MMDA vs Residents of Manila Bay

74 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 MMDA’s 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 MMDA’s duty under the Environmental Code is merely a discretionary
duty hence it cannot be compelled by mandamus. Further, MMDA argued that the RTC’s 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, MMDA’s
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 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.

Anent the issue on whether or not MMDA’s task under the Environmental Code involves a general clean
up, the Supreme Court ruled that MMDA’s 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.

MARICRIS D. DOLOT v. RAMON PAJE, GR No. 199199, 2013-08-27

Facts:

On September 15, 2011, petitioner Maricris D. Dolot (Dolot), together with the parish priest of the Holy
Infant Jesus Parish and the officers of Alyansa Laban sa Mina sa Matnog (petitioners), filed a petition for
continuing mandamus, damages and attorney's fees with the

RTC of Sorsogon, docketed as Civil Case No. 2011-8338.

The petition contained the following pertinent allegations... iron ore mining operations being conducted
by Antones Enterprises, Global Summit Mines Development
Corporation and TR Ore in Barangays Balocawe and Bon-ot Daco, located in the Municipality of Matnog,
to no avail;

Matnog... need to protect, preserve and maintain the geological foundation of the municipality...
susceptible to flooding and landslides... confronted with the environmental dangers of flood hazard,
liquefaction, ground settlement, ground subsidence and landslide hazard... fter investigation... did not
have the required... permit to operate... issued to the operators a small-scale mining permit, which they
did not have authority to issue... representatives

DENR... did not do anything... violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7076

R.A. No. 7942

The case was referred by the Executive Judge to the RTC of Sorsogon, Branch 53 being the designated
environmental court.[8] In the Order[9] dated September 16, 2011, the case was summarily dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.

petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration... the RTC[11] further ruled that: (1) there was... no final
court decree, order or decision yet that the public officials allegedly failed to act on, which is a condition
for the issuance of the writ of continuing mandamus; (2) the case was prematurely filed as the
petitioners therein failed to exhaust their... administrative remedies; and (3) they also failed to attach
judicial affidavits and furnish a copy of the complaint to the government or appropriate agency, as
required by the rules.

Petitioner Dolot went straight to this Court on pure questions of law.

Issues:

whether the RTC-Branch 53 has jurisdiction to resolve Civil Case No. 2011-8338.

The other issue is whether the petition is dismissible on the grounds that: (1) there is no final court
decree, order or decision that the public officials allegedly... failed to act on; (2) the case was
prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (3) the petitioners failed to attach
judicial affidavits and furnish a copy of the complaint to the government or appropriate agency.

Ruling:

The RTC cannot solely rely on SC A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 and confine itself within its
four corners in determining whether it had jurisdiction over the action filed by the petitioners.

By virtue of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, jurisdiction over
special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is vested in... the RTC.

The concept of continuing mandamus was first introduced in Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay.

he petition filed should be sufficient in form and substance before a court may take further action;
otherwise, the court may dismiss the petition outright
The writ of continuing mandamus is a special civil action that may be availed of "to compel the
performance of an act specifically enjoined by law."[33] The petition should mainly involve an
environmental and other related law, rule or regulation... or a right therein.

The Court also finds that the RTC erred in ruling that the petition is infirm for failure to attach judicial
affidavits.

the petition should be verified, contain supporting evidence and must be accompanied by a sworn
certification of... non-forum shopping. There is nothing in Rule 8 that compels the inclusion of judicial
affidavits, albeit not prohibited

Principles:

"courts are not... enslaved by technicalities, and they have the prerogative to relax compliance with
procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need
to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties' right to an opportunity to be... heard."

Oposa vs Factoran

Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility

GR No. 101083; July 30 1993

FACTS:

A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al., representing their generation and
generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of
DENR. They prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his agents, representatives and
other persons acting in his behalf to:

1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the country;

2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or appraising new TLAs;

and granting the plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.” They alleged that
they have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to
protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the act of the
defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests constitutes a
misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resources property he holds in trust for the benefit
of the plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:

1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;

2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the
legislative or executive branches of the government.

ISSUE:

Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to “prevent the misappropriation or
impairment of Philippine rainforests?”
HELD:

Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations to come. The
Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for the
succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature” which indispensably
include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the
country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to
the end that their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as
well as the future generations.

Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony
for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minor’s assertion
of their right to a sound environment constitutes at the same time, the performance of their obligation
to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.

Paje v. Casino et al.

Posted on October 27, 2016

(Remedial law: Appeal; Environmental Law: Writ of Kalikasan)

G.R. No. 207257 February 3, 2015

HON. RAMON JESUS PAJE, in his capacity as DENR Secretary v. Hon. Teodoro Casino, et al.

Facts

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate
for a proposed coal-fired power plant at Subic, Zambales to be implemented by RP Energy.

Hon. Teodoro Casino and a number of legislators filed a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan against RP energy,
SBMA, and Hon. Ramon Paje as the DENR secretary on the ground that actual environmental damage
will occur if the power plant project is implemented and that the respondents failed to comply with
certain laws and rules governing or relating to the issuance of an ECC and amendments thereto.

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for the Writ of Kalikasan and invalidated the ECC. Both the
DENR and Casino filed an appeal, the former imputing error in invalidating the ECC and its amendments,
arguing that the determination of the validity of the ECC as well as its amendments is beyond the scope
of a Petition for a Writ of kalikasan; while the latter claim that it is entitled to a Writ of Kalikasan.

Issues

Whether the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan; and

Whether the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan

Ruling
Yes, the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan because the
Rules on the Writ of kalikasan (Rule 7, Section 16 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases)allow the parties to raise, on appeal, questions of fact— and, thus, constitutes an exception to
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court— because of the extraordinary nature of the circumstances surrounding
the issuance of a writ of kalikasan.

Yes, the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan because such writ is principally
predicated on an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology, which involves environmental damage of a magnitude that transcends political and territorial
boundaries.

A party, therefore, who invokes the writ based on alleged defects or irregularities in the issuance of an
ECC must not only allege and prove such defects or irregularities, but must also provide a causal link or,
at least, a reasonable connection between the defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC and the
actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of the
magnitude contemplated under the Rules. Otherwise, the petition should be dismissed outright and the
action re-filed before the proper forum with due regard to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.

In the case at bar, no such causal link or reasonable connection was shown or even attempted relative
to the aforesaid second set of allegations. It is a mere listing of the perceived defects or irregularities in
the issuance of the ECC.