MMDA VS.
Concerned Residents of functionaries to act officially
Manila Bay
Doctrines:
1. The writ of mandamus lies to
require the execution of a
ministerial duty. It is available to
compel action, when refused, on
matters involving discretion, but
not to direct the exercise of
judgement or discretion one way
or the other.
2. 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 conditions admitted or
proved to exist imposed by law.
3. The MMDA duty to put up an
adequate and appropriate
sanitary landfill and solid waste
and liquid disposal as well as
other alternative garbage
disposal system is ministerial, its
duty being a statutory
imposition.
4. The duty of putting up a proper
waste disposal system cannot be
characterized as discretionary,
for, as earlier stated, discretion
presupposes the power or right
given by law to public
according to their judgement or
conscience. – The MMDA’s duty
in the area of solid waste
disposal, as may be noted, is set
forth not only in the Environment
Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003 but
in its character as well.
5. 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.
6. Section 17 of PD 1152 does not
in any way state the government
agencies concerned ought to
confine themselves to the
containment, removal, and
cleaning operations when
specific pollution incident occurs.
On the contrary, they are
required 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.
7. Section 16 of RA 9275, previously
Section 20 of PD 1152 covers for
all intents and purposes a
general clean up situation.
8. 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
the Manila Bay clean and clear as
humanly as possible.
FACTS
At the core of the case, is the Manila Bay
a place with proud historic past, and a
spot for different recreation activities.
Respondent concerned citizens of
Manila Bay filed a complaint before the
RTC in Imus Cavite against several
government agencies, among them the
petitioners, for the cleanup,
rehabilitation and protection of the
Manila Bay. The complaint alleged that
the water quality of the manila bay had
fallen way below the allowable
standards set by law.
In their individual cause of action,
respondent alleged that the continued
neglect of the petitioners in abating the
pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a
violation of the following:
1. Respondent constitutional right
to life, health and balanced
ecology
2. The environment code
3. The pollution control law
4. The water code
5. The sanitation code
6. The illegal disposal of wastes
decrees
7. The marine pollution law
8. Executive order No. 192
9. The toxic and hazardous wastes
law
10. Civil code provisions on nuisance
and human relations
11. The trust doctrine and the
principle of guardianship and
12. International law
Respondent prayed that petitioners be
ordered to clean the Manila Bay and
submit to the RTC a concerted concrete
plan of action for the purpose.
The trial of case started off with a
hearing at the Manila Yacht club
followed by an ocular inspection of the
Manila Bay.
Renato Cruz, the chief of the water
quality management Section,
environment and natural resources,
(DENR), testifying for the petitioner,
stated that the water samples collected
from the different beaches around
Manila Bay showed the amount of fecal
coliform is at a safe level for bathing and
other forms of contact recreational
activities.
Rebecca De Vera, for Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System
(MWSS) and in behalf of other
petitioner, testified about the MWSS
efforts to reduce pollution along the
manila bay through the manila second
sewerage project.
The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), on
their part, presented as part of
evidence, its activities being conducted
especially the project known as Linis
Dagat.
THE RTC ORDERED PETITIONERS TO
CLEAN UP AND REHABILITATE MANILA
BAY – The MWSS, local water utilities
administration (LWUA) and PPA filed
before the Court of Appeals individual
notices of appeal which were eventually
consolidated.
On the other hand, the DENR, DPWH,
PCG, PNP and 5 other executive
departments and agencies filed directly
with this court (SC) a petition for review
under Rule 45. However, the SC send
that petition to the CA for consolidation
with the consolidated appeals of MWSS,
LWUA, and PPA.
Now, Petitioners, before the CA, were
one in arguing in the main issue that the
pertinent provision of the Environment
Code relate only to the cleaning of
specific pollution incidents and do not
cover cleaning in general. And also
asserted that cleaning Manila Bay is not
a ministerial act which can be compelled
by mandamus.
THE CA SUSTAINED THE DECISION OF
THE RTC – the CA ruled that the trial
court’s decision did not require
petitioners to do tasks outside of their
usual basic functions under existing law.
ISSUE: W/N Section 20 of PD 1152
requires concerned government
agencies to remove all pollutants
spilled and discharged in the water
such as fecal coliforms
HELD: the MMDA’s duty to put up an
adequate and appropriate sanitary
landfill and solid waste and liquid
disposal as well as other alternative
garbage disposal system is ministerial,
its duty being a statutory imposition.
The MMDA’s duty is spelled out in Sec 3
(c) of RA 7924 creating the MMDA which
provides
“ Solid waste disposal and management
includes the establishment and
operation of sanitary land fill and
related facilities and the implementation
of other alternative programs intended
to reduce, reuse and recycle solid
waste”
This duty of putting up a proper waste
disposal system cannot be characterized
as discretionary.