MMDA v Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (Environmental Law)

Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v Concerned Residents of Manila Bay  

GR No. 171947-48 

December 18, 2008  

FACTS:

The  complaint by the residents  alleged  that  the  water  quality  of  the  Manila  Bay  had  fallen  way below  the  allowable  standards   set  by  law,  specifically  Presidential   Decree  No.  (PD)  1152  or the  Philippine  Environment  Code and that ALL defendants (public officials) must be jointly and/or solidarily liable and collectively ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to class B, waters fit for swimming, diving, and other forms of contact recreation.  

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 compel led by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay. 

APPLICABLE LAWS:

PD 1152 Philippine Environmental Code Section   17.  Upgrading  of   Water  Quality.–– Where  the  quality   of   water  has  deteriorated  t o  a degree  where it s  state will   adversely  affect   its  best  u sage,  the government   agencies concerned  shall take  such   measures  as  may   be  necessary   to  upgrade  the  quality   of   such   water  to  meet   the prescribed water quality  standards. Section  20. Clean-up Operations.––It   shall  be  the responsibility   of  the  polluter to  contain , remove and  clean - up  water  pollution   incidents  at   his  own   expense.  In case  of   his  failure  to  do  so,  the government  agencies  concerned shall   undertake  containment, removal and clean-up  operations and expenses incurred in  said operation shall  be  charged against  the persons and/ or entities responsible for  such  pollution.      

HELD:

(1) Sec.  17  does   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.  On the  contrary, Sec.  17  requires   them  to  act  even  in  the  absence  of  a  specific  pollution  incident,  as   long  as water quality “has  deteriorated to a degree where its  state will  adversely affect its  best usage.”  Section 17 & 20 are of general application and are not for specific pollution incidents only. The fact  that the pollution of  the Manila Bay  is   of  such magnitude  and  scope  that  it  is   well -nigh impossible  to  draw  the line  between  a  specific  and  a  general   pollution  incident. 

(2) The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be Compelled by Mandamus.  While the implementation of  the MMDA's   mandated  tasks   may  entail a decision-making  process, the enforcement  of  the law or the very  act  of  doing  what  the  law exacts   to  be  done  is   ministerial   in  nature and  may be  compelled  by  mandamus.  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. 

NOTE:  This continuing mandamus is no longer applicable, since this is institutionalized in the rules of procedure for environmental cases. 

20 days – Temporary restraining order