MMDA v.

Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay

Philippines. Presidential Decree No. 1152 - Philippine Environment Code. This Act makes
provision for the protection of the environment of a broad sense. Its provisions are divided into Titles,
the major part of them dealing with specific aspects of environment protection

The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA; Filipino: Pangasiwaan sa

Pagpapaunlad ng Kalakhang Maynila) is a government agency of the Philippines responsible for
constituting the regional government of Metro Manila, comprising the capital city of Manila, the cities
of Quezon City, Caloocan, Pasay, Mandaluyong, ...

Facts:

Respondent Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional
Trial Court against several government agencies including the Petitioner MMDA for the
cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. Allegedly, the water quality
of the bay had fallen away from the allowable standards set by law under PD 1152 or
the Philippine Environmental Code. Further, the Respondents alleged that the neglect
of the Petitioner in addressing the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of,
among others, the Water Code. The RTC rendered an order to clean up and rehabilitate
Manila Bay.

On appeal, the Petitioners argued that the pertinent provisions of PD 1152 relate only to
the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. And
apart from raising concerns about the lack of funds appropriated for cleaning
purposes, Petitioners also asserted that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not
ministerial act, which can be compelled by mandamus. Nevertheless, the Court of
Appeals sustained the RTC decision.

Hence, this Petition.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not MMDA can be compelled through mandamus to cleanup and
rehabilitate Manila Bay.

2. Whether or not PD 1152 include the cleanup and rehabilitation of Manila Bay.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste
disposal is set forth not only in PD 1152, but in its charter as well. This duty of putting
up a proper waste disposal system cannot be characterized as discretionary because
discretion presupposes the power or right given by law to public functionaries to act
officially according to their judgment or conscience. A discretionary duty is one that
“allows a person to exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to perform.” The
MMDA charter would yield to the conclusion that these government agencies are
enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions relating
directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the
Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these duties.

2. The Court also ruled in the affirmative. PD 1152 does not 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. Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision, they cannot
escape their obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the
Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

Petition is DENIED.