MMDA, et al vs.

Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

GR Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

Facts:

• In 1999, Respondents filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite against several
government agencies. The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way
below the allowable standards set by law specifically as provided in PD1152 or Philippine Environment
Code.
• The complaint alleged that due to reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts or omission or
commission of the defendants, this resulted in the clear and present danger to public health and in
the depletion and contamination of marine life of Manila Bay.
• Respondents prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a
concerted plan of action for the purpose.
• The RTC ruled that defendant government agencies are jointly and solidarily liable to clean up and
rehabilitation of Manila Bay.
• DENR together with other defendant government agencies were directed within 6 months to act and
perform their respective duties. DENR, DPWH, MMDA, PCP, PNP Maritime Group filed a petition for
review under Rule 45.
• Petitioners argue that pertinent provisions of the Environmental Code relate only to cleaning of
specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. And that cleaning of Manila Bay is
not a ministerial act which can be compelled by Mandamus.
• The Court of Appeals sustained the RTC ruling, stressing that the trial court’s decision did not require
petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions under existing law.

Issue:

1. Whether Petitioners can be compelled by Mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay?
2. Whether Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents
and do not cover cleaning in general?

Held:

1. Yes, because while the implementation of the MMDA’s mandated tasks may entail decision
making process, the enforcement or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is
ministerial in nature and maybe compelled by Mandamus. MMDA’s duty to put up adequate
sanitary landfill for solid waste and liquid disposal is ministerial, its duty being a statutory
imposition. MMDA is duty bound to comply with Section 41 of Ecological Solid Waste
Management which prescribes the minimum criteria for the established of sanitary landfills. This
is also provided for in the MMDA charter.

The Court ruled that other petitioner’s respective charters or like enabling statutes and pertinent
laws would yield the conclusion that these government agencies are enjoined as a matter of
statutory obligation to perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the clean-up,
rehabilitation, protection and preservation of the Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing
not to perform these duties.
 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 judgement. 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
the conditions admitted or proved to exist and imposed by law.

2. No, Section 17 does not in any way state that the concerned government agencies ought to
confine themselves to the containment, removal and cleaning operations when a specific
pollution incident occurs, on the contrary it requires them to act even in the absence of a specific
pollution incident as long as the water quality has deteriorated to a degree where it its state will
adversely affect its best usage. The pollution of Manila Bay is of such magnitude and scope that it
is well nigh impossible to draw the line between a specific and general pollution incident.

The Court emphasized the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments to
immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and obligations. Government
agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk from their mandates – they must perform their basic
functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila Bay. The Court is disturbed by the
petitioners hiding behind two untenable claims:

- That there ought to be specific pollution incident before they are required to act
- That the clean-up of the bay is a discretionary duty

The RA 9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act is a sweeping legislation enacted to
radically transform and improve waste management. It implements Sec 16, Art II of the 1987
Constitution which explicitly provides that the State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced ad healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

As the Court ruled in Oposa vs Factoran, Jr the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not
even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed like other civil, and political rights guaranteed
in the Bill of Rights to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental
importance with intergenerational implications.

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 Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as
possible. Anything less would be a betrayal of trust reposed in them.

Anna Farina Pacete