Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

574 SCRA 661 Political Law Ministerial vs Discretionary Functions Mandamus

Constitutional Law Right to a Healthful Ecology
In 1999, the Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (CROMB) filed an action for mandamus to compel the
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and other government agencies to clean up the
Manila Bay. CROMB argued that the environmental state of the Manila Bay is already dangerous to their
health and the inaction of MMDA and the other concerned government agencies violates their rights to life,
health, and a balanced ecology guaranteed by the Constitution. CROMB also averred under the
Environmental Code, it is MMDAs duty to clean up the Manila Bay.
The trial court agreed with CROMB and ordered MMDA et al to clean up the Manila Bay. MMDA assailed
the decision on the ground that MMDAs duty under the Environmental Code is merely a discretionary
duty hence it cannot be compelled by mandamus. Further, MMDA argued that the RTCs order was for a
general clean up of the Manila Bay yet under the Environmental Code, MMDA was only tasked to attend
to specific incidents of pollution and not to undertake a massive clean up such as that ordered by the court.
ISSUE: Whether or not MMDA may be compelled by mandamus to clean up Manila Bay.
HELD: Yes. It is true that in order for MMDA to implement laws like the Environmental Code, the process
of implementing usually involves the exercise of discretion i.e., where to set up landfills. But this does not
mean that their function or mandate under the law is already discretionary. Looking closer, MMDAs
function to alleviate the problem on solid and liquid waste disposal problems is a ministerial function. In
short, MMDA does not have the discretion to whether or not alleviate the garbage disposal problem in
Metro Manila, particularly in the Manila Bay area. While the implementation of the MMDAs 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.
Anent the issue on whether or not MMDAs task under the Environmental Code involves a general clean
up, the Supreme Court ruled that MMDAs mandate under the Environmental Code is to perform cleaning
in general and not just to attend to specific incidents of pollution. Hence, MMDA, together with the other
government agencies, must act to clean up the Manila Bay as ordered by the RTC.

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