the interest of the public and the underprivileged who could not avail of
their constitutional rights due to their standing.

One of the first cases where this continuing mandamus was applied was in the Public
Interest Litigation case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1987 SCR (1) 819, AIR 1987 965),

Facts:
This is a petition filed by MC Mehta, a social activist lawyer, seeking the closure of Shiram
Industries as it was engaged in the manufacturing hazardous substances in the densely
populated area of Kirti Nagar, Delhi.

CJ Bhagwati ruled that while the safety of the people of Delhi is of paramount concern, one
cannot adopt the policy to do away with chemical or hazardous industries as they also help
improve the quality of life, as in the present case where the Shiram Industries supplies
chlorine to the Delhi Water Supply, which is used to maintain the wholesomeness of
drinking water. Thus, it was ruled that industries, even hazardous ones, have to be set up
since they are essential for economic development and advancement of the well-being of
the people.

However, the Supreme Court of India ruled that an enterprise engaged in hazardous or
inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of
persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute an
non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account
of the hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken.
The court directed the Shiram Industries to continuously adopt the highest standards of
safety, and if any harm results on account of such activity, it will be absolutely liable for
such harm.

There were many more cases in India where this remedy requiring continuous compliance
by the respondent was made use of. However, it was only in the 1997 case of Vineet Narain
vs. Union of India ((1 SCC 226) that the term Continuing Mandamus was coined.

Facts:
Involves the Hawala Scandal of India, which uncovered possible bribery payments to
several high ranking politicians and bureaucrats from a source linked to terrorists.
Following the news coverage of the scandal, the public was dismayed by the failure of the
Central Bureau of Investigation to initiate investigations of the said officials with the
apparent intent to protect the implicated persons.
Ruling:

The Court agreed that the CBI had failed in its responsibility to investigate allegations of
public corruption.  It laid down guidelines to ensure independence and autonomy of the
CBI and ordered that the CBI be placed under the supervision of the Central Vigilance
Commission (CVC), an independent governmental agency intended to be free from
executive control or interference.  This directive removed the CBI from the supervision of
the Central Government thought to be partly responsible for the CBI’s previous lack of
urgency with respect to the investigation of high-ranking officials.  The CVC was now
responsible for ensuring that allegations of corruption against public officials were
thoroughly investigated regardless of the identity of the accused and without interference
from the Government.

It was ruled that it would be better for the ends of justice if, instead of a simple mandamus
ordering the CBI to investigate the persons involved, the CBI would have to continually
report to the CVC the progress of the investigation, which would then report to the court,
ensuring the continuance of the investigation.

Aside from India, a concept, similar to the continuing mandamus was likewise adopted in
South Africa, where the courts could issue Mandatory Interdicts, requiring government
officials to perform specific duties in furtherance to a right of a party. However, there was
no way for the South African courts to monitor compliance with such Interdicts, giving the
successful litigant in the case a hollow victory. Hence, the concept of a Structural Interdict
was brought about, requiring the violator to rectify the breach of fundamental rights under
court supervision, allowing litigants to follow up on declaratory or mandatory reliefs.

It was in the case of Minister of Health vs. Treatment Action Campaign (TAC 2002) 5SA 721
(CC) that this remedy, akin to a continuing mandamus was acknowledged.

Facts:
A new retroviral drug, Nevirapine, was introduced in South Africa, with the potential of
preventing HIV/AIDS infections of 30-40K children per year. The South African Govt
however, opted to introduce the drug only in certain pilot sites and would delay the
introduction thereof to the rest of the country for a year, thereby denying the drug to other
areas. The Treatment Action Campaign filed a constitutional challenge against the
government, demanding that the drug be made available throughout the country.

Ruling:
In this case, it was ruled in favor of the TAC and required that the drug be made available to
the public, specifically in hospitals, clinics, and state institutions. The High Court likewise
asserted its right to order effective relief, and maintain supervisory jurisdiction despite the
completion of the trial. It likewise affirmed that a litigant could obtain a court order
directing the government body in question to take steps to eliminate violations of its order
and also to report back to it.

Continuing Mandamus in the Philippines

In the Philippines, the Writ of Continuing Mandamus is enshrined in A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC,
otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.

It is a Writ issued in an environmental case directing an agency or instrumentality of the

government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment
which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied. (Section 4)

Privilege of Writ – Which is the right to have an immediate determination of the legality of
the acts complained of

It may be availed of to compel performance of an act specifically enjoined by law. It permits

the court to retain jurisdiction even after judgment in order to ensure the successful
implementation of the reliefs mandated under the court’s decision. The court may compel
the submission of compliance reports from the respondent government agencies as well as
avail of other means to monitor compliance with its decisions.

It is directed against an agency or instrumentality of the government or an officer thereof

who:

a. Unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of
an environmental law, rule, or regulation, or a right therein.

b. Unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right.

In both instances, there are no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary
course of law. (Rule 8, Sec. 1)

Who may file? One who is personally aggrieved by the unlawful act or omission (Rule 8 Sec
1)
Respondent? Only Government or its officers (rule 8 Sec 1)

Exempt from docket fees (rule 8 Section 3)

Court: RTC with jurisdiction over territory where the actionable neglect or omission
occurred, CA, SC (Rule 8 Sec 2)
Issuance of Writ

If petition is sufficient in form and substance, court shall

i. Issue writ
ii. Require respondent to comment within 10 days from receipt of the writ
iii. Issue orders to expedite proceedings and grant a temporary environmental protection
order for the preservation of rights of parties pending proceedings.
Rule 8 Sec 4 and 5

Nature of Proceedings – Summary. The petition shall be resolved without delay within 60
days from the date of the submission of the petition
If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ of continuing mandamus and
require respondent to:
a) perform an act or series of acts until judgment is fully satisfied
b) submit periodic reports detailing the progress and
execution of judgment.
c) submit final return of the writ upon full satisfaction of the judgment. (Rule 8, Secs. 6, 7
and 8)

Cases

The first local case where the writ of continuing mandamus was recognized and applied by
the Supreme Court was the 2008 case of METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES vs
CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and joined by DIVINA V. ILAS,
SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL SANTOS, JR., DINAH DELA PEA, PAUL DENNIS
QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA CALOZA, FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE
SEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA, SARAH JOELLE LINTAG, HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS,
FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, JAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December
18, 2008

Facts:
In 1999, the respondents Concerned Residents of Manila filed a complaint before the RTC
of Imus, Cavite against several government agencies, including the petitioners, for the
cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of Manila Bay. The respondents alleged that the
water quality of manila bay had fallen below the allowable standards set by law, caused by
continued neglect of the petitioners in abating the pollution of the manila bay. The
respondents then prayed that the petitioners be ordered to clean the manila bay and
submit to the RTC concerned a concrete plan of action for the purpose.
In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect of petitioners in
abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of, among others:

(1) Respondents’ constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced ecology;

(2) The Environment Code (PD 1152);

(3) The Pollution Control Law (PD 984);

(4) The Water Code (PD 1067);

(5) The Sanitation Code (PD 856);

(6) The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825);

(7) The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979);

(8) Executive Order No. 192;

(9) The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No. 6969);

(10) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations;

(11) The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship; and

(12) International Law

Both the RTC and the CA ruled in favor of the respondents, prompting the petitioners to
raise the case to the SC via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Issue:
Whether the petitioners could be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate
Manila bay.

Petitioners argued that the measures needed for the rehabilitation of manila bay involves
policy evaluation and exercise of judgment on the part of the agency concerned. Thus, it
cannot properly be the subject of a mandamus.

Respondents argued that the law is clear, that it was the petitioner’s duty to comply with
and act according to the clear mandate of the law. It does not require the exercise of
discretion. (MMDA has no discretion what bodies of water to clean up. It must clean up all)
(petitioners do not have discretion as to whether or not they will alleviate the problem of
solid and liquid waste. They have to do it without discretion).
Ruling.
By a unanimous decision, the en banc SC ruled in favor of respondents.
Obligation to perform duties under the law vs. how the obligations will be performed are
different concepts. While implementation of mandated tasks require decision making, the
enforcement of the law, or the very act of doing what the law requires is ministerial in
nature and may be compelled by mandamus.

Respondents are enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions

relating directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of
Manila Bay.

The court noted however, that the cleanup and/or restoration of the manila bay was only
an aspect and the initial stage for the long term solution, as the preservation of the water
quality of manila bay is as important as the cleaning thereof. Hence, the court enjoined the
petitioners to perform their duties in cleaning up manila bay and to preserve the quality of
its waters. In the words of the Supreme Court in this case:

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.

The relevant portion of the fallo of the case reads:

(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.

Clearly, this case involved implementation of various plans and activities within a long
period of time. To ensure that the Decision of the SC would be implemented over this
lengthy period, it directed the heads of the agencies concerned to submit, under a
continuing open-ended arrangement, a periodic progressive report to the SC itself of the
activities each agency had taken in the implementation and compliance of the decision.

What is also interesting to note here is that the SC required that the reports of the
petitioners be submitted to it, effectively making itself a monitoring and implementing
body, assuming the responsibility of seeing to it that its disposition is faithfully enforced.
 Moreover, unlike other final judgments which may be executed by motion within 5 years
from its date of entry, or by independent action after 5 years but within 10 years from its
finality, the ruling in the Manila Bay case, by virtue of the continuing mandamus, is not time
bound. As long as there is a need for action for the rehabilitation and preservation of
Manila Bay, the decision continues to be in effect.

It was through this case that the Writ of Continuing Mandamus was embodied in our Rules
of Procedure for Environmental Cases.

It must be stressed however, that the writ of continuing mandamus, being a creation of the
SC, is still subject to the usual rules of procedure, as explained by the supreme court in the
case of Segovia et al vs. The Climate Change Commission et al, GR No. 211010, 7 March
2017.

Facts
In 2007, Pres Arroyo created the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC),which
was reorganized through EO 774, designating the president of the PTFCC and the cabinet
secretaries as members thereof. EO774 likewise expressed the road sharing principle in
section 9(a) thereof, which basically states that the DOTC shall lead a task group to reform
the transportation sector under the principle “Those who have less in wheels must have
more in road.”

In 2009, AO 254 was issued mandating to formulate a national Environmentally

Sustainable Transport Strategy for the Philippines, likewise based on the Road Sharing
Principle. Later that same year, the Climate Change Act was passed, creating the Climate
Change Commission, which absorbed the PTFCC and its corresponding duties.

The petitioners then filed a petition for the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing
mandamus against the respondents, demanding, among other things, the reform of the
road and transportation system of the Philippines under the Road Sharing Principle. They
demand the bifurcation of roads in the country to devote half to sidewalk and bicycling, and
the other to filipino made transport.

Issue:
Whether the writ of continuing mandamus is proper

Ruling
No.
The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners, the Carless People of the Philippines, parents
representing their children, who in turn represent the Children of the Future, failed to
prove direct or personal injury arising from acts attributable to the respondents to be
entitled to the writ.
While the requirements of standing had been liberalized in environmental cases, the
general rule of real party in interest applies to a petition for continuing mandamus

Moreover, the road sharing principle is simply that – a principle. It cannot be considered an
absolute imposition to encroach upon the province of public respondents to determine the
manner by which this principle is applied or considered in their policy decisions. Nothing
in EO774, AO 254, or allied issuances require that specific course of action be taken, even
less does require the bifurcation of roads.

In this case, there is no showing of unlawful neglect on the part of the respondents to
perform any act that the law specifically enjoins as a duty - there being nothing in the
executive issuances relied upon by the petitioners that specifically enjoins the bifurcation
of roads to implement the Road Sharing Principle.

To the opposite, the respondents were able to show that they were and are actively
implementing projects and programs that seek to improve air quality.1âwphi1

Again, we must remember that a writ of continuing mandamus is merely a form of a

mandamus, which lies to compel the performance of duties that are purely ministerial in
nature, not those that are discretionary, and the respondent government agency or official
can only be directed by mandamus to act but not to act one way or the other. The duty
being enjoined in mandamus must be one according to the terms provided in the law itself.