GR No.

171947-48 December 18, 2008

MMDA, et al., petitioners
vs
Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay, respondents.

VELASCO, JR., J.:

Facts of the case

 In 1999, respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint against several
government agencies, among them the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection
of the Manila Bay, alleging that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen below the allowable
standards set by the law, specifically PD 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code.
 The continued neglect of the petitioners constituted a violation of the following laws;
(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

 The concerned citizens prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to
the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.

Ruling of the RTC

Petitioners were ordered to Clean Up and Rehabilitate Manila Bay, and each government
agencies involved were given specific orders

DA – to revitalize the marine life

DBM – to allocate the necessary budget for the clean-up
DECS - to inculcate in the minds and hearts of the people through education the importance of
preserving and protecting the environment.
DENR - the lead agency; to rid the manila bay of toxic and hazardous substances
DOH – for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge
DPWH – Remove and demolish the structures that obstructs the free flow of water
LWUA – Water under its wings operate sewage facilities for the proper disposal of waste.
MWSS – Installation of WTFFs
MMDA – install a sanitary landfill, and garbage disposal system
PPA – treat the discharge from vessels docking manila bay

Philippine Coast Guard and the PNP Maritime Group, to protect at all costs the Manila Bay from
all forms of illegal fishing.
In their appeal to the Court of Appeals, the petitioners contended that
1. PD 1152 relates only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning
in general.
2. There was no budget allocated for the clean up drive
3. The cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Petition was denied and the RTC’s decision was affirmed in toto.

Issues
1. WON Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the headings, Upgrading of Water Quality and
Clean-up Operations, envisage a cleanup in general or are they limited only to the cleanup of
specific pollution incidents?
2. WON petitioners be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay?

Ruling of the Supreme court

December 18, 2008 Resolution
The petition of the government agencies was DENIED, and held that the CA was correct
in affirming the RTC’s decision whereby it ordered the defendant-government agencies to clean up,
rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and maintain its waters to SB level (Class B sea
waters per Water Classification Tables under DENR Administrative Order No. 34 [1990]) to make them fit
for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation."

The Court further issued each of the aforementioned agencies specific orders to comply
with their statutory mandate.

Ratio Decidendi

 On issue #1
o PD 1152 did 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. The underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not
conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.

 On issue #2
o Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty. A
ministerial duty is one that "requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor
judgment." It connotes an act in which nothing is left to the discretion of the person
executing it. It is a "simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted or proved to
exist and imposed by law." Mandamus is available to compel action, when refused, on
matters involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion one
way or the other.

o 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 of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila
Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible.
Feb 15, 2011 (Resolution)

 Following the SC decision on December 18, 2008, the government agencies did not file any
motion for reconsideration and the Decision became final in January 2009.
 As the case was in its executory phase, The Manila Bay Advisory Committee was created to
receive and evaluate the quarterly progressive reports on the activities undertaken by the
agencies in accordance with said decision and to monitor the execution phase.
 In the absence of specific completion periods, the Committee recommended that time frames
be set for the agencies to perform their assigned tasks. This was viewed as an encroachment
over the powers and functions of the Executive Branch headed by the President of the
Philippines.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The SC negated such claim saying that The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the Court is
simply an exercise of judicial power under Art VIII of the Constitution, because the execution of the
Decision is but an integral part of the adjudicative function of the Court.

1. The SC cited that there was none from the concerned government agencies questioned the
implementation of the December 18 decision, nor has anyone raised any issue on
encroachment by the Court over executive functions.

2. The requirements mandated from the government agencies pertaining to the submission of
plans and progress reports are part of the execution stage of a final decision under Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court, stipulating that any activity that is needed to fully implement a final
judgment is necessarily encompassed by said judgment.

Section 47. Effect of judgments or final orders.––The effect of a judgment or final order rendered
by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be
as follows:

3. The submission of periodic reports is sanctioned by Secs. 7 and 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental cases.

4. With the final and executory judgment in MMDA, the writ of continuing mandamus issued
in MMDA means that until petitioner-agencies have shown full compliance with the Court’s
orders, the Court exercises continuing jurisdiction over them until full execution of the
judgment.

Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing

any 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.

The SC then proceeded to adopt and enumerate the recommendations of the Manila Bay Advisory
Committee for each of the government agencies to execute, thereby issuing each of the aforementioned
agencies specific orders to comply with their statutory mandate.
Dissenting Opinion by SERENO, J.:
 Quoted Justice Anand of the Supreme Court of India : “The Court has the duty of implementing
constitutional safeguards that protect individual rights but they cannot push back the limits of the
Constitution to accommodate the challenged violation”
 Justice Sereno believed that there was encroachment upon prerogatives solely to be exercised
by the President and by Congress, where it also went The Court further by requiring reports and
updates from the said government agencies, and setting deadlines for the submission thereof.
Encroaching upon the exclusive authority of the Executive Department and violated the doctrine
of Separation of Powers.

 Justice Sereno found the directives to be in contrast and irreconcilable basic constitutional
doctrines and with the legislative mechanisms already in place, such as the Administrative Code
and the Local Government Code, which explicitly grant control and supervision over these
agencies to the President alone, and to no one else.
 Justice Sereno cited that both the 1987 Constitution and Executive Order No. 292, or the
Administrative Code of the Philippines, state:

o Exercise of Executive Power. - The Executive power shall be vested in the President
o Power of Control.- The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
o In Anak Mindanao Party-list Group v. Executive Secretary, the court asserted that the
enforcements of laws was granted solely to the Executive, granting the power to carry the
laws to its application.
o The implementation of the policy as laid out in the Clean Water Act was under the sole
jurisdiction of the President
o Sec. 18. General Supervision Over Local Governments. - The President shall exercise
general supervision over local governments.
o Mandamus does not lie to compel a discretionary act.
o In setting a deadline for the accomplishment of these directives, not only has the
Court provided the means of accomplishing the task required, it has actually gone
beyond the standards set by the law. There is nothing in the Environment Code, the
Administrative Code, or the Constitution which grants this authority to the judiciary. It
is already settled that, "If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him
the right to decide when and how the duty shall be performed, such duty is not
ministerial."