HISTORY AND

JURISPRUDENCE OF
THE WRIT OF CONTINUING
MANDAMUS
By: Daniel Rafael Cabrera
 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.

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.
 Grounds for issuance
When any inferior court, tribunal, corporation, board,
officer, or person 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.
 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.
 History of the
Writ of Continuing Mandamus
■ 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),

M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India

AIR 1987 SC 1086
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. In the petition, MC Mehta sought the closure and
relocation of the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant following the Oleum
Gas leak that caused the death of an advocate and affected the health of several others.
 M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India
AIR 1987 SC 1086

Ruling:
The safety of the people of Delhi is of paramount concern.
However, the court could not adopt a policy to do away with
chemical or hazardous industries as they work to improve the
quality of life of India. 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.
, 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.
 M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India
AIR 1987 SC 1086

Ruling:
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.
 M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India
AIR 1987 SC 1086

Ruling:
The court directed the Shriram 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.
 Vineet Narain vs. Union of India
1 SCC 226
Facts:
This case involved the Hawala Scandal of India, wherein it was
uncovered that there had been possible bribery payments
made 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 India’s Central Bureau of Investigation to initiate
investigations of the said officials with the apparent intent to
protect the implicated persons. Hence, a Public Interest
Litigation was commenced in order to compel the CBI to
investigate the alleged bribery payments.
 Vineet Narain vs. Union of India
1 SCC 226

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. 
 Vineet Narain vs. Union of India
1 SCC 226

Ruling:
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.
 Minister of Health vs. Treatment Action Campaign
TAC 2002 5SA 721 (CC)
Facts:
A new retroviral drug, Nevirapine, was introduced in South
Africa, with the potential of preventing HIV/AIDS infections of
30,000-40,000 children per year. The South African
Government 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 access to
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.
 Minister of Health vs. Treatment Action Campaign
TAC 2002 5SA 721 (CC)

Ruling:
In this case, the court 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.
■ 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
 The Writ of Continuing Mandamus
in the Philippines
MMDA, et al, vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, et al.
G.R. No. 171947-48, 18 December 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
MMDA, et al, vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, et al.
G.R. No. 171947-48, 18 December 2008
Facts:
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.
MMDA, et al, vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, et al.
G.R. No. 171947-48, 18 December 2008
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).
MMDA, et al, vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, et al.
G.R. No. 171947-48, 18 December 2008
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents.
The obligation to perform duties under the law versus 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.
 MMDA, et al, vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, et al.
G.R. No. 171947-48, 18 December 2008
Ruling:
The respondents were 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.
 
 MMDA, et al, vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, et al.
G.R. No. 171947-48, 18 December 2008
Ruling:
The Supreme 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:
 
MMDA, et al, vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, et al.
G.R. No. 171947-48, 18 December 2008
Ruling:
x x x 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.
 MMDA, et al, vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, et al.
G.R. No. 171947-48, 18 December 2008
Ruling:
xxx
(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.
 The Writ of Continuing Mandamus in the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

Definition:
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. (Rule 1, Section 4 [c])

■ 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, Section 1)

Who can be respondents?

Only the government or its officers (Rule 8, Section 1)

Are docket fees assessed?

No. (Rule 8, Section 3)
Which court has jurisdiction to hear and decide Petitions
for the Writ of Continuing Mandamus?

a. The Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the

territory where the actionable neglect or omission
occurred;
b. The Court of Appeals; or
c. The Supreme Court. (Rule 8, Section 2)
Procedure:
If petition is sufficient in form and substance, the Court shall:
i. Issue the 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, Sections 4 and 5)

Procedure:
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.; and
c. Submit final return of the writ upon full satisfaction of the
judgment.
(Rule 8, Sections 6, 7 and 8)
Nature of Proceedings:
Summary in nature. The Petition shall be resolved without
delay within sixty (60) days from the date of the submission
of the Petition

(Rule 8, Section 6)
 Segovia, et al vs. The Climate Change Commission
G.R. 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 what
the petitioners termed “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.”
 Segovia, et al vs. The Climate Change Commission
G.R. No. 211010, 7 March 2017
Facts:
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.
 Segovia, et al vs. The Climate Change Commission
G.R. No. 211010, 7 March 2017
Facts:
After making several demands to the respondents to comply
with the Road Sharing Principle, to no avail, 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 demanded the bifurcation of roads in the country to
devote half to sidewalk and bicycling, and the other to
Filipino- made transport.
 Segovia, et al vs. The Climate Change Commission
G.R. No. 211010, 7 March 2017
Issue:
Whether the issuance of the Writ of Continuing Mandamus is
proper.
 Segovia, et al vs. The Climate Change Commission
G.R. No. 211010, 7 March 2017
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.
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
 Segovia, et al vs. The Climate Change Commission
G.R. No. 211010, 7 March 2017
Ruling:
Moreover, the Supreme Court explained that 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, neither do they require the
bifurcation of roads as desired by the petitioners.
■  
■ 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.
■  
■  
■  
-end-