HW - 1 Envi Law

792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr.
G.R. No. 101083.July 30, 1993.
*
JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO,all

surnamed OPOSA, minors, and represented by their parents
ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA NICOLE
SADIUA, minor, represented by her parents CALVIN and
ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO, AMANDA SALUD and
PATRISHA, all surnamed FLORES, minors and represented
by their parents ENRICO and NIDA FLORES, GIANINA
DITA R. FORTUN, minor, represented by her parents
SIGFRID and DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA.
CONCEPCION, all surnamed MISA, minors and represented
by their parents GEORGE and MYRA MISA, BENJAMIN
ALAN V. PESIGAN, minor, represented by his parents
ANTONIO and ALICE PESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE ALFARO,
minor, represented by her parents JOSE and MARIA
VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T. CASTRO,
minor, represented by her parents FREDENIL and JANE
CASTRO, JOHANNA DESAMPARADO, minor, represented by
her parents JOSE and ANGELA DESAMPARADO, CARLO
JOAQUIN T. NARVASA, minor, represented by his parents
GREGORIO II and CRISTINE CHARITY NARVASA, MA.
MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA and MARIE
GABRIELLE, all surnamed SAENZ, minors, represented by
their parents ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ, KRISTINE,
MARY ELLEN, MAY, GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all
surnamed KING, minors, represented by their parents MARIO
and HAYDEE KING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and THERESE
VICTORIA, all surnamed ENDRIGA, minors, represented by
their parents BALTAZAR and TERESITA ENDRIGA, JOSE
MA. and REGINA MA., all surnamed ABAYA, minors,
represented by their parents ANTONIO and MARICA ABAYA,
MABILIN, MARIO, JR. and MARIETTE, all surnamed
CARDAMA, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and
LINA CARDAMA, CLARISSA, ANN MARIE, NAGEL and
IMEE LYN, all surnamed OPOSA, minors and represented by
their parents RICARDO and MARISSA OPOSA, PHILIP
JOSEPH, STEPHEN JOHN and ISAIAH JAMES, all
surnamed QUIPIT,
_______________
*EN BANC.
793
VOL. 224, JULY 30, 1993
793
minors, represented by their parents JOSE MAX and VILMI
QUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO, CRISANTO, ANNA, DANIEL and
FRANCISCO, all surnamed BIBAL, minors, represented by
their parents FRANCISCO, JR. and MILAGROS BIBAL, and
THE PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK, INC.,
petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S.
FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and THE
HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of
the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents.
Remedial Law; Actions; Class Suit; The subject matter of the
complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to
all citizens of the Philippines; All the requisites for the filing of a valid
class suit under Section 12 Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are
present.Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit.
The original defendant and the present respondents did not take
issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said
civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the complaint is
of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens
of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it
becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them
before the court. We likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are
numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of
all concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a
valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court
are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the
latter being but an incident to the former.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Petitioners personality to sue in behalf
of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is concerned.This case, however, has a special and
novel element. Petitioners minors assert that they represent their
generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in
ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and
for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to
sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the
concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as
hereinafter expounded, considers the rhythm and harmony of
nature.
794
794
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The minors 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 generation to come.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 minors 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.
Constitutional Law; The complaint focuses on one specific
fundamental legal right; The right to a balanced and healthful
ecology.The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal
rightthe right to a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the
first time in our nations constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law.
Same;Same;The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries
with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
Same; Same; The right of the petitioners to a balanced and
healthful ecology is as clear as the DENRs duty to protect and
advance the said right.Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all
those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear
as the DENRs dutyunder its mandate and by virtue of its powers
and functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of
1987to protect and advance the said right.
Same; Political Question; The political question doctrine is no
longer the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or
the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions
from judicial inquiry or review.The foregoing considered, Civil Case
No. 90-777 cannot be said to raise a political question. Policy
formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches
of Government is not squarely put in issue. What is principally
involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already
formulated and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be
emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer the
insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the
impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions
from judicial inquiry or review.
795
VOL. 224, JULY 30, 1993
795
Same;Contracts;Non-impairment Clause;A timber license is not
a contract, property or a property right protected by the due process
clause of the Constitution.Needless to say, all licenses may thus be
revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not a contract, property
or a property right protected by the due process clause of the
Constitution.
Same;Same;Same;Same;The granting of license does not create
irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights.A license
is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be
unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state,
or municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted;
neither is it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested
right; nor is it taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this Court held that the
granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it
property or property rights.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Timber licenses are not contracts, the
non-impairment clause cannot be invoked.Since timber licenses are
not contracts, the non-impairment clause, cannot be invoked.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The non-impairment clause
must yield to the police power of the state.In short, the non-
impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.
FELICIANO,J., Concurring Opinion:
Constitutional Law; The protection of the environment including

the forest cover of our territory is of extreme importance for the
country.I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the
protection of the environment, including the forest cover of our
territory, is of extreme importance for the country.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari of the dismissal order
of the RTC of Makati, Br. 66.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Oposa Law Officefor petitioners.
The Solicitor Generalfor respondents.
DAVIDE, JR.,J.:
In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of

Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the
petition-
796
796
ers dramatically associate with the twin concepts of inter-
generational responsibility and inter-generational justice.
Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the said
petitioners have a cause of action to prevent the
misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests and
arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the countrys vital life-
support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth.
The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No.
90-777which was filed before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro
Manila) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital
Judicial Region. The principal plaintiffs therein, now the
principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and
joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as an additional
plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a
domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for
the purpose of, inter alia,engaging in concerted action geared
for the protection of our environment and natural resources.
The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S.
Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution
in this petition by the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C.
Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the
petitioners. The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers class
1 2
suit and alleges that the plaintiffs are all citizens of the
3
Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full

benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure
that is the countrys virgin tropical rainforests. The same was
filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned
about the preservation of said resource but are so numerous
that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court. The
minors further asseverate that they represent their
generation as well as generation yet unborn. Consequently, it
4
is prayed for that judgment be rendered:

x x x ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other
persons acting in his behalf to
_______________
1Rollo, 164; 186.
2Id.,62-65, exclusive of annexes.
3Under Section 12, Rule 3, Revised Rules of Court.
4Rollo, 67.
797
VOL. 224, JULY 30, 1993
797
1. (1)
Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the
country;
2. (2)
Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber license agreements.
and granting the plaintiffs x x x such other reliefs just and
equitable under the premises. 5
The complaint starts off with the general averments that

the Philippine archipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area of
thirty million (30,000.00) hectares and is endowed with rich,
lush and verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and unique
species of flora and fauna may be found; these rainforests
contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which is
irreplaceable; they are also the habitat of indigenous
Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and
flourished since time immemorial; scientific evidence reveals
that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology, the
countrys land area should be utilized on the basis of a ratio of
fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest cover and forty-six per cent
(46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and
other uses; the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a
consequence of deforestation have resulted in a host of
environmental tragedies, such as (a) water shortages resulting
from the drying up of the water table, otherwise known as the
aquifer, as well as of rivers, brooks and streams, (b)
salinization of the water table as a result of the intrusion
therein of salt water, incontrovertible examples of which may
be found in the island of Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor,
Cavite, (c) massive erosion and the consequential loss of soil
fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of soil
eroded estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters
per annumapproximately the size of the entire island of
Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and extinction of the
countrys unique, rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the
disturbance and dislocation of cultural communities, including
the disappearance of the Filipinos indigenous cultures, (f) the
siltation of rivers and seabeds and consequential destruction of
corals and other aquatic life leading to a critical reduction in
marine resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells of drought as
is presently experienced by the entire
_______________
5Id.,74.
798
798
country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result
from the absence of windbreakers, (i) the flooding of lowlands
and agricultural plains arising from the absence of the
absorbent mechanism of forests, (j) the siltation and
shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso dams
constructed and operated for the purpose of supplying water
for domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric
power, and (k) the reduction of the earths capacity to process
carbon dioxide gases which had led to perplexing and
catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon of
global warming, otherwise known as the greenhouse effect.
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental
consequences of continued and deforestation are so capable of
unquestionable demonstration that the same may be
submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding,
they expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as
well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the
course of the trial.
As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:
CAUSE OF ACTION
1. 7.
Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.
2. 8.
Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen
(16) million hectares of rainforests constituting roughly 53% of
the countrys land mass.
3. 9.
Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no
more than 1.2 million hectares of said rainforests or four per
cent (4.0%) of the countrys land area.
4. 10.
More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of
virgin old-growth rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the entire
land mass of the Philippine archipelago and about 3.0 million
hectares of immature and uneconomical secondary growth
forests.
5. 11.
Public records reveal that defendants predecessors have
granted timber license agreements (TLAs) to various
corporations to cut the aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares
for commercial logging purposes.
A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas covered is
hereto attached as Annex A.
1. 12.
At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares
per annum or 25 hectares per hournighttime, Saturdays,
Sundays and holidays includedthe Philippines will be bereft of
forest resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if not
earlier.
799
VOL. 224, JULY 30, 1993
799
1. 13.
The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and
irreparable damage of this continued trend of deforestration to
the plaintiff minors generation and to generations yet unborn
are evident and incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, the
environmental damages enumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are
already being felt, experienced and suffered by the generation of
plaintiff adults.
2. 14.
The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and
deforest the remaining forest stands will work great damage and
irreparable injury to plaintiffsespecially plaintiff minors and
their successorswho may never see, use, benefit from and
enjoy this rare and unique natural resource treasure.
This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or
impairment of the natural resource property he holds in trust for the
benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
1. 15.
Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in
its capacity as theparens patriae.
2. 16.
Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies with the
defendants office. On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs served upon
defendant a final demand to cancel all logging permits in the
country.
A copy of the plaintiffs letter dated March 1, 1990 is hereto
attached as Annex B.
1. 17.
Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing
TLAs, to the continuing serious damage and extreme prejudice
of plaintiffs.
2. 18.
The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the
TLAs is an act violative to the rights of plaintiffs, especially
plaintiff minors who may be left with a country that is
desertified (sic), bare, barren and devoid of the wonderful flora,
fauna and indigenous cultures which the Philippines has been
abundantly blessed with.
3. 19.
Defendants refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLAs is
manifestly contrary to the public policy enunciated in the
Philippine Environmental Policy which, in pertinent part, states
that it is the policy of the State
1. (a)
to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which
man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony
with each other;
2. (b)
to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present
and future generations of Filipinos and;
3. (c)
to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is
conducive to a life of dignity and well being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June
1977)
20. Furthermore, defendants continued refusal to cancel the
aforementioned TLAs is contradictory to the Constitutional policy of
800
800
the State to
1. a.
effect a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and
wealth and make full and efficient use of natural resources
(sic). (Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution);
2. b.
protect the nations marine wealth. (Section 2,ibid);
3. c.
conserve and promote the nations cultural heritage and
resources (sic). (Section 14, Article XIV,id.);
4. d.
protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature. (Section 16, Article II.id.)
1. 21.
Finally, defendants act is contrary to the highest law of
humankindthe natural lawand violative of plaintiffs right
to self-preservation and perpetuation.
2. 22.
There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law
other than the instant action to arrest the unabated hemorrhage
of the countrys vital life-support systems and continued rape of
Mother Earth. 6
On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran,

Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2)
grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action
against him and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a
political question which properly pertains to the legislative or
executive branches of Government. In their 12 July 1990
Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners maintain that (1) the
complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, (2)
the motion is dilatory and (3) the action presents a justiciable
question as it involves the defendants abuse of discretion.
On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order
granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss. In the said7
order, not only was the defendants claimthat the complaint

states no cause of action against him and that it raises a
political questionsustained, the respondent Judge further
ruled that the granting of the reliefs prayed for would result in
the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the
fundamental law of the land.
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action
forcertiorariunder Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and
ask this
_______________
6Rollo,
70-73.
7Annex B of Petition;Id., 43-44.
801
VOL. 224, JULY 30, 1993
801
Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the
ground that the respondent Judge gravely abused his
discretion in dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the
plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children, but have
also joined the latter in this case.
8
On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the

petition and required the parties to submit their respective
Memoranda after the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
filed a Comment in behalf of the respondents and the
petitioners filed a reply thereto.
Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and
unmistakably states a cause of action as it contains sufficient
allegations concerning their right to a sound environment
based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human
Relations), Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192
creating the DENR, Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy), Section 16, Article II
of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to
a balanced and healthful ecology, the concept of generational
genocide in Criminal Law and the concept of mans inalienable
right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation embodied in
natural law. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondents
correlative obligation, per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to
safeguard the peoples right to a healthful environment.
It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent
Secretarys alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting
Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for
logging than what is available involves a judicial question.
Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the
Constitutions non-impairment clause, petitioners maintain
that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs are not
contracts. They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be
considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled that
they may still be revoked by the State when public interest so
requires.
On the other hand, the respondents aver that the
petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal
right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief
is provided by law. They see nothing in the complaint but
vague and nebulous
_______________
8Paragraph 7, Petition, 6; Rollo, 20.

802
802
allegations concerning an environmental right which
supposedly entitles the petitioners to the protection by the
state in its capacity as parens patriae. Such allegations,
according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. They
then reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging
should be permitted in the country is a political question which
should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative
branches of Government. They therefore assert that the
petitioners recourse is not to file an action to court, but to
lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban
logging totally.
As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs,
respondents submit that the same cannot be done by the State
without due process of law. Once issued, a TLA remains
effective for a certain period of timeusually for twenty-five
(25) years. During its effectivity, the same can neither be
revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been found, after
due notice and hearing, to have violated the terms of the
agreement or other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners
proposition to have all the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled
without the requisite hearing would be violative of the
requirements of due process.
Before going any further, We must first focus on some
procedural matters. Petitioners instituted Civil Case No.
90-777as a class suit. The original defendant and the present
respondents did not take issue with this matter. Nevertheless,
We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit.
The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general
interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the
Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous,
it becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all
of them before the court. We likewise declare that the plaintiffs
therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the
full protection of all concerned interests. Hence, all the
requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12,
Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the
said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but
an incident to the former.
This case, however, has a special and novel element.
Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation
as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in
ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their
generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit.
Their personality to sue
803
VOL. 224, JULY 30, 1993
803
in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on
the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a
right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the rhythm and
harmony of nature. Nature means the created world in its
entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably
9
include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,

management, renewal and conservation of the countrys forest,
mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and
other natural resources to the end that their exploration,
development and utilization be equitably accessible to the
present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every
10
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 minors 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.
The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been
addressed, We shall now proceed to the merits of the petition.
After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a
meticulous consideration and evaluation of the issues raised
and arguments adduced by the parties, We do not hesitate to
find for the petitioners and rule against the respondent
Judges challenged order for having been issued with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The
pertinent portions of the said order read as follows:
xxx
After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the
Court cannot help but agree with the defendant. For although we
believe that plaintiffs have but the noblest of all intentions, it (sic)
feel short of alleging, with sufficient definiteness, a specific legal right
they are seeking to enforce and protect, or a specific legal wrong they
are seeking to prevent and redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2, RRC).
Furthermore, the Court notes that the Complaint is replete with
vague assumptions and
_______________
9Websters Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 1986, 1508.

10 TitleXIV (Environment and Natural Resources), Book IV of the Administrative
Code of 1987, E.O. No. 292.
804
804
vague conclusions based on unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to
state a cause of action in its Complaint against the herein defendant.
Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter before it,
being impressed with political color and involving a matter of public
policy, may not be taken cognizance of by this Court without doing
violence to the sacred principle of Separation of Powers of the three
(3) co-equal branches of the Government.
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter
how we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the
plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the
country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing
renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to do
otherwise would amount to impairment of contracts abhored (sic) by
the fundamental law. 11
We do not agree with the trial courts conclusion that the

plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific
legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and
that the complaint is replete with vague assumptions and
conclusions based on unverified data. A reading of the
complaint itself belies these conclusions.
The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal
rightthe right to a balanced and healthful ecology which, for
the first time in our nations constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of
the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:
SEC. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people
to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature.
This right unites with the right to health which is provided for
in the preceding section of the same article:
SEC. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness among them.
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be
found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies
and
_______________
11Annex B of Petition; Rollo, 43-44.

805
VOL. 224, JULY 30, 1993
805
not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less
important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated
in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of
rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-
preservation and self-perpetuationaptly and fittingly
stressed by the petitionersthe advancement of which may
even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a
matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in
the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the
inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned
in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded
fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and
healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies
by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their
continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn
obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the
second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost
not only for the present generation, but also for those to come
generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched
earth incapable of sustaining life.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it
the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment. During the debates on this right in one of the
plenary sessions of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the
following exchange transpired between Commissioner Wilfrido
Villacorta and Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna who sponsored the
section in question:
MR. VILLACORTA:
Does this section mandate the State to provide sanctions against all forms of
pollutionair, water and noise pollution?
MR. AZCUNA:
Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic) environment necessarily

carries with it the correlative duty of not impairing the same and, therefore,
sanctions may be prov ided for impairment of environmental balance.12
The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious
management and conservation of the countrys forests.
_______________
12Record of the Constitutional Commission, vol. 4, 913.

806
806
Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance
would be irreversibly disrupted.
Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and
healthful ecology and the right to health, as well as the other
related provisions of the Constitution concerning the
conservation, development and utilization of the countrys
natural resources, then President Corazon C. Aquino
13
promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, Section 4 of which

14
expressly mandates that the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources shall be the primary government agency
responsible for the conservation, management, development
and proper use of the countrys environment and natural
resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral
resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas,
and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and
regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by
law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived
therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations
of Filipinos. Section 3 thereof makes the following statement
of policy:
SEC. 3.Declaration of Policy.It is hereby declared the policy of the
State to ensure the sustainable use, development, management,
renewal, and conservation of the countrys forest, mineral, land,
offshore areas and other natural resources, including the protection
and enhancement of the quality of the environment, and equitable
access of the different segments of the population to the development
and use of the countrys natural resources, not only for the present
generation but for future generations as well. It is also the policy of
the state to recognize and apply a true value system including social
and environmental cost implications relative to their utilization,
development and conservation of our natural resources.
This policy declaration is substantially re-stated in Title XIV,
Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, specifically in
15
Section 1 thereof which reads:

_______________
13For instance, the Preamble and Article XII on the National Economy and
Patrimony.
14The Reorganization Act of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
15E.O. No. 292.
807
VOL. 224, JULY 30, 1993
807
SEC. 1. Declaration of Policy.(1) The State shall ensure, for the
benefit of the Filipino people, the full exploration and development as
well as the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal
and conservation of the countrys forest, mineral, land, waters,
fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources,
consistent with the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological
balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment
and the objective of making the exploration, development and
utilization of such natural resources equitably accessible to the
different segments of the present as well as future generations.
(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value
system that takes into account social and environmental cost
implications relative to the utilization, development and conservation
of our natural resources.
The above provision stresses the necessity of maintaining a
sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the
quality of the environment. Section 2 of the same Title, on the
other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR;
however, it makes particular reference to the fact of the
agencys being subject to law and higher authority. Said
section provides:
SEC. 2.Mandate.(1) The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of
the foregoing policy.
(2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of
carrying out the States constitutional mandate to control and
supervise the exploration, development, utilization, and conservation
of the countrys natural resources.
Both E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have
set the objectives which will serve as the bases for policy
formulation, and have defined the powers and functions of the
DENR.
It may, however, be recalled that even before the
ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific statutes already
paid special attention to the environmental right of the
present and future generations. On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151
(Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152
(Philippine Environment Code) were issued. The former
declared a continuing policy of the State (a) to create, develop,
maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature
can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each
other, (b) to fulfill the social,
808
808
economic and other requirements of present and future
generations of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the attainment of an
environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and
well-being. As its goal, it speaks of the responsibilities of
16
each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment

for succeeding generations. The latter statute, on the other
17
hand, gave flesh to the said policy.

Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they
represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as
the DENRs dutyunder its mandate and by virtue of its
powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and the
Administrative Code of 1987to protect and advance the said
right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the
correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same
gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the
granting of the TLAs, which they claim was done with grave
abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires
that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.
A cause of action is defined as:
x x x an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or
rights of the other; and its essential elements are legal right of the
plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or omission
of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
18
It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss

based on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of
action, the question submitted to the court for resolution
19
involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint

itself. No other matter should be considered; furthermore, the
truth of
_______________
16Section
1.
17Section 2.
18 Ma-ao Sugar Central Co. vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 666 [1947]; Community
Investment and Finance Corp. vs. Garcia, 88 Phil. 215 [1951]; Remitere vs.
Vda. de Yulo, 16 SCRA 251 [1966]; Caseas vs. Rosales, 19 SCRA
462[1967]; Virata vs. Sandiganbayan, 202 SCRA 680 [1991]; Madrona vs.
Rosal,204 SCRA 1[1991].
19Section 1(q), Rule 16, Revised Rules of Court.
809
VOL. 224, JULY 30, 1993
809
falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth
thereof is deemed hypothetically admitted. The only issue to be
resolved in such a case is: admitting such alleged facts to be
true, may the court render a valid judgment in accordance
with the prayer in the complaint? InMilitante vs. Edrosolano,
20
this Court laid down the rule that the judiciary should
21
exercise the utmost care and circumspection in passing upon

a motion to dismiss on the ground of the absence thereof [cause
of action] lest, by its failure to manifest a correct appreciation
of the facts alleged and deemed hypothetically admitted, what
the law grants or recognizes is effectively nullified. If that
happens, there is a blot on the legal order. The law itself
stands in disrepute.
After a careful examination of the petitioners complaint,
We find the statements under the introductory affirmative
allegations, as well as the specific averments under the sub-
heading CAUSE OF ACTION, to be adequate enough to
show,prima facie,the claimed violation of their rights. On the
basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly or partly, the
reliefs prayed for. It bears stressing, however, that insofar as
the cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is the need to
implead, as party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are
indispensable parties.
The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 cannot be
said to raise a political question. Policy formulation or
determination by the executive or legislative branches of
Government is not squarely put in issue. What is principally
involved is the enforcement of a rightvis-a-vispolicies already
formulated and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless,
be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer
the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or
the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative
actions from judicial inquiry or review. The second paragraph
of section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave
_______________
20 Adamos vs. J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. 25 SCRA 529 [1968]; Virata vs.
Sandiganbayan,supra;Madrona vs. Rosal,supra.
2139 SCRA 473, 479 [1971].
810
810
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Commenting on this provision in his book,Philippine Political
Law, Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a distinguished member of
22
this Court, says:

The first part of the authority represents the traditional concept of
judicial power, involving the settlement of conflicting rights as
conferred as law. The second part of the authority represents a
broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice to review
what was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the
political departments of the government.
As worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and
particularly the Supreme Court, the power to rule upon even the
wisdom of the decisions of the executive and the legislature and to
declare their acts invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because
tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The catch, of course, is the
meaning of grave abuse of discretion, which is a very elastic phrase
that can expand or contract according to the disposition of the
judiciary.
InDaza vs. Singson, Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this
23
Court, noted:
In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even
less tenable and decisive. The reason is that, even if we were to
assume that the issue presented before us was political in nature, we
would still not be precluded from resolving it under the expanded
jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases, even
the political question. Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution
clearly provides: x x x.
The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the
complaint is the non-impairment of contracts clause found in
the Constitution. The courta quodeclared that:
_______________
221991 ed., 226-227.

23180 SCRA, 496, 501-502 [1989]. See also,Coseteng vs. Mitra,187 SCRA
377 [1990]; Gonzales vs. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452 [1990]; Llamas vs.
Orbos,202 SCRA 844[1991];Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee,203
SCRA 767[1991].
811
VOL. 224, JULY 30, 1993
811
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how
we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the
plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the
country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to do
otherwise would amount to impairment of contracts abhored (sic) by
the fundamental law. 24
We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed,

if not shocked, by such a sweeping pronouncement. In the first
place, the respondent Secretary did not, for obvious reasons,
even invoke in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment
clause. If he had done so, he would have acted with utmost
infidelity to the Government by providing undue and
unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber license
holders because he would have forever bound the Government
to strictly respect the said licenses according to their terms
and conditions regardless of changes in policy and the
demands of public interest and welfare. He was aware that as
correctly pointed out by the petitioners, into every timber
license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code
(P.D. No. 705) which provides:
x x x Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the
President may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract,
concession, permit, licenses or any other form of privilege granted
herein x x x.
Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded
by executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property
right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution.
InTan vs. Director of Forestry, this Court held:
25
x x x A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates

the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that
public welfare is promoted. A timber license is not a contract within
the purview of the due process clause; it is only a license or privilege,
which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest
or public welfare as in this case.
_______________
24Rollo,
44.
25125 SCRA 302, 325 [1983].
812
812
A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would
be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal,
state, or municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted;
neither is it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested
right; nor is it taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this Court held that the
granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it
property or property rights (People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576). x x x
We reiterated this pronouncement inFelipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co.,
Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary: 26
x x x Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the

principal instruments by which the State regulates the utilization
and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is
promoted. And it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a
privilege granted by the State to qualified entities, and do not vest in
the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular
concession area and the forest products therein. They may be validly
amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive
when national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed
contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause
[See Sections 3(ee) and 20 of Pres. Decree No. 705, as
amended.Also,Tan v. Director of Forestry,G.R. No. L-24548, October
27, 1983,125 SCRA 302].
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment
clause, which reads:
SEC. 10. No law impairing, the obligation of contracts shall be
passed.27
cannot be invoked.
In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the
same are contracts, the instant case does not involve a law or
even an executive issuance declaring the cancellation or
modification of existing timber licenses. Hence, the non-
impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked. Nevertheless,
granting further that a law has actually been passed
mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still
be stigmatized as a violation of the
_______________
26190 SCRA 673, 684 [1990].

27Article III, 1987 Constitution.
813
VOL. 224, JULY 30, 1993
813
non-impairment clause. This is because by its very nature and
purpose, such a law could have only been passed in the
exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of
advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology, promoting their health and enhancing the general
welfare. InAbe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp., this Court stated:
28
The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not

meant to be absolute. The same is understood to be subject to
reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public
health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the constitutional
guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by
the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public
health, safety, moral and general welfare.
The reason for this is emphatically set forth inNebia vs. New
York, quoted in Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs.
29
Auditor General, to wit:

30
Under our form of government the use of property and the making
of contracts are normally matters of private and not of public concern.
The general rule is that both shall be free of governmental
interference. But neither property rights nor contract rights are
absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his
property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of
contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental with the private
right is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest.
In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police
power of the state. 31
Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how
the non-impairment clause could apply with respect to the
prayer to
_______________
28110 Phil. 198, 203 [1960]; footnotes omitted.

29291 U.S. 502, 523, 78 L. ed. 940, 947-949.
3022 SCRA 135, 146-147 [1968].
31 Ongsiako vs. Gamboa, 86 Phil. 50 [1950]; Abe vs. Foster Wheeler
C o r p . , s u p r a . ; P h i l . A m e r i c a n L i f e I n s u r a n c e C o . v s . A u d i t o r
General, supra.; Alalayan vs. NPC, 24 SCRA 172 [1968]; Victoriano vs.
Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 1[974]; Kabiling vs. National
Housing Authority,156 SCRA 623[1987].
814
814
enjoin the respondent Secretary from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new timber licenses for,
save in cases of renewal, no contract would have as of yet
existed in the other instances. Moreover, with respect to
renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right.
WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant
Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of
respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No.
90-777 is hereby set aside. The petitioners may therefore
amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or
grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
C r u z , P a d i l l a , B i d i n , G r i o -
Aquino,Regalado,Romero,Nocon,Bellosillo,MeloandQuiaso
n, JJ., concur.
Narvasa(C.J.),No part; related to one of the parties.
Feliciano, J.,Please see separate opinion concurring in
the result.
Puno, J.,No part in the deliberations.
Vitug, J.,No part; I was not yet with the Court when
the case was deliberated upon.
FELICIANO,J.:Concurringin the result
I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the

Court, Davide, Jr.,J.,in this case which, to my mind, is one of
the most important cases decided by this Court in the last few
years. The seminal principles laid down in this decision are
likely to influence profoundly the direction and course of the
protection and management of the environment, which of
course embraces the utilization ofallthe natural resources in
the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought to
clarify, basically to myself, what the Court appears to be
saying.
The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus
standi necessary to sustain the bringing and maintenance of
this suit (Decision, pp. 11-12).Locus standiis not a function of
petitioners claim that their suit is properly regarded as aclass
suit. I understand locus standito refer to the legal interest
which
815
VOL. 224, JULY 30, 1993
815
a plaintiff must have in the subject matter of the suit. Because
of the very broadness of the concept of class here involved
membership in this class appears to embraceeveryoneliving
in the country whether now or in the futureit appears to me
that everyone who may be expected to benefit from the course
of action petitioners seek to require public respondents to take,
is vested with the necessary locus standi. The Court may be
seen therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries right of
actionin the field of environmental protection, as against both
the public administrative agency directly concerned and the
private persons or entities operating in the field or sector of
activity involved. Whether such a beneficiaries right of action
may be found under any and all circumstances, or whether
some failure to act, in the first instance, on the part of the
governmental agency concerned must be shown (prior
exhaustion of administrative remedies), is not discussed in
the decision and presumably is left for future determination in
an appropriate ca se.
The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged
and focused upon one specific fundamental legal rightthe
right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Decision, p. 14).
There is no question that the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is fundamental and that, accordingly, it
has been constitutionalized. But although it is fundamental
in character, I suggest, with very great respect, that it cannot
be characterized as specific, without doing excessive violence
to language. It is in fact very difficult to fashion language more
comprehensive in scope and generalized in character than a
right to a balanced and healthful ecology. The list of
particular claims which can be subsumed under this rubric
appears to be entirely open-ended: prevention and control of
emission of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor
vehicles; of discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage and
raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by vessels,
oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communities; of dumping of
organic and inorganic wastes on open land, streets and
thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate land after stripmining or
open-pit mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn farming;
destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea
resources through the use of dynamite or cyanide and other
chemicals; contamination of ground water resources; loss of
certain species of fauna and flora; and so on. The other
statements pointed out
816
816
by the Court: Section 3, Executive Order No. 192 dated 10
June 1987; Section 1, Title XIV, Book IV of the 1987
Administrative Code; and P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977
all appear to be formulations ofpolicy,as general and abstract
as the constitutional statements of basic policy in Article II,
Sections 16 (the rightto a balanced and healthful ecology)
and 15 (the right to health).
P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled The
Philippine Environment Code, is, upon the other hand, a
compendious collection of more specific environment
management policies and environment quality
standards (fourth Whereas clause, Preamble) relating to an
extremely wide range of topics:
1. (a)
air quality management;
2. (b)
water quality management:
3. (c)
land use management;
4. (d)
natural resources management and conservation
embracing:
1. (i)
fisheries and aquatic resources;
2. (ii)
wild life;
3. (iii)
forestry and soil conservation;
4. (iv)
flood control and natural calamities;
5. (v)
energy development;
6. (vi)
conservation and utilization of surface and ground water
7. (vii)
mineral resources
Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly,
neither petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular
provision or provisions (if any) of the Philippine Environment
Code which give rise to a specific legal right which petitioners
are seeking to enforce. Secondly, the Philippine Environment
Code identifies with notable care the particular government
agency charged with the formulation and implementation of
guidelines and programs dealing with each of the headings and
sub-headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment
Code does not, in other words, appear to contemplate action on
the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of
implementation of that Code.
As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners cause of action
as anchored on a legal right comprised in the constitutional
state-
817
VOL. 224, JULY 30, 1993
817
ments above noted, the Court is in effect saying that Section 15
(and Section 16) of Article II of the Constitution are self-
executing and judicially enforceable even in their present form.
The implications of this doctrine will have to be explored in
future cases; those implications are too large and far-reaching
in nature even to be hinted at here.
My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the
trial court, show a more specific legal righta right cast in
language of a significantly lower order of generality than
Article II (15) of the Constitutionthat is or may be violated
by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public
respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can validly
render judgment granting all or part of the relief prayed for.
To my mind, the Court should be understood as simply saying
that such a more specific legal right or rightsmaywell exist in
our corpus of law, considering the general policy principles
found in the Constitution and the existence of the Philippine
Environment Code, and that the trial court should have given
petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead
of aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss.
It seems to me important that the legal right which is an
essential component of a cause of action be a specific, operable
legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutorypolicy,for
at least two (2) reasons. One is that unless the legal right
claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given
specification in operational terms, defendants may well be
unable to defend themselves intelligently and effectively; in
other words, there are due process dimensions to this matter.
The second is a broader-gauge considerationwhere a
specific violation of law or applicable regulation is not alleged
or proved, petitioners can be expected to fall back on the
expanded conception of judicial power in the second paragraph
of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution which reads:
Section 1. x x x
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.(Emphases supplied)
818
818
When substantive standards as general as the right to a
balanced and healthy ecology and the right to health are
combined with remedial standards as broad ranging as a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, the result will be, it is respectfully submitted, to
propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic
policy making. At least in respect of the vast area of
environmental protection and management, our courts have no
claim to special technical competence and experience and
professional qualification. Where no specific, operable norms
and standards are shown to exist, then the policy making
departmentsthe legislative and executive departments
must be given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and
promulgate those norms and standards, and to implement
them before the courts should intervene.
My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the
timber companies, whose concession agreements or TLAs
petitioners demand public respondents should cancel, must be
impleaded in the proceedings below. It might be asked that, if
petitioners entitlement to the relief demanded
isnotdependent upon proof of breach by the timber companies
of one or more of the specific terms and conditions of their
concession agreements (and this, petitioners implicitly
assume), what will those companies litigate about? The answer
I suggest is that they may seek to dispute the existence of the
specific legal right petitioners should allege, as well as the
reality of the claimed factual nexus between petitioners
specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures
to act of public respondent administrative agency. They may
also controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or remedies
demanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances which
exist.
I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the
protection of the environment, including the forest cover of our
territory, is of extreme importance for the country. The
doctrines set out in the Courts decision issued today should,
however, be subjected to closer examination.
Petition granted. Challenged order set aside.
o0o
819
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr.andBrion, JJ.,concur.
Judgment and resolution affirmed.
Note.Equitable mortgage is a contract thatalthough

lacking the formality, the form or words or other requisites
demanded by a statutenevertheless reveals the intention of
the parties to burden a piece of real property as security for a
debt. (Cirelos vs. Hernandez, 490 SCRA 625 [2006])
o0o

G.R. Nos. 171947-48.December 18, 2008.*
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE
A N D S P O R T S , 1 D E P A R T M E N T O F H E A L T H ,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF
BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE COAST
GUARD, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME
GROUP, and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, petitioners, vs. CONCERNED
RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and joined by
DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL
SANTOS, JR., DINAH DELA PEA, PAUL DENNIS
QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA CALOZA,
FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE SEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA,
SARAH JOELLE LINTAG, HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS,
FELIMON SAN-TIAGUEL, and JAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA,
respondents.
Remedial Law; Mandamus; Generally, the writ of mandamus lies
to require the execution of a ministerial duty; Mandamus is available
to compel action, when refused, on matters involving discretion, but
not to direct the
_______________
*EN BANC.
1Now the Department of Education (DepEd).
662
662

exercise of judgment or discretion one way or the other.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 judgment. 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 and imposed by
law. Mandamus is available to compel action, when refused, on
matters involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise of
judgment or discretion one way or the other.
Same; Same; Environmental Law; The Metropolitan Manila
Development Authoritys (MMDAs) 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.We wish to state that petitioners
obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand, and
how they are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two different
concepts. 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. We said so in Social
Justice Society v. Atienza, 517 SCRA 657 (2007), in which the Court
directed the City of Manila to enforce, as a matter of ministerial duty,
its Ordinance No. 8027 directing the three big local oil players to
cease and desist from operating their business in the so-called
Pandacan Terminals within six months from the effectivity of the
ordinance. But to illustrate with respect to the instant case, the
MMDAs duty to put up an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill
and solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative
garbage disposal systems is ministerial, its duty being a statutory
imposition. The MMDAs duty in this regard is spelled out in Sec. 3(c)
of Republic Act No. (RA) 7924 creating the MMDA.
Same; Same; Same; 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 functionaries to act officially according to their judgment or
conscience.The MMDAs 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 charter as well. This 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 functionaries to act officially according
to their judgment or conscience. A discretionary duty is one that
allows a person to exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to
perform. Any suggestion that
663
,
663

the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform its solid
waste disposal-related duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal
basis.
Same; Same; Same; 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.A perusal of other petitioners
respective charters or like enabling statutes and pertinent laws would
yield this conclusion: 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. They are precluded from choosing not
to perform these duties.
Same; Same; Same; Section 17 of PD 1152 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.Respondents are correct. For one
thing, said 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. This section, to stress, commands concerned government
agencies, when appropriate, to take such measures as may be
necessary to meet the prescribed water quality standards. In fine,
the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional
on the occurrence of any pollution incident.
Same; Same; Same; The complementary Sec. 17 of the
Environment Code comes into play and the specific duties of the
agencies to clean up come in even if there are no pollution incidents
staring at them.A perusal of Sec. 20 of the Environment Code, as
couched, indicates that it is properly applicable to a specific situation
in which the pollution is caused by polluters who fail to clean up the
mess they left behind. In such instance, the concerned government
agencies shall undertake the cleanup work for the polluters account.
Petitioners assertion, that they have to perform cleanup operations in
the Manila Bayonlywhen there is a water pollution incident and the
erring polluters do not undertake the containment, removal, and
cleanup operations, is quite off mark. As earlier discussed, the
complementary Sec. 17 of the Environment Code comes into play and
the specific duties of the agencies to clean up come in even if there are
no pollution incidents staring at them. Petitioners, thus, cannot
plausibly invoke and hide behind Sec. 20 of
664
664

PD 1152 or Sec. 16 of RA 9275 on the pretext that their cleanup
mandate depends on the happening of a specific pollution incident.
Same; Same; Same; Sec. 16 of RA 9275, previously Sec. 20 of PD
1152, covers for all intents and purposes a general cleanup situation.
Not to be ignored of course is the reality that the government
agencies concerned are so undermanned that it would be almost
impossible to apprehend the numerous polluters of the Manila Bay. It
may perhaps not be amiss to say that the apprehension, if any, of the
Manila Bay polluters has been few and far between. Hence,
practically nobody has been required to contain, remove, or clean up a
given water pollution incident. In this kind of setting, it behooves the
Government to step in and undertake cleanup operations. Thus, Sec.
16 of RA 9275, previously Sec. 20 of PD 1152, covers for all intents
and purposes a general cleanup situation.
Same; Same; Same; Different government agencies and
instrumentalities cannot shirk from their mandates, they must
perform their basic functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the
Manila Bay.The era of delays, procrastination, andad hocmeasures
is over. Petitioners must transcend their limitations, real or
imaginary, and buckle down to work before the problem at hand
becomes unmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that different
government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk from their
mandates; they must perform their basic functions in cleaning up and
rehabilitating the Manila Bay. We are disturbed by petitioners hiding
behind two untenable claims: (1) that there ought to be a specific
pollution incident before they are required to act; and (2) that the
cleanup of the bay is a discretionary duty.
Environmental Law; 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.So it was that
inOposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993), the Court stated that
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 the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible.
Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them.
665
,
665

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor Generalfor petitioners.
Antonio A. Oposa, Jr. and Fortun, Narvasa and
Salazarfor respondents.
VELASCO, JR.,J.:
The need to address environmental pollution, as a cause of
climate change, has of late gained the attention of the
international community. Media have finally trained their
sights on the ill effects of pollution, the destruction of forests
and other critical habitats, oil spills, and the unabated
improper disposal of garbage. And rightly so, for the
magnitude of environmental destruction is now on a scale few
ever foresaw and the wound no longer simply heals by itself.
2 But amidst hard evidence and clear signs of a climate crisis
that need bold action, the voice of cynicism, naysayers, and

procrastinators can still be heard.
This case turns on government agencies and their officers
who, by the nature of their respective offices or by direct
statutory command, are tasked to protect and preserve, at the
first instance, our internal waters, rivers, shores, and seas
polluted by human activities. To most of these agencies and
their official complement, the pollution menace does not seem
to carry the high national priority it deserves, if their track
records are to be the norm. Their cavalier attitude towards
solving, if not mitigating, the environmental pollution problem,
is a sad commentary on bureaucratic efficiency and
commitment.
At the core of the case is the Manila Bay, a place with a
proud historic past, once brimming with marine life and, for so
many decades in the past, a spot for different contact
recreation activities, but now a dirty and slowly dying expanse
mainly because of the abject official indifference of people and
institutions that could have otherwise made a difference.
_______________
2 Gore,An Inconvenient Truth161.

666
666

This case started when, on January 29, 1999, respondents
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite against several
government agencies, among them the petitioners, for the
cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay.
Raffled to Branch 20 and docketed as Civil Case No. 1851-99 of
the RTC, the complaint 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. This environmental aberration,
the complaint stated, stemmed from:
xxx [The] reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of
omission or commission [of the defendants] resulting in the clear and
present danger to public health and in the depletion and
contamination of the marine life of Manila Bay, [for which reason]
ALL defendants must be held jointly and/or solidarily liable and be
collectively ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water
quality to class B waters fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other
forms of contact recreation.3
In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged
that the continued neglect of petitioners in abating the
pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of, among
others:
(1)Respondents constitutional right to life, health, and a
balanced ecology;
(2)The Environment Code (PD 1152);
(3)The Pollution Control Law (PD 984);
(4)The Water Code (PD 1067);
(5)The Sanitation Code (PD 856);
(6)The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825);
(7)The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979);
(8)Executive Order No. 192;
(9)The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No.
6969);
(10)Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations;
(11)The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship; and
(12)International Law
_______________
3Rollo, p. 74.
667
,
667

Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, 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 the case started off with a hearing at the Manila
Yacht Club followed by an ocular inspection of the Manila Bay.
Renato T. Cruz, the Chief of the Water Quality Management
Section, Environmental Management Bureau, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), testifying for
petitioners, stated that water samples collected from different
beaches around the Manila Bay showed that the amount of
fecal coliform content ranged from 50,000 to 80,000 most
probable number (MPN)/ml when what DENR Administrative
Order No. 34-90 prescribed as a safe level for bathing and
other forms of contact recreational activities, or the SB level,
is one not exceeding 200 MPN/100 ml.4
Rebecca de Vera, for Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System (MWSS) and in behalf of other petitioners,
testified about the MWSS efforts to reduce pollution along the
Manila Bay through the Manila Second Sewerage Project. For
its part, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) presented, as
part of its evidence, its memorandum circulars on the study
being conducted on ship-generated waste treatment and
disposal, and itsLinis Dagat(Clean the Ocean) project for the
cleaning of wastes accumulated or washed to shore.
The RTC Ordered Petitioners to Clean Up
and Rehabilitate Manila Bay
On September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision5 in
favor of respondents. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, finding merit in the complaint, judgment is
hereby rendered ordering the abovenamed defendant-government
agencies, jointly and solidarily, to clean up and rehabilitate Manila
Bay and restore its waters to SB classification to make it fit for
swimming, skin-diving and other forms of contact recreation. To
attain this, defendant-agencies, with defendant DENR as the lead
agency, are directed, within six (6) months from receipt
4Id., at p. 53.
5 Id., at pp. 109-123. Penned by Executive Judge Lucenito N. Tagle (now retired
Court of Appeals Justice).
668
668

hereof, to act and perform their respective duties by devising a
consolidated, coordinated and concerted scheme of action for the
rehabilitation and restoration of the bay.
In particular:
Defendant MWSS is directed to install, operate and maintain
adequate [sewerage] treatment facilities in strategic places under its
jurisdiction and increase their capacities.
Defendant LWUA, to see to it that the water districts under its
wings, provide, construct and operate sewage facilities for the proper
disposal of waste.
Defendant DENR, which is the lead agency in cleaning up Manila
Bay, to install, operate and maintain waste facilities to rid the bay of
toxic and hazardous substances.
Defendant PPA, to prevent and also to treat the discharge not only
of ship-generated wastes but also of other solid and liquid wastes
from docking vessels that contribute to the pollution of the bay.
Defendant MMDA, to establish, operate and maintain an adequate
and appropriate sanitary landfill and/or adequate solid waste and
liquid disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal system
such as re-use or recycling of wastes.
Defendant DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources, to revitalize the marine life in Manila Bay and restock its
waters with indigenous fish and other aquatic animals.
Defendant DBM, to provide and set aside an adequate budget
solely for the purpose of cleaning up and rehabilitation of Manila Bay.
Defendant DPWH, to remove and demolish structures and other
nuisances that obstruct the free flow of waters to the bay. These
nuisances discharge solid and liquid wastes which eventually end up
in Manila Bay. As the construction and engineering arm of the
government, DPWH is ordered to actively participate in removing
debris, such as carcass of sunken vessels, and other non-
biodegradable garbage in the bay.
Defendant DOH, to closely supervise and monitor the operations of
septic and sludge companies and require them to have proper
facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage
coming from septic tanks.
Defendant DECS, to inculcate in the minds and hearts of the
people through education the importance of preserving and protecting
the environment.
669
,
669

Defendant Philippine Coast Guard and the PNP Maritime Group,
to protect at all costs the Manila Bay from all forms of illegal fishing.
No pronouncement as to damages and costs.
SO ORDERED.
The MWSS, Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA),
and PPA filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) individual
Notices of Appeal which were eventually consolidated and
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 76528.
On the other hand, the DENR, Department of Public Works
and Highways (DPWH), Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority (MMDA), Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), Philippine
National Police (PNP) Maritime Group, and five other
executive departments and agencies filed directly with this
Court a petition for review under Rule 45. The Court, in a
Resolution of December 9, 2002, sent the said petition to the
CA for consolidation with the consolidated appeals of MWSS,
LWUA, and PPA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74944.
Petitioners, before the CA, were one in arguing in the main
that the pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD
1152) relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents
and do not cover cleaning in general. And apart from raising
concerns about the lack of funds appropriated for cleaning
purposes, petitioners also asserted that the cleaning of the
Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled
bymandamus.
The CA Sustained the RTC
By a Decision6 of September 28, 2005, the CA denied
petitioners appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC in
toto, stressing that the trial courts decision did not require
petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions
under existing laws.7
Petitioners are now before this Court praying for the
allowance of their Rule 45 petition on the following ground and
supporting arguments:
_______________
6Id., at pp. 47-58. Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los Santos and
concurred in by Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
7Id., at p. 52.
670
670

THE [CA] DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT
HERETOFORE PASSED UPON BY THE HONORABLE
COURT, I.E., IT AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURTS DECISION
DECLARING THAT SECTION 20 OF [PD] 1152 REQUIRES
CONCERNED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO REMOVE ALL
POLLUTANTS SPILLED AND DISCHARGED IN THE WATER
SUCH AS FECAL COLIFORMS.
ARGUMENTS
I
[SECTIONS] 17 AND 20 OF [PD] 1152 RELATE ONLY TO THE
CLEANING OF SPECIFIC POLLUTION INCIDENTS AND [DO]
NOT COVER CLEANING IN GENERAL
II
THE CLEANING OR REHABILITATION OF THE MANILA BAY
IS NOT A MINISTERIAL ACT OF PETITIONERS THAT CAN BE
COMPELLED BYMANDAMUS.
The issues before us are two-fold.First, do 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? And second, can petitioners be compelled
bymandamusto clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay?
On August 12, 2008, the Court conducted and heard the
parties on oral arguments.
Our Ruling
We shall first dwell on the propriety of the issuance
ofmandamusunder the premises.
The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay
Can be Compelled by Mandamus
Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the
execution of a ministerial duty.8A ministerial duty is one that
requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor
judgment.9It connotes an act in
_______________
8 Angchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 122728, February 13, 1997,

268 SCRA 301, 306.
9Blacks Law Dictionary(8th ed., 2004).
671
,
671

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 and imposed by
law.10Mandamusis available to compel action, when refused,
on matters involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise
of judgment or discretion one way or the other.
Petitioners maintain that the MMDAs duty to take
measures and maintain adequate solid waste and liquid
disposal systems necessarily involves policy evaluation and the
exercise of judgment on the part of the agency concerned. They
argue that the MMDA, in carrying out its mandate, has to
make decisions, including choosing where a landfill should be
located by undertaking feasibility studies and cost estimates,
all of which entail the exercise of discretion.
Respondents, on the other hand, counter that the statutory
command is clear and that petitioners duty to comply with
and act according to the clear mandate of the law does not
require the exercise of discretion. According to respondents,
petitioners, the MMDA in particular, are without discretion,
for example, to choose which bodies of water they are to clean
up, or which discharge or spill they are to contain. By the same
token, respondents maintain that petitioners are bereft of
discretion on whether or not to alleviate the problem of solid
and liquid waste disposal; in other words, it is the MMDAs
ministerial duty to attend to such services.
We agree with respondents.
First off, we wish to state that petitioners obligation to
perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand, and how
they are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two
different concepts. 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. We said so in Social Justice Society
v. Atienza11 in which the Court directed the City of Manila to
enforce, as a matter of ministerial duty, its Ordinance No.
8027 directing the
_______________
10Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456, 490 (1912).

11 G.R. No. 156052, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 657, as subsequently
reiterated on February 13, 2008.
672
672

three big local oil players to cease and desist from operating
their business in the so-called Pandacan Terminals within
six months from the effectivity of the ordinance. But to
illustrate with respect to the instant case, the MMDAs duty to
put up an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid
waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative garbage
disposal systems is ministerial, its duty being a statutory
imposition. The MMDAs duty in this regard is spelled out in
Sec. 3(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7924 creating the MMDA.
This section defines and delineates the scope of the MMDAs
waste disposal services to include:
Solid waste disposal and management which include formulation
and implementation of policies, standards, programs and projects for
proper and sanitary waste disposal. It shall likewise include
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. (Emphasis added.)
The MMDA is duty-bound to comply with Sec. 41 of the
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003) which
prescribes the minimum criteria for the establishment of
sanitary landfills and Sec. 42 which provides the minimum
operating requirements that each site operator shall maintain
in the operation of a sanitary landfill. Complementing Sec. 41
are Secs. 36 and 37 of RA 9003,12enjoining the MMDA and local
government units, among others, after the effectivity of the
law on February 15, 2001, from using and operating open
dumps for solid waste and disallowing, five years after such
effectivity, the use of controlled dumps.
The MMDAs 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 charter as well. This 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
functionaries to act officially according to their judgment or
conscience.13A discretionary duty is one that allows a person
_______________
12RA 9003 was approved on January 26, 2001.

132 Feria Noche,Civil Procedure Annotated.
673
,
673

to exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to
perform.14 Any suggestion that the MMDA has the option
whether or not to perform its solid waste disposal-related
duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal basis.
A perusal of other petitioners respective charters or like
enabling statutes and pertinent laws would yield this
conclusion: 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. They are
precluded from choosing not to perform these duties. Consider:
(1)The DENR, under Executive Order No. (EO) 192,15is
the primary agency responsible for the conservation,
management, development, and proper use of the countrys
environment and natural resources. Sec. 19 of the Philippine
Clean Water Act of 2004 (RA 9275), on the other hand,
designates the DENR as the primary government agency
responsible for its enforcement and implementation, more
particularly over all aspects of water quality management. On
water pollution, the DENR, under the Acts Sec. 19(k),
exercises jurisdiction over all aspects of water pollution,
determine[s] its location, magnitude, extent, severity, causes
and effects and other pertinent information on pollution, and
[takes] measures, using available methods and technologies, to
prevent and abate such pollution.
The DENR, under RA 9275, is also tasked to prepare a
National Water Quality Status Report, an Integrated Water
Quality Management Framework, and a 10-year Water
Quality Management Area Action Plan which is nationwide in
scope covering the Manila Bay and adjoining areas. Sec. 19 of
RA 9275 provides:
Sec. 19.Lead Agency.The [DENR] shall be the primary
government agency responsible for the implementation and
enforcement of this Act x x x unless otherwise provided herein. As
such, it shall have the following functions, powers and
responsibilities:
_______________
14Blacks Law Dictionary(8th ed., 2004).

15Providing for the Reorganization of the [DENR], Renaming it as the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, and for Other Purposes.
674
674

a)Prepare a National Water Quality Status report within
twenty-four (24) months from the effectivity of this
Act: Provided, That the Department shall thereafter review or
revise and publish annually, or as the need arises, said report;
b)Prepare an Integrated Water Quality Management
Framework within twelve (12) months following the completion
of the status report;
c)Prepare a ten (10) year Water Quality Management Area
Action Plan within 12 months following the completion of the
framework for each designated water management area. Such
action plan shall be reviewed by the water quality management
area governing board every five (5) years or as need arises.
The DENR has prepared the status report for the period
2001 to 2005 and is in the process of completing the
preparation of the Integrated Water Quality Management
Framework.16 Within twelve (12) months thereafter, it has to
submit a final Water Quality Management Area Action Plan.
17 Again, like the MMDA, the DENR should be made to
accomplish the tasks assigned to it under RA 9275.

Parenthetically, during the oral arguments, the DENR
Secretary manifested that the DENR, with the assistance of
and in part-nership with various government agencies and
non-government organizations, has completed, as of December
2005, the final draft of a comprehensive action plan with
estimated budget and time frame, denominated as Operation
Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy, for the
rehabilitation, restoration, and rehabilitation of the Manila
Bay.
The completion of the said action plan and even the
implementation of some of its phases should more than ever
prod the concerned agencies to fast track what are assigned
them under existing laws.
(2)The MWSS, under Sec. 3 of RA 6234,18 is vested with
jurisdiction, supervision, and control over all waterworks and
sewerage sys-
16Per DENR Secretary Jose Atienza, the DENR is preparing an EO for the
purpose. TSN of oral arguments, p. 118.
17 Per information from the Water Quality Management Section,
Environmental Management Bureau, DENR, as validated by the DENR
Secretary during the oral arguments. TSN, pp. 119-120.
18An Act Creating the [MWSS] and Dissolving the National Waterworks
and Sewerage Authority[NAWASA]; and for Other Purposes.
675
,
675

tems in the territory comprising what is now the cities of
Metro Manila and several towns of the provinces of Rizal and
Cavite, and charged with the duty:
(g)To construct, maintain, and operate such sanitary sewerages
as may be necessary for the proper sanitation and other uses of the
cities and towns comprising the System; x x x
(3)The LWUA under PD 198 has the power of supervision
and control over local water districts. It can prescribe the
minimum standards and regulations for the operations of
these districts and shall monitor and evaluate local water
standards. The LWUA can direct these districts to construct,
operate, and furnish facilities and services for the collection,
treatment, and disposal of sewerage, waste, and storm water.
Additionally, under RA 9275, the LWUA, as attached agency of
the DPWH, is tasked with providing sewerage and sanitation
facilities, inclusive of the setting up of efficient and safe
collection, treatment, and sewage disposal system in the
different parts of the country.19 In relation to the instant
petition, the LWUA is mandated to provide sewerage and
sanitation facilities in Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga,
and Bataan to prevent pollution in the Manila Bay.
(4)The Department of Agriculture (DA), pursuant to the
Administrative Code of 1987 (EO 292),20 is designated as the
agency tasked to promulgate and enforce all laws and
issuances respecting the conservation and proper utilization of
agricultural and fishery resources. Furthermore, the DA,
under the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998
_______________
19Sec.22.Linkage Mechanism.The [DENR] and its concerned attached

agencies x x x shall coordinate and enter into agreement with other
government agencies, industrial sector and other concerned sectors in the
furtherance of the objectives of this Act. The following agencies shall perform
the functions specified hereunder:
xxxx
b) DPWH through its attached agencies, such as the MWSS, LWUA, and
including other urban water utilities for the provision or sewerage and
sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection, treatment and
disposal of sewage within their area of jurisdiction.
20Book IV, Title IV, Sec. 2.
676
676

(RA 8550), is, in coordination with local government units
(LGUs) and other concerned sectors, in charge of establishing a
monitoring, control, and surveillance system to ensure that
fisheries and aquatic resources in Philippine waters are
judiciously utilized and managed on a sustainable basis.
21 Likewise under RA 9275, the DA is charged with
coordinating with the PCG and DENR for the enforcement of
water quality standards in marine waters.22More specifically,
its Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under
Sec. 22(c) of RA 9275 shall primarily be responsible for the
prevention and control of water pollution for the development,
management, and conservation of the fisheries and aquatic
resources.
(5)The DPWH, as the engineering and construction arm of
the national government, is tasked under EO 29223to provide
integrated
_______________
21 Sec. 14.Monitoring Control and Surveillance of the Philippine

Waters.A monitoring, control and surveillance system shall be established
by the [DA] in coordination with LGUs and other agencies concerned to ensure
that the fisheries and aquatic resources in the Philippine waters are
judiciously and wisely utilized and managed on a sustainable basis x x x.
22Sec.22.Linkage Mechanism.x x x x
a)Philippine Coast Guard in coordination with DA and DENR shall
enforce for the enforcement of water quality standards in marine waters x x x
specifically from offshore sources;
xxxx
c)DA, shall coordinate with the DENR, in the formulation of guidelines x
x x for the prevention, control and abatement of pollution from agricultural
and aquaculture activities xxxProvided, further, That the x x x (BFAR) of the
DA shall be primarily responsible for the prevention and control of water
pollution for the development, management and conservation of the fisheries
and aquatic resources.
23 Book IV, Title V, Sec. 2. Mandate.The [DPWH] shall be the States
engineering arm and is tasked to carry out the policy enumerated above [i.e.,
the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of infrastructure
facilities, especially x x x flood cntrol and water resources development
systems].
Sec.3.Powers and Functions.The Department, in order to carry out its
mandate, shall:
xxxx
(2) Develop and implement effective codes, standards, and reasonable
guidelines to ensure the safety of all public and private structures in the
677
,
677

planning, design, and construction services for, among others,
flood control and water resource development systems in
accordance with national development objectives and approved
government plans and specifications.
In Metro Manila, however, the MMDA is authorized by Sec.
3(d), RA 7924 to perform metro-wide services relating to flood
control and sewerage management which include the
formulation and implementation of policies, standards,
programs and projects for an integrated flood control, drainage
and sewerage system.
On July 9, 2002, a Memorandum of Agreement was entered
into between the DPWH and MMDA, whereby MMDA was
made the agency primarily responsible for flood control in
Metro Manila. For the rest of the country, DPWH shall remain
as the implementing agency for flood control services. The
mandate of the MMDA and DPWH on flood control and
drainage services shall include the removal of structures,
constructions, and encroachments built along rivers,
waterways, andesteros(drainages) in violation of RA 7279, PD
1067, and other pertinent laws.
(6)The PCG, in accordance with Sec. 5(p) of PD 601, or the
Revised Coast Guard Law of 1974, and Sec. 6 of PD 979,24 or
the Marine Pollution Decree of 1976, shall have the primary
responsibility of
_______________
country and assure efficiency and proper quality in the construction of public
works;
(3) Ascertain that all public works plans and project implementation
designs are consistent with current standards and guidelines;
xxxx
(8)Provide an integrated planning for x x x flood control and water
resource and water resource development systems x x x.
24 Sec. 6.Enforcement and Implementation.The [PCG] shall have the
primary responsibility of enforcing the laws, rules and regulations governing
marine pollution. However, it shall be the joint responsibility of the [PCG] and
the National Pollution Control Commission to coordinate and cooperate with
each other in the enforcement of the provisions of this decree and its
implementing rules and regulations, and may call upon any other government
office, instrumentality or agency to extend every assistance in this respect.
678
678

enforcing laws, rules, and regulations governing marine
pollution within the territorial waters of the Philippines. It
shall promulgate its own rules and regulations in accordance
with the national rules and policies set by the National
Pollution Control Commission upon consultation with the
latter for the effective implementation and enforcement of PD
979. It shall, under Sec. 4 of the law, apprehend violators who:
a.discharge, dump x x x harmful substances from or out of any
ship, vessel, barge, or any other floating craft, or other man-made
structures at sea, by any method, means or manner, into or upon the
territorial and inland navigable waters of the Philippines;
b.throw, discharge or deposit, dump, or cause, suffer or procure
to be thrown, discharged, or deposited either from or out of any ship,
barge, or other floating craft or vessel of any kind, or from the shore,
wharf, manufacturing establishment, or mill of any kind, any refuse
matter of any kind or description whatever other than that flowing
from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid state into
tributary of any navigable water from which the same shall float or be
washed into such navigable water; and
c.deposit x x x material of any kind in any place on the bank of
any navigable water or on the bank of any tributary of any navigable
water, where the same shall be liable to be washed into such
navigable water, either by ordinary or high tides, or by storms or
floods, or otherwise, whereby navigation shall or may be impeded or
obstructed or increase the level of pollution of such water.
(7)When RA 6975 or the Department of the Interior and
Local Government (DILG) Act of 1990 was signed into law on
December 13, 1990, the PNP Maritime Group was tasked to
perform all police functions over the Philippine territorial
waters and rivers. Under Sec. 86, RA 6975, the police
functions of the PCG shall be taken over by the PNP when the
latter acquires the capability to perform such functions. Since
the PNP Maritime Group has not yet attained the capability to
assume and perform the police functions of PCG over marine
pollution, the PCG and PNP Maritime Group shall coordinate
with regard to the enforcement of laws, rules, and regulations
governing marine pollution within the territorial waters of the
Philippines. This was made clear in Sec. 124, RA 8550 or the
Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, in which
679
,
679

both the PCG and PNP Maritime Group were authorized to
enforce said law and other fishery laws, rules, and regulations.
25
(8)In accordance with Sec. 2 of EO 513, the PPA is

mandated to establish, develop, regulate, manage and operate
a rationalized national port system in support of trade and
national development.26 Moreover, Sec. 6-c of EO 513 states
that the PPA has police authority within the
ports administered by it as may be necessary to carry out its powers
and functions and attain its purposes and objectives, without
prejudice to the exercise of the functions of the Bureau of Customs
and other law enforcement bodies within the area. Such police
authority shall include the following:
xxxx
b)To regulate the entry to, exit from, and movement within the
port, of persons and vehicles, as well as movement within the port of
watercraft.27
Lastly, as a member of the International Marine
Organization and a signatory to the International Convention
for the Prevention of
_______________
25Sec.124.Persons and Deputies Authorized to Enforce this Code x x x.

The law enforcements of the [DA], the Philippine Navy, [PCG, PNP], PNP-
Maritime Command x x x are hereby authorized to enforce this Code and other
fishery laws x x x.
26<http://www.ppa.com.ph> (visited November 20, 2008).
27EO 513, Reorganizing the Philippine Ports Authority, Sec. 2 provides
further:
Section 6 is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph to read as follows:
Sec. 6-c.Police Authority.x x x Such police authority shall include the
following:
xxxx
c)To maintain peace and order inside the port, in coordination with local
police authorities;
xxxx
e)To enforce rules and regulations promulgated by the Authority
pursuant to law.
680
680

Pollution from Ships, as amended by MARPOL 73/78,28 the
Philippines, through the PPA, must ensure the provision of
adequate reception facilities at ports and terminals for the
reception of sewage from the ships docking in Philippine ports.
Thus, the PPA is tasked to adopt such measures as are
necessary to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and
liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila
Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the
violators. When the vessels are not docked at ports but within
Philippine territorial waters, it is the PCG and PNP Maritime
Group that have jurisdiction over said vessels.
(9)The MMDA, as earlier indicated, is duty-bound to put
up and maintain adequate sanitary landfill and solid waste
and liquid disposal system as well as other alternative garbage
disposal systems. It is primarily responsible for the
implementation and enforcement of the provisions of RA 9003,
which would necessary include its penal provisions, within its
area of jurisdiction.29
Among the prohibited acts under Sec. 48, Chapter VI of RA
9003 that are frequently violated are dumping of waste
matters in public places, such as roads, canals oresteros, open
burning of solid waste, squatting in open dumps and landfills,
open dumping, burying of biodegradable or non-biodegradable
materials in flood-prone areas, establishment or operation of
open dumps as enjoined in RA 9003, and operation of waste
management facilities without an environmental compliance
certificate.
Under Sec. 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act
of 1992 (RA 7279), eviction or demolition may be allowed
when persons or entities occupy danger areas such asesteros,
railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines,
waterways, and other public places
_______________
28 International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from

Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto.
29Sec. 10.Role of LGUs in Solid Waste Management.Pursuant to the
relevant provisions of RA No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code, the LGUs shall be primarily responsible for the implementation and
enforcement of the provisions of this Act within their respective jurisdictions.
681
,
681

such as sidewalks, roads, parks and playgrounds. The MMDA,
as lead agency, in coordination with the DPWH, LGUs, and
concerned agencies, can dismantle and remove all structures,
constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA
7279 and other pertinent laws along the rivers, waterways,
and esteros in Metro Manila. With respect to rivers,
waterways, and esteros in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga,
Cavite, and Laguna that discharge wastewater directly or
eventually into the Manila Bay, the DILG shall direct the
concerned LGUs to implement the demolition and removal of
such structures, constructions, and other encroachments built
in violation of RA 7279 and other applicable laws in
coordination with the DPWH and concerned agencies.
(10)The Department of Health (DOH), under Article 76 of
PD 1067 (the Water Code), is tasked to promulgate rules and
regulations for the establishment of waste disposal areas that
affect the source of a water supply or a reservoir for domestic
or municipal use. And under Sec. 8 of RA 9275, the DOH, in
coordination with the DENR, DPWH, and other concerned
agencies, shall formulate guidelines and standards for the
collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage and the
establishment and operation of a centralized sewage treatment
system. In areas not considered as highly urbanized cities,
septage or a mix sewerage-septage management system shall
be employed.
In accordance with Sec. 7230 of PD 856, the Code of
Sanitation of the Philippines, and Sec. 5.1.131of Chapter XVII
of its implementing rules, the DOH is also ordered to ensure
the regulation and monitoring of the proper disposal of wastes
by private sludge companies
_______________
30 Sec.72.Scope of Supervision of the Department.The approval of the

Secretary or his duly authorized representative is required in the following
matters:
xxxx
(g)Method of disposal of sludge from septic tanks or other treatment
plants.
31 Sec. 5.1.1.a.It shall be unlawful for any person, entity or firm to
discharge untreated effluent of septic tanks and/or sewage treatment plants to
bodies of water without obtaining approval from the Secretary of Health or his
duly authorized representatives.
682
682

through the strict enforcement of the requirement to obtain an
environmental sanitation clearance of sludge collection
treatment and disposal before these companies are issued their
environmental sanitation permit.
(11)The Department of Education (DepEd), under the
Philippine Environment Code (PD 1152), is mandated to
integrate subjects on environmental education in its school
curricula at all levels.32Under Sec. 118 of RA 8550, the DepEd,
in collaboration with the DA, Commission on Higher
Education, and Philippine Information Agency, shall launch
and pursue a nationwide educational campaign to promote the
development, management, conservation, and proper use of
the environment. Under the Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act (RA 9003), on the other hand, it is directed to
strengthen the integration of environmental concerns in school
curricula at all levels, with an emphasis on waste management
principles.33
(12)The Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
is tasked under Sec. 2, Title XVII of the Administrative Code of
1987 to ensure the efficient and sound utilization of
government funds and revenues so as to effectively achieve the
countrys development objectives.34
_______________
32 Sec. 53.Environmental Education.The [DepEd] shall integrate

subjects on environmental education in its school curricula at all levels. It
shall also endeavor to conduct special community education emphasizing the
relationship of man and nature as well as environmental sanitation and
practices.
33 Sec. 56.Environmental Education in the Formal and Nonformal
Sectors.The national government, through the [DepEd] and in coordination
with concerned government agencies, NGOs and private institutions, shall
strengthen the integration of environmental concerns in school curricula at all
levels, with particular emphasis on the theory and practice of waste
management principles like waste minimization, specifically resource
conservation and recovery, segregation at source, reduction, recycling, re-use,
and composing, in order to promote environmental awareness and action
among the citizenry.
34 Title XVII, Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy.The national budget shall be
formulated and implemented as an instrument of national development,
reflective of national objectives and plans; supportive of and consistent with
683
,
683

One of the countrys development objectives is enshrined in
RA 9275 or the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004. This law
stresses that the State shall pursue a policy of economic
growth in a manner consistent with the protection,
preservation, and revival of the quality of our fresh, brackish,
and marine waters. It also provides that it is the policy of the
government, among others, to streamline processes and
procedures in the prevention, control, and abatement of
pollution mechanisms for the protection of water resources; to
promote environmental strategies and use of appropriate
economic instruments and of control mechanisms for the
protection of water resources; to formulate a holistic national
program of water quality management that recognizes that
issues related to this management cannot be separated from
concerns about water sources and ecological protection, water
supply, public health, and quality of life; and to provide a
comprehensive management program for water pollution
focusing on pollution prevention.
Thus, the DBM shall then endeavor to provide an adequate
budget to attain the noble objectives of RA 9275 in line with
the countrys development objectives.
All told, the aforementioned enabling laws and issuances
are in themselves clear, categorical, and complete as to what
are the obligations and mandate of each agency/petitioner
under the law. We need not belabor the issue that their tasks
include the cleanup of the Manila Bay.
Now, as to the crux of the petition. Do Secs. 17 and 20 of the
Environment Code encompass the cleanup of water pollution
in general, not just specific pollution incidents?
_______________
the socio-economic development plans and oriented towards the achievement

of explicit objectives and expected results, to ensure that the utilization of
funds and operations of government entities are conducted effectively;
formulated within the context of a regionalized governmental structure and
within the totality of revenues and other receipts, expenditures and
borrowings of all levels of government and of government-owned or controlled
corporations; and prepared within the context of the national long-term plans
and budget programs of the Government.
684
684

Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code
Include Cleaning in General
The disputed sections are quoted as follows:

Section 17.Upgrading of Water Quality.Where the quality of
water has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely
affect its best usage, 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
operations shall be charged against the persons and/or entities
responsible for such pollution.
When the Clean Water Act (RA 9275) took effect, its Sec. 16
on the subject, Cleanup Operations, amended the counterpart
provision (Sec. 20) of the Environment Code (PD 1152). Sec. 17
of PD 1152 continues, however, to be operational.
The amendatory Sec. 16 of RA 9275 reads:
SEC.16.Cleanup Operations.Notwithstanding the provisions
of Sections 15 and 26 hereof, any person who causes pollution in or
pollutes water bodies in excess of the applicable and prevailing
standards shall be responsible to contain, remove and clean up any
pollution incident at his own expense to the extent that the same
water bodies have been rendered unfit for utilization and beneficial
use: Provided, That in the event emergency cleanup operations are
necessary and the polluter fails to immediately undertake the same,
the [DENR] in coordination with other government agencies
concerned, shall undertake containment, removal and cleanup
operations. Expenses incurred in said operations shall be reimbursed
by the persons found to have caused such pollution under proper
administrative determination x x x. Reimbursements of the cost
incurred shall be made to the Water Quality Management Fund or to
such other funds where said disbursements were sourced.
As may be noted, the amendment to Sec. 20 of the
Environment Code is more apparent than real since the
amendment, insofar as it is
685
,
685

relevant to this case, merely consists in the designation of the
DENR as lead agency in the cleanup operations.
Petitioners contend at every turn that Secs. 17 and 20 of the
Environment Code concern themselves only with the matter of
cleaning up in specific pollution incidents, as opposed to
cleanup in general. They aver that the twin provisions would
have to be read alongside the succeeding Sec. 62(g) and (h),
which defines the terms cleanup operations and accidental
spills, as follows:
g.Clean-up Operations [refer] to activities conducted in removing
the pollutants discharged or spilled in water to restore it to pre-spill
condition.
h.Accidental Spills [refer] to spills of oil or other hazardous
substances in water that result from accidents such as collisions and
groundings.
Petitioners proffer the argument that Secs. 17 and 20 of PD
1152 merely direct the government agencies concerned to
undertake containment, removal, and cleaning operations of a
specific polluted portion or portions of the body of water
concerned. They maintain that the application of said Sec. 20
is limited only to water pollution incidents, which are
situations that presuppose the occurrence of specific, isolated
pollution events requiring the corresponding containment,
removal, and cleaning operations. Pushing the point further,
they argue that the aforequoted Sec. 62(g) requires cleanup
operations to restore the body of water to pre-spill condition,
which means that there must have been a specific incident of
either intentional or accidental spillage of oil or other
hazardous substances, as mentioned in Sec. 62(h).
As a counterpoint, respondents argue that petitioners
erroneously read Sec. 62(g) as delimiting the application of
Sec. 20 to the containment, removal, and cleanup operations
for accidental spills only. Contrary to petitioners posture,
respondents assert that Sec. 62(g), in fact, even expanded the
coverage of Sec. 20.Respondents explain that without its
Sec. 62(g), PD 1152 may have indeed covered only pollution
accumulating from the day-to-day operations of businesses
around the Manila Bay and other sources of pollution that
slowly accumulated in the bay. Respondents, however,
emphasize that Sec. 62(g), far from being a delimiting
provision, in fact even enlarged the
686
686

operational scope of Sec. 20, by including accidental spills as
among the water pollution incidents contemplated in Sec. 17 in
relation to Sec. 20 of PD 1152.
To respondents, petitioners parochial view on
environmental issues, coupled with their narrow reading of
their respective mandated roles, has contributed to the
worsening water quality of the Manila Bay. Assuming,
respondents assert, that petitioners are correct in saying that
the cleanup coverage of Sec. 20 of PD 1152 is constricted by the
definition of the phrase cleanup operations embodied in Sec.
62(g), Sec. 17 is not hobbled by such limiting definition. As
pointed out, the phrases cleanup operations and accidental
spills do not appear in said Sec. 17, not even in the chapter
where said section is found.
Respondents are correct. For one thing, said 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. This section, to stress,
commands concerned government agencies, when appropriate,
to take such measures as may be necessary to meet the
prescribed water quality standards. In fine, the underlying
duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the
occurrence of any pollution incident.
For another, a perusal of Sec. 20 of the Environment Code, as
couched, indicates that it is properly applicable to a specific
situation in which the pollution is caused by polluters who fail
to clean up the mess they left behind. In such instance, the
concerned government agencies shall undertake the cleanup
work for the polluters account. Petitioners assertion, that
they have to perform cleanup operations in the Manila
Bay only when there is a water pollution incident and the
erring polluters do not undertake the containment, removal,
and cleanup operations, is quite off mark. As earlier discussed,
the complementary Sec. 17 of the Environment Code comes
into play and the specific duties of the agencies to clean up
come in even if there are no
687
,
687

pollution incidents staring at them. Petitioners, thus, cannot
plausibly invoke and hide behind Sec. 20 of PD 1152 or Sec. 16
of RA 9275 on the pretext that their cleanup mandate depends
on the happening of a specific pollution incident. In this
regard, what the CA said with respect to the impasse over
Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 is at once valid as it is practical.
The appellate court wrote: PD 1152 aims to introduce a
comprehensive program of environmental protection and
management. This is better served by making Secs. 17 & 20 of
general application rather than limiting them to specific
pollution incidents.35
Granting arguendo that petitioners position thus
described vis--vis the implementation of Sec. 20 is correct,
they seem to have overlooked 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. And such impossibility extends to
pinpointing with reasonable certainty who the polluters are.
We note that Sec. 20 of PD 1152 mentions water pollution
incidents which may be caused by polluters in the waters of
the Manila Bay itself or by polluters in adjoining lands and in
water bodies or waterways that empty into the bay. Sec. 16 of
RA 9275, on the other hand, specifically adverts to any person
who causes pollution in or pollutes water bodies, which may
refer to an individual or an establishment that pollutes the
land mass near the Manila Bay or the waterways, such that
the contaminants eventually end up in the bay. In this
situation, the water pollution incidents are so numerous and
involve nameless and faceless polluters that they can validly
be categorized as beyond the specific pollution incident level.
Not to be ignored of course is the reality that the
government agencies concerned are so undermanned that it
would be almost impossible to apprehend the numerous
polluters of the Manila Bay. It may perhaps not be amiss to
say that the apprehension, if any, of the Manila Bay polluters
has been few and far between. Hence, practically nobody has
been required to contain, remove, or clean up a given water
pollution incident. In this kind of setting, it behooves the Gov-
_______________
35Rollo, p. 76.
688
688

ernment to step in and undertake cleanup operations. Thus,
Sec. 16 of RA 9275, previously Sec. 20 of PD 1152, covers for all
intents and purposes a general cleanup situation.
The cleanup and/or restoration of the Manila Bay is only an
aspect and the initial stage of the long-term solution. The
preservation of the water quality of the bay after the
rehabilitation process is as important as the cleaning phase. It
is imperative then that the wastes and contaminants found in
the rivers, inland bays, and other bodies of water be stopped
from reaching the Manila Bay. Otherwise, any cleanup effort
would just be a futile, cosmetic exercise, for, in no time at all,
the Manila Bay water quality would again deteriorate below
the ideal minimum standards set by PD 1152, RA 9275, and
other relevant laws. It thus behooves the Court to put the
heads of the petitioner-department-agencies and the bureaus
and offices under them on continuing notice about, and to
enjoin them to perform, their mandates and duties towards
cleaning up the Manila Bay and preserving the quality of its
water to the ideal level. Under what other judicial discipline
describes as continuing mandamus,36 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. In India, the doctrine
of continuingmandamuswas used to enforce directives of the
court to clean up the length of the Ganges River from
industrial and municipal pollution.37
The Court can take judicial notice of the presence of
shanties and other unauthorized structures which do not have
septic tanks along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the
National Capital Region (NCR) (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias)
Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the
Meycuayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay
(Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay,
and other minor rivers and connecting waterways, river banks,
and esteros which discharge their waters, with all the
accompanying filth, dirt, and garbage, into the major rivers
and even-
_______________
36Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1 SCC 226 (1998).
37M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 4 SC 463 (1987).
689
,
689

tually the Manila Bay. If there is one factor responsible for the
pollution of the major river systems and the Manila Bay, these
unauthorized structures would be on top of the list. And if the
issue of illegal or unauthorized structures is not seriously
addressed with sustained resolve, then practically all efforts to
cleanse these important bodies of water would be for naught.
The DENR Secretary said as much.38
Giving urgent dimension to the necessity of removing these
illegal structures is Art. 51 of PD 1067 or the Water Code,
39 which prohibits the building of structures within a given
length along banks of rivers and other waterways. Art. 51

reads:
The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas
and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of
three (3) meters in urban areas,twenty (20) meters in agricultural
areas and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their margins,
are subject to the easement of public use in the interest of
recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage. No
person shall be allowed to stay in this zonelonger than what is
necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage orto
build structures of any kind. (Emphasis added)
Judicial notice may likewise be taken of factories and other
industrial establishments standing along or near the banks of
the Pasig River, other major rivers, and connecting waterways.
But while they may not be treated as unauthorized
constructions, some of these establishments undoubtedly
contribute to the pollution of the Pasig River and waterways.
The DILG and the concerned LGUs, have, accordingly, the
duty to see to it that non-complying industrial establishments
set up, within a reasonable period, the necessary waste water
treatment facilities and infrastructure to prevent their
industrial discharge, including their sewage waters, from
flowing into the Pasig River, other major rivers, and
connecting waterways. After such period, non-complying
establishments shall be shut down or asked to transfer their
operations.
_______________
38 TSN, p. 121.
39 Repealed Art. 638 of the Civil Code. See E.L. Pineda, Property 399
(1999).
690
690

At this juncture, and if only to dramatize the urgency of the
need for petitioners-agencies to comply with their statutory
tasks, we cite the Asian Development Bank-commissioned
study on the garbage problem in Metro Manila, the results of
which are embodied in the The Garbage Book. As there
reported, the garbage crisis in the metropolitan area is as
alarming as it is shocking. Some highlights of the report:
1.As early as 2003, three land-filled dumpsites in Metro Manila
the Payatas, Catmon and Rodriquez dumpsitesgenerate an
alarming quantity of lead and leachate or liquid run-off. Leachate are
toxic liquids that flow along the surface and seep into the earth and
poison the surface and groundwater that are used for drinking,
aquatic life, and the environment.
2.The high level of fecal coliform confirms the presence of a large
amount of human waste in the dump sites and surrounding areas,
which is presumably generated by households that lack alternatives
to sanitation. To say that Manila Bay needs rehabilitation is an
understatement.
3.Most of the deadly leachate, lead and other dangerous
contaminants and possibly strains of pathogens seeps untreated into
ground water and runs into the Marikina and Pasig River systems
and Manila Bay.40
Given the above perspective, sufficient sanitary landfills
should now more than ever be established as prescribed by the
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003). Particular
note should be taken of the blatant violations by some LGUs
and possibly the MMDA of Sec. 37, reproduced below:
Sec. 37.Prohibition against the Use of Open Dumps for Solid
Waste.No open dumps shall be established and operated, nor any
practice or disposal of solid waste by any person, including LGUs
which [constitute] the use of open dumps for solid waste, be allowed
after the effectivity of this Act:Provided, further, Thatno controlled
dumps shall be allowed five (5) years following the effectivity
of this Act. (Emphasis added.)
RA 9003 took effect on February 15, 2001 and the adverted
grace period of five (5) years which ended on February 21, 2006
has come
_______________
40Asian Development Bank, The Garbage Book 44-45(November 2006).

691
,
691

and gone, but no single sanitary landfill which strictly
complies with the prescribed standards under RA 9003 has yet
been set up.
In addition, there are rampant and repeated violations of
Sec. 48 of RA 9003, like littering, dumping of waste matters in
roads, canals, esteros, and other public places, operation of
open dumps, open burning of solid waste, and the like. Some
sludge companies which do not have proper disposal facilities
simply discharge sludge into the Metro Manila sewerage
system that ends up in the Manila Bay. Equally unabated are
violations of Sec. 27 of RA 9275, which enjoins the pollution of
water bodies, groundwater pollution, disposal of infectious
wastes from vessels, and unauthorized transport or dumping
into sea waters of sewage or solid waste and of Secs. 4 and 102
of RA 8550 which proscribes the introduction by human or
machine of substances to the aquatic environment including
dumping/disposal of waste and other marine litters, discharge
of petroleum or residual products of petroleum of carbonaceous
materials/substances [and other] radioactive, noxious or
harmful liquid, gaseous or solid substances, from any water,
land or air transport or other human-made structure.
In the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the
Court wishes to emphasize the extreme necessity for all
concerned executive departments and agencies to immediately
act and discharge their respective official duties and
obligations. Indeed, time is of the essence; hence, there is a
need to set timetables for the performance and completion of
the tasks, some of them as defined for them by law and the
nature of their respective offices and mandates.
The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource,
playground, and as a historical landmark cannot be over-
emphasized. It is not yet too late in the day to restore the
Manila Bay to its former splendor and bring back the plants
and sea life that once thrived in its blue waters. But the tasks
ahead, daunting as they may be, could only be accomplished if
those mandated, with the help and cooperation of all civic-
minded individuals, would put their minds to these tasks and
take responsibility. This means that the State, through
petitioners, has to take the lead in the preservation and
protection of the Manila Bay.
692
692

The era of delays, procrastination, and ad hoc measures is
over. Petitioners must transcend their limitations, real or
imaginary, and buckle down to work before the problem at
hand becomes unmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that
different government agencies and instrumentalities cannot
shirk from their mandates; they must perform their basic
functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila Bay.
We are disturbed by petitioners hiding behind two untenable
claims: (1) that there ought to be a specific pollution incident
before they are required to act; and (2) that the cleanup of the
bay is a discretionary duty.
RA 9003 is a sweeping piece of 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 and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
So it was that in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. the Court stated
that 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.41 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. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust
reposed in them.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 28,
2005 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 76528 and SP No.
74944 and the September 13, 2002 Decision of the RTC in Civil
Case No. 1851-99 are AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATIONS
in view of subsequent developments or supervening events in
the case. Thefalloof the RTC Decision shall now read:
_______________
41G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792, 805.
693
,
693

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the
abovenamed defendant-government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate,
and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and maintain its waters to SB
level (Class B sea waters per Water Classification Tables under
DENR Administrative Order No. 34 [1990]) to make them fit for
swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation.
In particular:
(1)Pursuant to Sec. 4 of EO 192, assigning the DENR as
the primary agency responsible for the conservation,
management, development, and proper use of the countrys
environment and natural resources, and Sec. 19 of RA 9275,
designating the DENR as the primary government agency
responsible for its enforcement and implementation, the
DENR is directed to fully implement its Operational Plan for
the Manila Bay Coastal Strategyfor the rehabilitation,
restoration, and conservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest
possible time. It is ordered to call regular coordination
meetings with concerned government departments and
agencies to ensure the successful implementation of the
aforesaid plan of action in accordance with its indicated
completion schedules.
(2)Pursuant to Title XII (Local Government) of the
Administrative Code of 1987 and Sec. 25 of the Local
Government Code of 1991,42 the DILG, in exercising the
Presidents power of general supervision and its duty to
promulgate guidelines in establishing waste management
programs under Sec. 43 of the Philippine Environment Code
(PD 1152), shall direct all LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal,
Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all
factories, commercial establishments, and private homes along
the banks of the major river systems in their respective areas
of jurisdiction, such as but not limited to the Pasig-Marikina-
San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias)
Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the
Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay
(Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the
_______________
42 Sec. 25.National Supervision over Local Government Units.(a)

Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy, the President shall
exercise general supervision over local government units to ensure that their
acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
694
694

Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and waterways that
eventually discharge water into the Manila Bay; and the lands
abutting the bay, to determine whether they have wastewater
treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed by
existing laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations. If none be
found, these LGUs shall be ordered to require non-complying
establishments and homes to set up said facilities or septic
tanks within a reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes,
sewage water, and human wastes from flowing into these
rivers, waterways,esteros, and the Manila Bay, under pain of
closure or imposition of fines and other sanctions.
(3)As mandated by Sec. 8 of RA 9275,43 the MWSS is
directed to provide, install, operate, and maintain the
necessary adequate waste water treatment facilities in Metro
Manila, Rizal, and Cavite where needed at the earliest possible
time.
(4)Pursuant to RA 9275,44 the LWUA, through the local
water districts and in coordination with the DENR, is ordered
to provide, install, operate, and maintain sewerage and
sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection,
treatment, and disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna,
Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan where needed at the
earliest possible time.
43Sec. 8.Domestic Sewage Collection, Treatment and Disposal.Within
five (5) years following the effectivity of this Act, the Agency vested to provide
water supply and sewerage facilities and/or concessionaires in Metro Manila
and other highly urbanized cities (HUCs) as defined in [RA] 7160, in
coordination with LGUs, shall be required to connect the existing sewage line
found in all subdivisions, condominiums, commercial centers, hotels, sports
and recreational facilities, hospitals, market places, public buildings,
industrial complex and other similar establishments including households to
available sewerage system.Provided, That the said connection shall be subject
to sewerage services charge/fees in accordance with existing laws, rules or
regulations unless the sources had already utilized their own sewerage
system:Provided, further, That all sources of sewage and septage shall comply
with the requirements herein.
44Supranote 19.
695
,
695

(5)Pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 8550,45the DA, through the
BFAR, is ordered to improve and restore the marine life of the
Manila Bay. It is also directed to assist the LGUs in Metro
Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and
Bataan in developing, using recognized methods, the fisheries
and aquatic resources in the Manila Bay.
(6)The PCG, pursuant to Secs. 4 and 6 of PD 979, and the
PNP Maritime Group, in accordance with Sec. 124 of RA 8550,
in coordination with each other, shall apprehend violators of
PD 979, RA 8550, and other existing laws and regulations
designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.
(7)Pursuant to Secs. 2 and 6-c of EO 51346 and the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships, the PPA is ordered to immediately adopt such measures
to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid
wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay
waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the
violators.
(8)The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of
programs and projects for flood control projects and drainage
services in Metro Manila, in coordination with the DPWH,
DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, Housing and
Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), and
other agencies, shall dismantle and remove all structures,
constructions, and other encroachments established or built in
violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the
Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote,
Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros
Rivers, and
_______________
45Sec.65.Functions of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.

As a line bureau, the BFAR shall have the following functions:
xxxx
q.assist the LGUs in developing their technical capability in the
development, management, regulation, conservation, and protection of fishery
resources;
xxxx
s.perform such other related function which shall promote the
development, conservation, management, protection and utilization of fisheries
and aquatic resources.
46Supranotes 26 & 27.
696
696

connecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The
DPWH, as the principal implementor of programs and projects
for flood control services in the rest of the country more
particularly in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and
Laguna, in coordination with the DILG, affected LGUs, PNP
Maritime Group, HUDCC, and other concerned government
agencies, shall remove and demolish all structures,
constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA
7279 and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-
Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River,
the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other rivers,
connecting waterways, and esterosthat discharge wastewater
into the Manila Bay.
In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish, operate, and
maintain a sanitary landfill, as prescribed by RA 9003, within
a period of one (1) year from finality of this Decision. On
matters within its territorial jurisdiction and in connection
with the discharge of its duties on the maintenance of sanitary
landfills and like undertakings, it is also ordered to cause the
apprehension and filing of the appropriate criminal cases
against violators of the respective penal provisions of RA
9003,47 Sec. 27 of RA 9275 (the Clean Water Act), and other
existing laws on pollution.
(9)The DOH shall, as directed by Art. 76 of PD 1067 and
Sec. 8 of RA 9275, within one (1) year from finality of this
Decision, determine if all licensed septic and sludge companies
have the proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of
fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks. The DOH
shall give the companies, if found to be non-complying, a
reasonable time within which to set up the neces-
_______________
47Among the prohibited and penalized acts under Sec. 48 of RA 9003 are:
(1) littering and dumping of waste matters in public places; (2) open burning of
solid wastes; (3) squatting in open dumps and landfills; (4) transporting and
dumping in bulk of collected domestic, industrial, commercial and institutional
wastes in areas other than centers and facilities prescribed under the Act; (5)
construction or operation of waste management facilities without an
Environmental Compliance Certificate; and (6) construction or operation of
landfills or any waste disposal facility on any aquifer, groundwater reservoir
or watershed area.
697
,
697

sary facilities under pain of cancellation of its environmental
sanitation clearance.
(10)Pursuant to Sec. 53 of PD 1152,48Sec. 118 of RA 8550,
and Sec. 56 of RA 9003,49the DepEd shall integrate lessons on
pollution prevention, waste management, environmental
protection, and like subjects in the school curricula of all levels
to inculcate in the minds and hearts of students and, through
them, their parents and friends, the importance of their duty
toward achieving and maintaining a balanced and healthful
ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entire Philippine
archipelago.
(11)The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequate
budget in the General Appropriations Act of 2010 and
succeeding years to cover the expenses relating to the cleanup,
restoration, and preservation of the water quality of the
Manila Bay, in line with the countrys development objective to
attain economic growth in a manner consistent with the
protection, preservation, and revival of our marine waters.
(12)The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR,
DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group,
DILG, and also of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in line with the
principle of continuingmandamus, shall, from finality of this
Decision, each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive
report of the activities undertaken in accordance with this
Decision.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (C.J.), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-
Nazario, NachuraandReyes, JJ., concur.
CoronaandBrion JJ., On Leave.
Leonardo-De Castro, J., On Official Leave.
_______________
48Supranote 32.
49Supranote 33.
G.R. Nos. 171947-48.February 15, 2011.*

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE
A N D S P O R T S , 1 D E P A R T M E N T O F H E A L T H ,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF
BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE COAST
GUARD, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME
GROUP, and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, petitioners, vs. CONCERNED
RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and joined by
DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL
SANTOS, JR., DINAH DELA PEA, PAUL DENNIS
QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA CALOZA,
FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE SEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA,
SARAH JOELLE LINTAG, HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS,
FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, and JAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA,
respondents.
_______________
*EN BANC.
1Now the Department of Education (DepEd).
91
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
91
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay
Courts; Separation of Powers; Mandamus; The issuance of

subsequent resolutions by the Court setting time frames be set for the
executive agencies to perform their assigned tasks pursuant to earlier
decision of the Court is simply an exercise of judicial power under Art.
VIII of the Constitution, because the execution of the Decision is but an
integral part of the adjudicative function of the Court, not an
encroachment by the Court over executive powers and functions.The
case is now in the execution phase of the final and executory
December 18, 2008 Decision. The Manila Bay Advisory Committee
was created to receive and evaluate the quarterly progressive reports
on the activities undertaken by the agencies in accordance with said
decision and to monitor the execution phase. In the absence of specific
completion periods, the Committee recommended that time frames be
set for the agencies to perform their assigned tasks. This may be
viewed as an encroachment over the powers and functions of the
Executive Branch headed by the President of the Philippines. This
view is misplaced. The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the
Court is simply an exercise of judicial power under Art. VIII of the
Constitution, because the execution of the Decision is but an integral
part of the adjudicative function of the Court. None of the agencies
ever questioned the power of the Court to implement the December
18, 2008 Decision nor has any of them raised the alleged
encroachment by the Court over executive functions. While additional
activities are required of the agencies like submission of plans of
action, data or status reports, these directives are but part and parcel
of the execution stage of a final decision under Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court.
Same; Same; Same; With the final and executory judgment in
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), the writ of
continuing mandamus issued in MMDA means that until petitioner-
agencies have shown full compliance with the Courts orders, the Court
exercises continuing jurisdiction over them until full execution of the
judgment.The submission of periodic reports is sanctioned by Secs.
7 and 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases:
Sec. 7. Judgment.If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of
the writ of continuing mandamus requiring respondent to perform an
act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied and to grant
such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from the wrongful or
illegal acts of the respondent. The court shall require the
respondent to submit periodic reports detailing
92
92
Manila Bay
the progress and execution of the judgment, and the court
may, by itself or through a commissioner or the appropriate
government agency, evaluate and monitor compliance. The
petitioner may submit its comments or observations on the execution
of the judgment. Sec. 8. Return of the writ.The periodic reports
submitted by the respondent detailing compliance with the judgment
shall be contained in partial returns of the writ. Upon full satisfaction
of the judgment, a final return of the writ shall be made to the court
by the respondent. If the court finds that the judgment has been fully
implemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the
court docket. (Emphasis supplied.) With the final and executory
judgment in MMDA, the writ of continuing mandamus issued
in MMDA means that until petitioner-agencies have shown full
compliance with the Courts orders, the Court exercises continuing
jurisdiction over them until full execution of the judgment.
CARPIO,J.,Dissenting Opinion:
Courts; Separation of Powers; The Courts Resolution constitutes
an intrusion of the Judiciary into the exclusive domain of the
Executivein the guise of implementing the 18 December 2008
Decision through the Resolution, the Court is in effect supervising and
directing the different government agencies and Local Government
Units (LGUs) concerned.What is the purpose of requiring these
agencies to submit to the Court their plans of action and status
reports? Are these plans to be approved or disapproved by the Court?
The Court does not have the competence or even the jurisdiction to
evaluate these plans which involves technical matters best left to the
expertise of the concerned agencies. The Resolution also requires that
the concerned agencies shall submit [to the Court] their
quarterly reports electronically x x x. Thus, the directive for the
concerned agencies to submit to the Court their quarterly reports is a
continuing obligation which extends even beyond the year 2011. The
Court is now arrogating unto itself two constitutional powers
exclusively vested in the President. First, the Constitution provides
that executive power shall be vested in the President. This
means that neither the Judiciary nor the Legislature can exercise
executive power for executive power is the exclusive domain of the
President. Second, the Constitution provides that the President shall
have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and
offices. Neither the Judiciary nor the Legislature can exercise
93
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
93
Manila Bay
control or even supervision over executive departments, bureaus,
and offices. Clearly, the Resolution constitutes an intrusion of the
Judiciary into the exclusive domain of the Executive. In the guise of
implementing the 18 December 2008 Decision through the Resolution,
the Court is in effect supervising and directing the different
government agencies and LGUs concerned.
Same; Same; In this case, the directives in the Resolution are
administrative in nature and circumvent the constitutional provision
which prohibits Supreme Court members from performing quasi-
judicial or administrative functions.Likewise, in this case, the
directives in the Resolution are administrative in nature and
circumvent the constitutional provision which prohibits Supreme
Court members from performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions. Section 12, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
SEC. 12. The members of the Supreme Court and of other courts
established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions. Thus, in the case ofIn Re:
Designation of Judge Manzano as Member of the Ilocos Norte
Provincial Committee on Justice, 166 SCRA 246 (1988), the Court
invalidated the designation of a judge as member of the Ilocos Norte
Provincial Committee on Justice, which was tasked to receive
complaints and to make recommendations for the speedy disposition
of cases of detainees. The Court held that the committee performs
administrative functions which are prohibited under Section 12,
Article VIII of the Constitution. As early as the 1932 case of Manila
Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co., this Court has already
emphasized that the Supreme Court should only exercise judicial
power and should not assume any duty which does not pertain to the
administering of judicial functions.
Same; Same; The Court is in effect ordering Local Government
Units (LGUs) officials how to do their job and even gives a deadline for
their complianceagain, this is a usurpation of the power of the
President to supervise LGUs under the Constitution and existing laws.
The Resolution orders some LGU officials to inspect the
establishments and houses along major river banks and to take
appropriate action to ensure compliance by non-complying
factories, commercial establishments and private homes with
said law, rules and regulations requiring the construction or
installment of wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic
94
94
Manila Bay
septic tanks.The LGU officials are also directed to submit to
the DILG on or before December 31, 2011 their respective compliance
reports which shall contain the names and addresses or offices of the
owners of all the non-complying factories, commercial establishments
and private homes. Furthermore, the Resolution mandates that on or
before 30 June 2011, the DILG and the mayors of all cities in Metro
Manila should consider providing land for the wastewater facilities of
the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) or its
concessionaires (Maynilad and Manila Water Inc.) within their
respective jurisdictions. The Court is in effect ordering these
LGU officials how to do their job and even gives a deadline for
their compliance. Again, this is a usurpation of the power of the
President to supervise LGUs under the Constitution and existing
laws.
Same; Same; The Courts Resolution constitutes judicial overreach
by usurping and performing executive functions.The Resolution
constitutes judicial overreach by usurping and performing
executive functions. The Court must refrain from overstepping its
boundaries by taking over the functions of an equal branch of the
governmentthe Executive. The Court should abstain from
exercising any function which is not strictly judicial in character and
is not clearly conferred on it by the Constitution. Indeed, as stated by
Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Noblejas v. Teehankee, 23 SCRA 405 (1968),
the Supreme Court of the Philippines and its members should not
and can not be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust
or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the
administration of judicial functions. The directives in the Resolution
constitute a judicial encroachment of an executive function which
clearly violates the system of separation of powers that inheres in our
democratic republican government. The principle of separation of
powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of
government is part of the basic structure of the Philippine
Constitution.
SERENO,J.,Dissenting Opinion:
Courts; Separation of Powers; I find these directives in the
Majority Resolution patently irreconcilable with basic constitutional
doctrines and with the legislative mechanisms already in place, such
as the Administrative Code and the Local Government Code, which
95
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
95
Manila Bay
explicitly grant control and supervision over these agencies to the
President alone, and to no one else.On 18 December 2008, the Court
promulgated its decision inMMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila
Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, denying the petition of the government
agencies, defendants in Civil Case No. 1851-99. It held that the Court
of Appeals, subject to some modifications, was correct in affirming the
13 September 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case
No. 1851-99. It ordered the abovenamed defendant-government
agencies to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and
restore and maintain its waters to SB level (Class B sea waters per
Water Classification Tables under DENR Administrative Order No.
34 [1990]) to make them fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other
forms of contact recreation. The Court further issued each of the
aforementioned agencies specific orders to comply with their statutory
mandate. Pursuant to the judgment above, the Court established its
own Manila Bay Advisory Committee. Upon the recommendations of
the said Committee, the present Resolution was issued. It
encompasses several of the specific instructions laid out by the court
in the original case, but also goes further by requiring reports and
updates from the said government agencies, and setting deadlines for
the submission thereof. I find these directives in the Majority
Resolution patently irreconcilable with basic constitutional doctrines
and with the legislative mechanisms already in place, such as the
Administrative Code and the Local Government Code, which
explicitly grant control and supervision over these agencies to the
President alone, and to no one else. For these reasons, I respectfully
dissent from the Majority Resolution.
Same; Same; The act of the Court giving very specific instructions
to the petitioner agencies to report the progress and status of their
operations directly to the latter, as well in requiring them to apprise it
of any noncompliance with the standards set forth by different laws as
to environment protection, is tantamount to making these agencies
accountable to the Court instead of the President.To herein
petitioner agencies impleaded below, this Court has given very
specific instructions to report the progress and status of their
operations directly to the latter. The Court also required the agencies
to apprise it of any noncompliance with the standards set forth by
different laws as to environment protection. This move is tantamount
to making these agencies accountable to the Court instead of the
President. The very occupation streamlined especially for the
96
96
Manila Bay
technical and practical expertise of the Executive Branch is being
usurped without regard for the delineations of power in the
Constitution. In fact, the issuance of the Resolution itself is in direct
contravention of the Presidents exclusive power to issue
administrative orders, as shown thus: Administrative Orders.Acts
of the President which relate to particular aspect of governmental
operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be
promulgated in administrative orders.
Same; Same; Environmental Law; No matter how urgent and
laudatory the cause of environment protection has become, it cannot
but yield to the higher mandate of separation of powers and the
mechanisms laid out by the people through the Constitution.The
implementation of the policy laid out by the legislaturein the
Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004, the Toxic and Hazardous Waste
Act or Republic Act 6969, the Environment Code, and other laws
geared towards environment protectionis under the competence of
the President. Achieved thereby is a uniform standard of
administrative efficiency. And since it is through administrative
orders promulgated by the President that specific operational aspects
for these policies are laid out, the Resolution of this Court overlaps
with the Presidents administrative power. No matter how urgent and
laudatory the cause of environment protection has become, it cannot
but yield to the higher mandate of separation of powers and the
mechanisms laid out by the people through the Constitution.
Same; Same; Same; Expediency is never a reason to abandon
legitimacy.Nor is there merit in the contention that these directives
will speed up the rehabilitation of Manila Bay better than if said
rehabilitation were left to the appropriate agencies. Expediency is
never a reason to abandon legitimacy. The Separation of Powers
often impairs efficiency, in terms of dispatch and the immediate
functioning of government. It is the long-term staying power of
government that is enhanced by the mutual accommodation required
by the separation of powers.
Same; Same; In its revised Resolution, the Court is now setting
deadlines for the implementation of policy formulations which require
decision-making by the agenciesit has confused an order enjoining a
duty, with an order outlining specific technical rules on how to
perform such a duty.In its revised Resolution, the Court is
97
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
97
Manila Bay
now setting deadlines for the implementation of policy
formulations which require decision-making by the agencies.It
has confused an order enjoining a duty, with an order
outlining specific technical rules on how to perform such a duty.
Assuming without conceding that mandamus were availing under
Rule 65, the Court can only require a particular action, but it cannot
provide for the means to accomplish such action. It is at this point
where the demarcation of the general act of cleaning up the Manila
Bay has become blurred, so much so that the Court now engages in
the slippery slope of overseeing technical details.
Same; Same; Judicial Review; Mandamus; It is an oft-repeated
rule that the Court has no power to issue advisory opinions, much less
directives requiring progress reports from the parties respecting the
execution of its decisionsthe requirements of actual case or
controversy and justiciability have long been established in order to
limit the exercise of judicial review; Needless to say, the continuing
mandamus in this case runs counter to principles of actual case or
controversy and other requisites for judicial review.It is an oft-
repeated rule that the Court has no power to issue advisory opinions,
much less directives requiring progress reports from the parties
respecting the execution of its decisions. The requirements of actual
case or controversy and justiciability have long been established in
order to limit the exercise of judicial review. While its dedication to
the implementation of the fallo in G.R. 171947-48 is admirable, the
Courts power cannot spill over to actual encroachment upon both the
control and police powers of the State under the guise of a
continuing mandamus. In G.R. 171947-48, the Court said: 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. Needless to say,
the continuing mandamus in this case runs counter to principles of
actual case or controversy and other requisites for judicial review.
In fact, the Supreme Court is in danger of acting as a super-
administratorthe scenario presently unfolding in India where the
supposed remedy originated.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Legal Research; In fact, even Justice J.
S. Verma, who penned the majority opinionin Vineet Narain in which
continuing mandamus first made its appearance, subse-
98
98
Manila Bay
quently pronounced that judicial activism should be neither
judicial ad hocism nor judicial tyranny; The Court must try to
maintain a healthy balance between the departments, precisely as the
Constitution mandates, by delineating its deft strokes and bold lines,
ever so conscious of the requirements of actual case and controversy
while, admittedly, there are certain flaws in the operation and
implementation of the laws, the judiciary cannot take the initiative to
compensate for such perceived inaction.Thus, while it was originally
intended to assert public rights in the face of government inaction and
neglect, the remedy is now facing serious criticism as it has spiraled
out of control. In fact, even Justice J. S. Verma, who penned the
majority opinion in Vineet Narain in which continuing mandamus
first made its appearance, subsequently pronounced that judicial
activism should be neither judicial ad hocism nor judicial
tyranny. Justice B.N. Srikrishna observed that judges now seem to
want to engage themselves with boundless enthusiasm in complex
socio-economic issues raising myriads of facts and ideological issues
that cannot be managed by judicially manageable standards. Even
Former Chief Justice A. S. Anand, a known defender of judicial
activism, has warned against the tendency towards judicial
adventurism, reiterating the principle that the role of the judge is
that of a referee. I can blow my judicial whistle when the ball goes out
of play; but when the game restarts I must neither take part in it nor
tell the players how to play. Unless our own Supreme Court learns to
curb its excesses and apply to this case the standards for judicial
review it has developed over the years and applied to co-equal
branches, the scenario in India could very well play out in the
Philippines. The Court must try to maintain a healthy balance
between the departments, precisely as the Constitution mandates, by
delineating its deft strokes and bold lines, ever so conscious of the
requirements of actual case and controversy. While, admittedly, there
are certain flaws in the operation and implementation of the laws, the
judiciary cannot take the initiative to compensate for such perceived
inaction.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Unfortunately, the Court fails to
distinguish between a pronouncement on violation of rights on one
hand, and non-performance of duties vis--vis operational
instructions, on the other, and, it also dabbles in an interpretation of
constitutional rights in a manner that is dangerously pre-emptive of
legally available remedies.The Court stated in Tolentino v.
Secretary of Fi-
99
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
99
Manila Bay
nance, 435 SCRA 630 (1994): Disregard of the essential limits
imposed by the case and controversy requirement can in the long run
only result in undermining our authority as a court of law. For, as
judges, what we are called upon to render is judgment according to
law, not according to what may appear to be the opinion of the day
Hence, over nothing but cases and controversies can courts exercise
jurisdiction, and it is to make the exercise of that jurisdiction effective
that they are allowed to pass upon constitutional questions.
Admirable though the sentiments of the Court may be, it must act
within jurisdictional limits. These limits are founded upon the
traditional requirement of a cause of action: the act or omission by
which a party violates a right of another. In constitutional cases, for
every writ or remedy, there must be a clear pronouncement of the
corresponding right which has been infringed. Only then can there
surface that clear concreteness provided when a question emerges
precisely framed and necessary for decision from a clash of adversary
argument exploring every aspect of a multifaceted situation
embracing conflicting and demanding interests. Unfortunately, the
Court fails to distinguish between a pronouncement on violation of
rights on one hand, and non-performance of duties vis--vis
operational instructions, on the other. Moreover, it also dabbles in an
interpretation of constitutional rights in a manner that is
dangerously pre-emptive of legally available remedies.
Same; Same; Same; Same; In cases of executive non-
implementation of statutes, the courts cannot justify the use of
continuing mandamus, as it would by its very definition overlap
with the monitoring power under congressional oversight.Macalintal
v. Comelec, 405 SCRA 614 (2003), further discusses that legislative
supervision under the oversight power connotes a continuing and
informed awareness on the part of Congress regarding executive
operations in a given administrative area. Because the power to
legislate includes the power to ensure that the laws are enforced, this
monitoring power has been granted by the Constitution to the
legislature. In cases of executive non-implementation of statutes, the
courts cannot justify the use of continuing mandamus, as it would
by its very definition overlap with the monitoring power
undercongressional oversight.The Resolution does not only encroach
upon the general supervisory function of the Executive, it also
diminished and arrogated unto itself the power of congressional
oversight.
100
100
Manila Bay

Same; Same; Same; Same; Environmental Law; This Court
cannot nobly defend the environmental rights of generations of
Filipinos enshrined in the Constitution while in the same breath
eroding the foundations of that very instrument from which it draws
its power.This Court cannot nobly defend the environmental rights
of generations of Filipinos enshrined in the Constitution while in the
same breath eroding the foundations of that very instrument from
which it draws its power. While the remedy of continuing
mandamus has evolved out of a Third World jurisdiction similar to
ours, we cannot overstep the boundaries laid down by the rule of law.
Otherwise, this Court would rush recklessly beyond the delimitations
precisely put in place to safeguard excesses of power. The tribunal,
considered by many citizens as the last guardian of fundamental
rights, would then resemble nothing more than an idol with feet of
clay: strong in appearance, but weak in foundation. The Court
becomes a conscience by acting to remind us of limitation on power,
even judicial power, and the interrelation of good purposes with good
means. Morality is not an end dissociated from means. There is a
morality of morality, which respects the limitation of office and the
fallibility of the human mindself-limitation is the first mark of the
master. That, too is part of the role of the conscience.
ORDER OF EXECUTION of the Final and Executory
December 18, 2003 Decision of the Supreme Court.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Emmanuel A. De Castro and Rochelle T. Macapili for
MMDA.
The Solicitor Generalfor petitioners.
Lissa Belle M. Villanueva for petitioner Philippine Coast
Guard.
Antonio A. Oposa, Jr., Karl Arian Castillo, Rogelio A.
Vinluan, Rico Agcaoili and Fortun, Narvasa and Salazar for
respondents.
Rowena Candice M. Ruiz and Ryan S. Lita for the
Secretary of Department of Budget and Management.
101
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
101
Manila Bay

Nollora & Associates Law Offices for movant Samahang
Mandaragat Bagong Pag-asa, Inc. and Kalipunan ng
Mangingisda ng Tambo, Inc.
Jobert I. Pahilgafor intervenors Sentro Para sa Tunay na
Repormang Agraryo (SENTRA).
St. Thomas More Law Center; Sentro ng Alternatibong
Lingap Panligal (SALIGAN); Michael Vincent S. Gaddi, Gloria
D. Santos, Jr., Alaya M. De Leon, Bienvenido A. Salinas,
Jr.,andRitche I. Esponillafor movants.
RESOLUTION
VELASCO, JR.,J.:
On December 18, 2008, this Court rendered a Decision in
G.R. Nos. 171947-48 ordering petitioners to clean up,
rehabilitate and preserve Manila Bay in their different
capacities. Thefalloreads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 28, 2005
Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 76528 and SP No. 74944 and
the September 13, 2002 Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 1851-99
are AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATIONS in view of subsequent
developments or supervening events in the case. The fallo of the RTC
Decision shall now read:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the
abovenamed defendant-government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate,
and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and maintain its waters to SB
level (Class B sea waters per Water Classification Tables under
DENR Administrative Order No. 34 [1990]) to make them fit for
swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation.
In particular:
(1) Pursuant to Sec. 4 of EO 192, assigning the DENR as the
primary agency responsible for the conservation, management,
development, and proper use of the countrys environment and
natural resources, and Sec. 19 of RA 9275, designating the DENR as
the primary government agency responsible for its enforcement and
implementation, the DENR is directed to fully implement its Opera-
102
102
Manila Bay
tional Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation,
restoration, and conservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest
possible time. It is ordered to call regular coordination meetings with
concerned government departments and agencies to ensure the
successful implementation of the aforesaid plan of action in
accordance with its indicated completion schedules.
(2) Pursuant to Title XII (Local Government) of the
Administrative Code of 1987 and Sec. 25 of the Local Government
Code of 1991, the DILG, in exercising the Presidents power of general
supervision and its duty to promulgate guidelines in establishing
waste management programs under Sec. 43 of the Philippine
Environment Code (PD 1152), shall direct all LGUs in Metro Manila,
Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all
factories, commercial establishments, and private homes along the
banks of the major river systems in their respective areas of
jurisdiction, such as but not limited to the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan
Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-
Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycauayan-Marilao-
Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus
(Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and
waterways that eventually discharge water into the Manila Bay; and
the lands abutting the bay, to determine whether they have
wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed
by existing laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations. If none be
found, these LGUs shall be ordered to require non-complying
establishments and homes to set up said facilities or septic tanks
within a reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes, sewage water,
and human wastes from flowing into these rivers, waterways, esteros,
and the Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of fines and
other sanctions.
(3) As mandated by Sec. 8 of RA 9275, the MWSS is directed to
provide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary adequate waste
water treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite where
needed at the earliest possible time.
(4) Pursuant to RA 9275, the LWUA, through the local water
districts and in coordination with the DENR, is ordered to provide,
install, operate, and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and
the efficient and safe collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in
the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan
where needed at the earliest possible time.
103
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
103
Manila Bay

(5)Pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 8550, the DA, through the BFAR, is
ordered to improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay. It is
also directed to assist the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite,
Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan in developing, using
recognized methods, the fisheries and aquatic resources in the Manila
Bay.
(6) The PCG, pursuant to Secs. 4 and 6 of PD 979, and the PNP
Maritime Group, in accordance with Sec. 124 of RA 8550, in
coordination with each other, shall apprehend violators of PD 979, RA
8550, and other existing laws and regulations designed to prevent
marine pollution in the Manila Bay.
(7)Pursuant to Secs. 2 and 6-c of EO 513 and the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the PPA is
ordered to immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge
and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated
wastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and
apprehend the violators.
(8) The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs
and projects for flood control projects and drainage services in Metro
Manila, in coordination with the DPWH, DILG, affected LGUs, PNP
Maritime Group, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating
Council (HUDCC), and other agencies, shall dismantle and remove all
structures, constructions, and other encroachments established or
built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the
Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las
Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and
connecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH, as
the principal implementor of programs and projects for flood control
services in the rest of the country more particularly in Bulacan,
Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, in coordination with the
DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, HUDCC, and other
concerned government agencies, shall remove and demolish all
structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of
RA 7279 and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-
Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus
(Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other rivers, connecting
waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater into the Manila
Bay.
In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish, operate, and
maintain a sanitary landfill, as prescribed by RA 9003, within a
104
104
Manila Bay
period of one (1) year from finality of this Decision. On matters within
its territorial jurisdiction and in connection with the discharge of its
duties on the maintenance of sanitary landfills and like undertakings,
it is also ordered to cause the apprehension and filing of the
appropriate criminal cases against violators of the respective penal
provisions of RA 9003, Sec. 27 of RA 9275 (the Clean Water Act), and
other existing laws on pollution.
(9)The DOH shall, as directed by Art. 76 of PD 1067 and Sec. 8 of
RA 9275, within one (1) year from finality of this Decision, determine
if all licensed septic and sludge companies have the proper facilities
for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming
from septic tanks. The DOH shall give the companies, if found to be
non-complying, a reasonable time within which to set up the
necessary facilities under pain of cancellation of its environmental
sanitation clearance.
(10) Pursuant to Sec. 53 of PD 1152, Sec. 118 of RA 8550, and
Sec. 56 of RA 9003, the DepEd shall integrate lessons on pollution
prevention, waste management, environmental protection, and like
subjects in the school curricula of all levels to inculcate in the minds
and hearts of students and, through them, their parents and friends,
the importance of their duty toward achieving and maintaining a
balanced and healthful ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entire
Philippine archipelago.
(11) The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequate budget
in the General Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to
cover the expenses relating to the cleanup, restoration, and
preservation of the water quality of the Manila Bay, in line with the
countrys development objective to attain economic growth in a
manner consistent with the protection, preservation, and revival of
our marine waters.
(12) The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd,
DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG, and also
of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in line with the principle of continuing
mandamus, shall, from finality of this Decision, each submit to the
Court a quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken in
accordance with this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
105
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
105
Manila Bay
The government agencies did not file any motion for
reconsideration and the Decision became final in January
2009.
The case is now in the execution phase of the final and
executory December 18, 2008 Decision. The Manila Bay
Advisory Committee was created to receive and evaluate the
quarterly progressive reports on the activities undertaken by
the agencies in accordance with said decision and to monitor
the execution phase.
In the absence of specific completion periods, the Committee
recommended that time frames be set for the agencies to
perform their assigned tasks. This may be viewed as an
encroachment over the powers and functions of the Executive
Branch headed by the President of the Philippines.
This view is misplaced.
The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the Court is
simply an exercise of judicial power under Art. VIII of the
Constitution, because the execution of the Decision is but an
integral part of the adjudicative function of the Court. None of
the agencies ever questioned the power of the Court to
implement the December 18, 2008 Decision nor has any of
them raised the alleged encroachment by the Court over
executive functions.
While additional activities are required of the agencies like
submission of plans of action, data or status reports, these
directives are but part and parcel of the execution stage of a
final decision under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Section 47 of
Rule 39 reads:
Section 47.Effect of judgments or final orders.The effect of a
judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as
follows:
x x x x
(c)In any other litigation between the same parties of their
successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been
adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears
106
106
Manila Bay
upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually
and necessarily included therein or necessary
thereto. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear that the final judgment includes not only what
appears upon its face to have been so adjudged but also those
matters actually and necessarily included therein or
necessary thereto. Certainly, any activity that is needed to
fully implement a final judgment is necessarily encompassed
by said judgment.
Moreover, the submission of periodic reports is sanctioned
by Secs. 7 and 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental cases:
Sec. 7.Judgment.If warranted, the court shall grant the
privilege of the writ of continuing mandamus requiring respondent to
perform an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied
and to grant such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from
the wrongful or illegal acts of the respondent. The court shall
require the respondent to submit periodic reports detailing
the progress and execution of the judgment, and the court
may, by itself or through a commissioner or the appropriate
government agency, evaluate and monitor compliance. The
petitioner may submit its comments or observations on the execution
of the judgment.
Sec.8.Return of the writ.The periodic reports submitted by the
respondent detailing compliance with the judgment shall be contained
in partial returns of the writ. Upon full satisfaction of the judgment, a
final return of the writ shall be made to the court by the respondent.
If the court finds that the judgment has been fully implemented, the
satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the court
docket. (Emphasis supplied.)
With the final and executory judgment in MMDA, the writ
of continuing mandamus issued in MMDA means that until
petitioner-agencies have shown full compliance with the
Courts orders, the Court exercises continuing jurisdiction over
them until full execution of the judgment.
107
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
107
Manila Bay

There being no encroachment over executive functions to
speak of, We shall now proceed to the recommendation of the
Manila Bay Advisory Committee.
Several problems were encountered by the Manila Bay
Advisory Committee. 2 An evaluation of the quarterly
progressive reports has shown that (1) there are voluminous
quarterly progressive reports that are being submitted; (2)
petitioner-agencies do not have a uniform manner of reporting
their cleanup, rehabilitation and preservation activities; (3) as
yet no definite deadlines have been set by petitioner DENR as
to petitioner-agencies timeframe for their respective duties; (4)
as of June 2010 there has been a change in leadership in both
the national and local levels; and (5) some agencies have
encountered difficulties in complying with the Courts
directives.
In order to implement the afore-quoted Decision, certain
directives have to be issued by the Court to address the said
concerns.
_______________
2On February 10, 2009, the CourtEn Bancapproved a resolution creating

an Advisory Committee that will verify the reports of the government
agencies tasked to clean up the Manila Bay. It is composed of two members of
the Court and three technical experts:
Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
Chairperson andponenteof MMDA vs. Concerned
Residents of Manila
Hon. Jose Midas P. Marquez
Court Administrator
Vice-Chairperson
Members/Technical Experts:
Dr. Gil S. Jacinto
Former Director, UP Marine Science Institute
Dr. Elisea G. Gozun
Chair of Earth Day Network and Former DENR Secretary
Dr. Antonio G.M. La Via
Former DENR Undersecretary
Dean of the Ateneo School of Government
108
108
Manila Bay

Acting on the recommendation of the Manila Bay Advisory
Committee, the Court hereby resolves to ORDERthe
following:
(1)The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), as lead agency in the Philippine Clean
Water Act of 2004, shall submit to the Court on or before June
30, 2011 the updated Operational Plan for the Manila Bay
Coastal Strategy.
The DENR is ordered to submit summarized data on the
overall quality of Manila Bay waters for all four quarters of
2010 on or before June 30, 2011.
The DENR is further ordered to submit the names and
addresses of persons and companies in Metro Manila, Rizal,
Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan that generate
toxic and hazardous waste on or before September 30, 2011.
(2)On or before June 30, 2011, the Department of the
Interior and Local Government (DILG) shall order the Mayors
of all cities in Metro Manila; the Governors of Rizal, Laguna,
Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan; and the Mayors of all
the cities and towns in said provinces to inspect all factories,
commercial establishments and private homes along the banks
of the major river systemssuch as but not limited to the
Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the National Capital Region
(Paranaque-Zapote, Las Pinas) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-
Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando
(Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus
(Cavite) River, and the Laguna De Bayand other minor
rivers and waterways within their jurisdiction that eventually
discharge water into the Manila Bay and the lands abutting it,
to determine if they have wastewater treatment facilities and/
or hygienic septic tanks, as prescribed by existing laws,
ordinances, rules and regulations. Said local government unit
(LGU) officials are given up to September 30, 2011 to finish
the inspection of said establishments and houses.
109
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
109
Manila Bay

In case of non-compliance, the LGU officials shall take
appropriate action to ensure compliance by non-complying
factories, commercial establishments and private homes with
said law, rules and regulations requiring the construction or
installment of wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic
septic tanks.
The aforementioned governors and mayors shall submit to
the DILG on or before December 31, 2011 their respective
compliance reports which will contain the names and
addresses or offices of the owners of all the non-complying
factories, commercial establishments and private homes, copy
furnished the concerned environmental agency, be it the local
DENR office or the Laguna Lake Development Authority.
The DILG is required to submit a five-year plan of action
that will contain measures intended to ensure compliance of
all non-complying factories, commercial establishments, and
private homes.
On or before June 30, 2011, the DILG and the mayors of all
cities in Metro Manila shall consider providing land for the
wastewater facilities of the Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System (MWSS) or its concessionaires (Maynilad
and Manila Water, Inc.) within their respective jurisdictions.
(3)The MWSS shall submit to the Court on or before June
30, 2011 the list of areas in Metro Manila, Rizal and Cavite
that do not have the necessary wastewater treatment facilities.
Within the same period, the concessionaires of the MWSS shall
submit their plans and projects for the construction of
wastewater treatment facilities in all the aforesaid areas and
the completion period for said facilities, which shall not go
beyond 2037.
On or before June 30, 2011, the MWSS is further required
to have its two concessionaires submit a report on the amount
collected as sewerage fees in their respective areas of operation
as of December 31, 2010.
110
110
Manila Bay

(4)The Local Water Utilities Administration is ordered to
submit on or before September 30, 2011 its plan to provide,
install, operate and maintain sewerage and sanitation
facilities in said cities and towns and the completion period for
said works, which shall be fully implemented by December 31,
2020.
(5)The Department of Agriculture (DA), through the
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, shall submit to the
Court on or before June 30, 2011 a report on areas in Manila
Bay where marine life has to be restored or improved and the
assistance it has extended to the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal,
Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan in developing
the fisheries and aquatic resources in Manila Bay. The report
shall contain monitoring data on the marine life in said areas.
Within the same period, it shall submit its five-year plan to
restore and improve the marine life in Manila Bay, its future
activities to assist the aforementioned LGUs for that purpose,
and the completion period for said undertakings.
The DA shall submit to the Court on or before September
30, 2011 the baseline data as of September 30, 2010 on the
pollution loading into the Manila Bay system from agricultural
and livestock sources.
(6)The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall incorporate
in its quarterly reports the list of violators it has apprehended
and the status of their cases. The PPA is further ordered to
include in its report the names, make and capacity of the ships
that dock in PPA ports. The PPA shall submit to the Court on
or before June 30, 2011 the measures it intends to undertake
to implement its compliance with paragraph 7 of the
dispositive portion of the MMDA Decision and the completion
dates of such measures.
The PPA should include in its report the activities of its
concessionaire that collects and disposes of the solid and liquid
wastes and other ship-generated wastes, which shall state the
names, make and capacity of the ships serviced by it since
111
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
111
Manila Bay
August 2003 up to the present date, the dates the ships docked
at PPA ports, the number of days the ship was at sea with the
corresponding number of passengers and crew per trip, the
volume of solid, liquid and other wastes collected from said
ships, the treatment undertaken and the disposal site for said
wastes.
(7)The Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group
shall submit on or before June 30, 2011 its five-year plan of
action on the measures and activities it intends to undertake
to apprehend the violators of Republic Act No. (RA) 8550 or
thePhilippine Fisheries Code of 1998and other pertinent laws,
ordinances and regulations to prevent marine pollution in
Manila Bay and to ensure the successful prosecution of
violators.
The Philippine Coast Guard shall likewise submit on or
before June 30, 2011 its five-year plan of action on the
measures and activities they intend to undertake to apprehend
the violators of Presidential Decree No. 979 or the Marine
Pollution Decree of 1976and RA 9993 or thePhilippine Coast
Guard Law of 2009 and other pertinent laws and regulations
to prevent marine pollution in Manila Bay and to ensure the
successful prosecution of violators.
(8)The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority
(MMDA) shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011
the names and addresses of the informal settlers in Metro
Manila who, as of December 31, 2010, own and occupy houses,
structures, constructions and other encroachments established
or built along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR
(Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-
Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting waterways
andesteros, in violation of RA 7279 and other applicable laws.
On or before June 30, 2011, the MMDA shall submit its plan
for the removal of said informal settlers and the demolition of
the aforesaid houses, structures, constructions and
encroachments, as well as the completion dates for said ac-
112
112
Manila Bay
tivities, which shall be fully implemented not later than
December 31, 2015.
The MMDA is ordered to submit a status report, within
thirty (30) days from receipt of this Resolution, on the
establishment of a sanitary landfill facility for Metro Manila in
compliance with the standards under RA 9003 or
theEcological Solid Waste Management Act.
On or before June 30, 2011, the MMDA shall submit a
report of the location of open and controlled dumps in Metro
Manila whose operations are illegal after February 21,
2006,3pursuant to Secs. 36 and 37 of RA 9003, and its plan for
the closure of these open and controlled dumps to be
accomplished not later than December 31, 2012. Also, on or
before June 30, 2011, the DENR Secretary, as Chairperson of
the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC),
shall submit a report on the location of all open and controlled
dumps in Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga and
Bataan.
On or before June 30, 2011, the DENR Secretary, in his
capacity as NSWMC Chairperson, shall submit a report on
whether or not the following landfills strictly comply with Secs.
41 and 42 of RA 9003 on the establishment and operation of
sanitary landfills, to wit:
National Capital Region
1.Navotas SLF (PhilEco), Brgy. Tanza (New Site), Navotas City
_______________
3Our Decision inMetropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned

Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA
661, 690, states: RA 9003 took effect on February 15, 2001 and the
adverted grace period of five (5) years [in Sec. 37 of RA 9003] which
ended on February 21, 2006 has come and gone, but no single sanitary
landfill which strictly complies with the prescribed standards under RA 9003
has yet been set up. (Emphasis supplied.)
113
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
113
Manila Bay
2.Payatas Controlled Dumpsite, Barangay Payatas, Quezon City

Region III
3.Sitio Coral, Brgy. Matictic, Norzagaray, Bulacan
4.Sitio Tiakad, Brgy. San Mateo, Norzagaray, Bulacan
5.Brgy. Minuyan, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan
6.Brgy. Mapalad, Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija
7.Sub-zone Kalangitan, Clark Capas, Tarlac Special Economic Zone
Region IV-A
8.Kalayaan (Longos), Laguna
9.Brgy. Sto. Nino, San Pablo City, Laguna
10.Brgy. San Antonio (Pilotage SLF), San Pedro, Laguna
11.Morong, Rizal
12.Sitio Lukutan, Brgy. San Isidro, Rodriguez (Montalban), Rizal (ISWIMS)
13.Brgy. Pintong Bukawe, San Mateo, Rizal (SMSLFDC)
On or before June 30, 2011, the MMDA and the seventeen
(17) LGUs in Metro Manila are ordered to jointly submit a
report on the average amount of garbage collected monthly per
district in all the cities in Metro Manila from January 2009 up
to December 31, 2010 vis--vis the average amount of garbage
disposed monthly in landfills and dumpsites. In its quarterly
report for the last quarter of 2010 and thereafter, MMDA shall
report on the apprehensions for violations of the penal
provisions of RA 9003, RA 9275 and other laws on pollution for
the said period.
On or before June 30, 2011, the DPWH and the LGUs in
Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan shall
submit the names and addresses of the informal settlers in
their respective areas who, as of September 30, 2010, own or
occupy houses, structures, constructions, and other
encroachments built along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando
(Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus
114
114
Manila Bay
(Cavite) River, the Laguna de Bay, and other rivers,
connecting waterways and esteros that discharge wastewater
into the Manila Bay, in breach of RA 7279 and other applicable
laws. On or before June 30, 2011, the DPWH and the aforesaid
LGUs shall jointly submit their plan for the removal of said
informal settlers and the demolition of the aforesaid
structures, constructions and encroachments, as well as the
completion dates for such activities which shall be
implemented not later than December 31, 2012.
(9)The Department of Health (DOH) shall submit to the
Court on or before June 30, 2011 the names and addresses of
the owners of septic and sludge companies including those that
do not have the proper facilities for the treatment and disposal
of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks.
The DOH shall implement rules and regulations on
Environmental Sanitation Clearances and shall require
companies to procure a license to operate from the DOH.
The DOH and DENR-Environmental Management Bureau
shall develop a toxic and hazardous waste management system
by June 30, 2011 which will implement segregation of hospital/
toxic/hazardous wastes and prevent mixing with municipal
solid waste.
On or before June 30, 2011, the DOH shall submit a plan of
action to ensure that the said companies have proper disposal
facilities and the completion dates of compliance.
(10)The Department of Education (DepEd) shall submit
to the Court on or before May 31, 2011 a report on the specific
subjects on pollution prevention, waste management,
environmental protection, environmental laws and the like
that it has integrated into the school curricula in all levels for
the school year 2011-2012.
On or before June 30, 2011, the DepEd shall also submit its
plan of action to ensure compliance of all the schools under its
supervision with respect to the integration of the aforemen-
115
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
115
Manila Bay
tioned subjects in the school curricula which shall be fully
implemented by June 30, 2012.
(11)All the agencies are required to submit their
quarterly reports electronically using the forms below. The
agencies may add other key performance indicators that they
have identified.
SO ORDERED.
Corona (C.J.), Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta,
Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr.,
PerezandMendoza, JJ., concur.
Carpio, J., See Dissenting Opinion.
Carpio-Morales and Brion, JJ., We join the Dissent of J.
Carpio.
Sereno, J., See Dissenting Opinion.
DISSENTING OPINION
CARPIO,J.:
The Resolution contains the proposed directives of the
Manila Bay Advisory Committee to the concerned agencies1and
local government units (LGUs) for the implementation of the
18 December 2008 Decision of the Court in this case.
Among the directives stated in the Resolution is for the
affected agencies to submit to the Court their plans of action
and status reports, thus:
_______________
1Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department

of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System (MWSS), Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA),
Department of Agriculture (DA), Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), Philippine
National Police (PNP), Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA),
Department of Health (DOH), Department of Education (DepEd), and
Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
116
116
Manila Bay

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
as lead agency in thePhilippine Clean Water Act of 2004, shall submit
to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the updatedOperational Plan
for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy(OPMBCS);2
The DILG is required to submit a five-year plan of action
that will contain measures intended to ensure compliance of
all non-complying factories, commercial establishments, and
private homes;3
The MWSS shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011
the list of areas in Metro Manila, Rizal and Cavite that do not have
the necessary wastewater treatment facilities. Within the same
period, the concessionaires of the MWSS shall submit their
plans and projects for the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities in all the aforesaid areas and the
completion period for said facilities, which shall not go
beyond 2020;4
The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) shall submit to
the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the list of cities and towns in
Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan that do not have
sewerage and sanitation facilities. LWUA is further ordered to
submit on or before September 30, 2011 its plan to provide,
install, operate and maintain sewerage and sanitation
facilities in said cities and towns and the completion period
for said works which shall be fully implemented by December
31, 2020;5
The Department of Agriculture (DA), through the Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), shall submit to the Court on
or before June 30, 2011 a report on areas in Manila Bay where
marine life has to be restored or improved and the assistance it has
extended to the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna,
Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan in developing the fisheries and
aquatic resources in Manila Bay. The report shall contain monitoring
data on the marine life in said areas. Within the same period, it
shall submit its five-year plan to restore and improve the
marine
_______________
2Resolution, p. 4.
3Resolution, p. 6.
4Resolution, p. 6.
5Resolution, pp. 6-7.
117
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
117
Manila Bay
life in Manila Bay, its future activities to assist the
aforementioned LGUs for that purpose, and the completion
period for said undertakings;6
The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall incorporate in its
quarterly reports the list of violators it has apprehended and the
status of their cases. The PPA is further ordered to include in its
report the names, make and capacity of the ships that dock in PPA
ports.The PPA shall submit to the Court on or before June 30,
2011 the measures it intends to undertake to implement its
compliance with paragraph 7 of the dispositive portion of the
MMDA Decision and the completion dates of such measures;7
The Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group
shall submit on or before June 30, 2011 its five-year plan of
action on the measures and activities they intend to
undertake to apprehend the violators of RA 8550 or
the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 and other pertinent laws,
ordinances and regulations to prevent marine pollution in Manila Bay
and to ensure the successful prosecution of violators;8
The Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) shall likewise submit on or
before June 30, 2011 its five-year plan of action on the
measures and activities they intend to undertake to
apprehend the violators of Presidential Decree (PD) 979 or
the Marine Pollution Decree of 1976 and RA 9993 or the Philippine
Coast Guard Law of 2009and other pertinent laws and regulations to
prevent marine pollution in Manila Bay and to ensure the successful
prosecution of violators;9
The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA)
shallsubmit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the names
and addresses of the informal settlers in Metro Manila who
own and occupy houses, structures, constructions and other
encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279
and other applicable lawsalong the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan
Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the
_______________
6Resolution, p. 7.
7Resolution, p. 7.
8Resolution, p. 8.
9Resolution, p. 8.
118
118
Manila Bay
Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting
waterways and esteros as of December 31, 2010. On or before the
same date, the MMDA shall submit its plan for the removal of
said informal settlers and the demolition of the aforesaid
houses, structures, constructions and encroachments, as well
as the completion dates for said activities which shall be fully
implemented not later than December 31, 2015;10
[T]he DPWH and the aforesaid LGUs shall jointlysubmit its plan
for the removal of said informal settlers and thedemolition of
the aforesaid structures, constructions and encroachments, as
well as the completion dates for such activities which shall be
implemented not later than December 31, 2012;11
[T]he DOH shall submit a plan of action to ensure that the
said companies have proper disposal facilities and the
completion dates of compliance;12
On or before June 30, 2011, the DepEd shall alsosubmit its plan
of action to ensure compliance of all the schools under its
supervision with respect to the integration of the
aforementioned subjects in the school curricula which shall
be fully implemented by June 30, 2012;13(Emphasis supplied)
What is the purpose of requiring these agencies to submit to
the Court their plans of action and status reports? Are these
plans to be approved or disapproved by the Court? The Court
does not have the competence or even the jurisdiction to
evaluate these plans which involves technical matters14 best
left to the expertise of the concerned agencies.
_______________
10Resolution, p. 8.
11Resolution, p. 10.
14For instance, the Resolution orders the PPA to include in its report the
activities of the concessionaire that collects and disposes of the solid and liquid
wastes and other ship-generated wastes, which shall state the names, make
and capacity of the ships serviced by it since August 2003 up to the present
date, the dates the ships
119
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
119
Manila Bay
The Resolution also requires that the concerned agencies
shall submit [to the Court] their quarterly reports
electronically x x x.15 Thus, the directive for the concerned
agencies to submit to the Court their quarterly reports is a
continuing obligation which extends even beyond the year
2011.16
The Court is now arrogating unto itself two constitutional
powers exclusively vested in the President. First, the
Constitution provides that executive power shall be
vested in the President.17 This means that neither the
Judiciary nor the Legislature can exercise executive power for
executive power is the exclusive domain of the President.
Second, the Constitution provides that the President shall
have control of all the executive departments, bureaus,
and offices.18Neither the Judiciary nor the Legislature can
exercise control or even supervision over executive
departments, bureaus, and offices.
Clearly, the Resolution constitutes an intrusion of the
Judiciary into the exclusive domain of the Executive. In the
guise of implementing the 18 December 2008 Decision through
the Resolution, the Court is in effect supervising and directing
the different government agencies and LGUs concerned.
_______________
docked at PPA ports, the number of days the ship was at sea with the
corresponding number of passengers and crew per trip, the volume of solid,
liquid and ship-generated wastes collected from said ships, the treatment
undertaken and the disposal site for said wastes; Resolution, pp. 7-8.
16For example, the Resolution directs that [i]n itsquarterly report for
the last quarter of 2010 and thereafter, MMDA shall report on the
apprehensions for violations of the penal provisions of RA 9003, RA 9275 and
other laws on pollution for the said period; Resolution, p. 10. (Emphasis
supplied.)
17Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 1.
120
120
Manila Bay

InNoblejas v. Teehankee,19it was held that the Court cannot
be required to exercise administrative functions such as
supervision over executive officials. The issue in that case was
whether the Commissioner of Land Registration may only be
investigated by the Supreme Court, in view of the conferment
upon him by law (Republic Act No. 1151) of the rank and
privileges of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. The Court,
answering in the negative, stated:
To adopt petitioners theory, therefore, would mean placing upon
the Supreme Court the duty of investigating and disciplining all these
officials whose functions are plainly executive and the consequent
curtailment by mere implicationfrom the Legislative grant, of the
Presidents power to discipline and remove administrative officials
who are presidential appointees, and which the Constitution
expressly place under the Presidents supervision and control.
xxx
But the more fundamental objection to the stand of petitioner
Noblejas is that, if the Legislature had really intended to include in
the general grant of privileges or rank and privileges of Judges of
the Court of First Instance the right to be investigated by the
Supreme Court, and to be suspended or removed only upon
recommendation of that Court, thensuch grant of privilege would
be unconstitutional, since it would violate the fundamental
doctrine of separation of powers, by charging this court with
the administrative function of supervisory control over
executive officials, and simultaneously reducing pro tanto the
control of the Chief Executive over such officials.20(Boldfacing
supplied)
Likewise, in this case, the directives in the Resolution are
administrative in nature and circumvent the constitutional
provision which prohibits Supreme Court members from
performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. Section
12, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
_______________
19131 Phil. 931; 23 SCRA 405 (1968).

20Id., at pp. 934-935; pp. 408-409.
121
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
121
Manila Bay

SEC.12.The members of the Supreme Court and of other courts
established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
Thus, in the case of In Re: Designation of Judge Manzano as
Member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice,
21the Court invalidated the designation of a judge as member
of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice, which was

tasked to receive complaints and to make recommendations for
the speedy disposition of cases of detainees. The Court held
that the committee performs administrative functions22 which
are prohibited under Section 12, Article VIII of the
Constitution.
As early as the 1932 case of Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay
Transportation Co.,23 this Court has already emphasized that
the Supreme Court should only exercise judicial power and
should not assume any duty which does not pertain to the
administering of judicial functions. In that case, a petition was
filed requesting the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as
a board of arbitrators, to fix the terms and the compensation to
be paid to Manila Electric Company for the use of right of way.
The Court held that it would be improper and illegal for the
members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of
arbitrators, whose decision of a majority shall be final, to act
on the petition of Manila Electric Company. The Court
explained:
We run counter to this dilemma. Either the members of the
Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, exercise judicial
_______________
21248 Phil. 487; 166 SCRA 246 (1988).

22Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over
the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of
rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are
devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence.Id., at p.
491; p. 251.
2357 Phil. 600 (1932).
122
122
Manila Bay
functions, or as members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of
arbitrators, exercise administrative or quasi judicial functions. The
first case would appear not to fall within the jurisdiction granted the
Supreme Court. Even conceding that it does, it would presuppose the
right to bring the matter in dispute before the courts, for any other
construction would tend to oust the courts of jurisdiction and render
the award a nullity. But if this be the proper construction, we would
then have the anomaly of a decision by the members of the Supreme
Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, taken therefrom to the courts
and eventually coming before the Supreme Court, where the Supreme
Court would review the decision of its members acting as arbitrators.
Or in the second case, if the functions performed by the members of
the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, be considered as
administrative or quasi judicial in nature, that would result in the
performance of duties which the members of the Supreme Court could
not lawfully take it upon themselves to perform. The present petition
also furnishes an apt illustration of another anomaly, for we find the
Supreme Court as a court asked to determine if the members of the
court may be constituted a board of arbitrators, which is not a court
at all.
The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands represents one of the
three divisions of power in our government. It is judicial power and
judicial power only which is exercised by the Supreme Court. Just as
the Supreme Court, as the guardian of constitutional rights, should
not sanction usurpations by any other department of the government,
so should it as strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the
powers expressly or by implication conferred on it by the Organic Act.
The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be
required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume
any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administering of
judicial functions.24
Furthermore, the Resolution orders some LGU officials to
inspect the establishments and houses along major river banks
and totake appropriate action to ensure compliance by
non-complying factories, commercial establishments
and private homes with said law, rules and
_______________
24Id., at pp. 604-605.

123
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
123
Manila Bay
regulations requiring theconstruction or installment of
wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic
tanks.25The LGU officials are also directed to submit to the
DILG on or before December 31, 2011 their respective
compliance reports which shall contain the names and
addresses or offices of the owners of all the non-complying
factories, commercial establishments and private
homes.26 Furthermore, the Resolution mandates that on or
before 30 June 2011, the DILG and the mayors of all cities in
Metro Manila should consider providing land for the
wastewater facilities of the Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System (MWSS) or its concessionaires (Maynilad
and Manila Water Inc.) within their respective
jurisdictions.27The Court is in effect ordering these LGU
officials how to do their job and even gives a deadline
for their compliance. Again, this is a usurpation of the
power of the President to supervise LGUs under the
Constitution and existing laws.
Section 4, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that:
The President of the Philippines shall exercise general
supervision over local governments x x x.28Under the
Local Government Code of 1991,29 the President exercises
general supervision over LGUs, thus:
SECTION 25.National Supervision over Local Government
Units.(a) Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy, the
President shall exercise general supervision over local
government units to ensure that their acts are within the
scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over
provinces, highly urbanized cities and independent component cities;
through the province with respect to component cities and
_______________
25Resolution, p. 5.
26Resolution, p. 6.
27Resolution, p. 6.
28Emphasis supplied.
29Republic Act No. 7160.
124
124
Manila Bay
municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect to
barangays. (Emphasis supplied)
The Resolution constitutes judicial overreach by
usurping and performing executive functions.The Court
must refrain from overstepping its boundaries by taking over
the functions of an equal branch of the government the
Executive. The Court should abstain from exercising any
function which is not strictly judicial in character and is not
clearly conferred on it by the Constitution.30 Indeed, as stated
by Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Noblejas v. Teehankee,31 the
Supreme Court of the Philippines and its members should not
and can not be required to exercise any power or to perform
any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected
with the administration of judicial functions.32
The directives in the Resolution constitute a judicial
encroachment of an executive function which clearly violates
the system of separation of powers that inheres in our
democratic republican government. The principle of separation
of powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial
branches of government is part of the basic structure of the
Philippine Constitution. Thus, the 1987 Constitution provides
that: (a) the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress
of the Philippines;33 (b) the executive power shall be vested in
the President of the Philippines;34 and (c) the judicial power
shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts
as may be established.35
_______________
30Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co., supranote 23.

31Supranote 19.
32Id., at p. 936, citingManila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co., 57
Phil. 600, 605 (1932).
33Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 1.
35Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 1.
125
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
125
Manila Bay
Since the Supreme Court is only granted judicial power, it
should not attempt to assume or be compelled to perform non-
judicial functions.36 Judicial power is defined under Section 1,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution as that which includes
the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. The
Resolution contains directives which are outside the ambit of
the Courts judicial functions.
The principle of separation of powers is explained by the
Court in the leading case ofAngara v. Electoral Commission:37
The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system
of government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual
division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has
exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme
within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the
three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the
Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and
independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an
elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the
workings of the various departments of the government. x x x And the
judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter,
effectively checks the other department in its exercise of its power to
determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts
void if violative of the Constitution.38
Even the ponente is passionate about according respect to
the system of separation of powers between the three equal
branches of the government. In his dissenting opinion in the
_______________
36 J. Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A

Commentary828 (1996).
3763 Phil. 139 (1936).
38Id., at pp. 156-157.
126
126
Manila Bay
2008 case of Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the
Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
(GRP),39Justice Velasco emphatically stated:
Separation of Powers to be Guarded
Over and above the foregoing considerations, however, is the
matter of separation of powers which would likely be disturbed should
the Court meander into alien territory of the executive and dictate
how the final shape of the peace agreement with the MILF should
look like.The system of separation of powers contemplates the
division of the functions of government into its three (3)
branches: the legislative which is empowered to make laws;
the executive which is required to carry out the law; and the
judiciary which is charged with interpreting the law.
Consequent to actual delineation of power, each branch of
government is entitled to be left alone to discharge its duties
as it sees fit. Being one such branch, the judiciary, as Justice
Laurel asserted in Planas v. Gil, will neither direct nor
restrain executive [or legislative action]. Expressed in
another perspective, the system of separated powers is
designed to restrain one branch from inappropriate
interference in the business, or intruding upon the
central prerogatives, of another branch; it is a blend of
courtesy and caution, a self-executing safeguard against the
encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the
expense of the other. xxx
Under our constitutional set up, there cannot be any serious
dispute that the maintenance of the peace, insuring domestic
tranquility and the suppression of violence are the domain and
responsibility of the executive. Now then, if it be important to
restrict the great departments of government to the exercise
of their appointed powers, it follows, as a logical corollary,
equally important, that one branch should be left completely
independent of the others, independent not in the sense that
the three shall not cooperate in the common end of carrying
into
_______________
39G.R. Nos. 183591, 183752, 183893, 183951 & 183962, 14 October 2008, 568 SCRA
402.
127
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
127
Manila Bay
effect the purposes of the constitution, but in the sense that
the acts of each shall never be controlled by or subjected to
the influence of either of the branches.40(Emphasis supplied)
Indeed, adherence to the principle of separation of powers
which is enshrined in our Constitution is essential to prevent
tyranny by prohibiting the concentration of the sovereign
powers of state in one body.41Considering that executive power
is exclusively vested in the President of the Philippines, the
Judiciary should neither undermine such exercise of executive
power by the President nor arrogate executive power unto
itself. The Judiciary must confine itself to the exercise of
judicial functions and not encroach upon the functions of the
other branches of the government.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote against the approval of the
Resolution.
_______________
40Dissenting Opinion,id., at pp. 669-670. (Citations omitted)
41 S. Carlota, The Three Most Important Features of the Philippine Legal
System that Others Should Understand, in IALS Conference Learning from
Each Other: Enriching the Law School Curriculum in an Interrelated World
177 <www.ialsnet.org/meeting/enriching/carlota.pdf> (visited 5 November
2010).
128
128
Manila Bay

DISSENTING OPINION
SERENO,J.:
The judicial whistle needs to be blown for a purpose and with
caution. It needs to be remembered that the Court cannot run the
government. The Court has the duty of implementing
constitutional safeguards that protect indi-vidual rights but they
cannot push back the limits of the Constitution to accommodate
the challenged violation.1
These are the words of Justice Anand of the Supreme Court
of India, from which court the idea of a continuing mandatory
injunction for environmental cases was drawn by the
Philippine Supreme Court. These words express alarm that
the Indian judiciary has already taken on the role of running
the government in environmental cases. A similar situation
would result in the Philippines were the majority Resolution to
be adopted. Despite having the best of intentions to ensure
compliance by petitioners with their corresponding statutory
mandates in an urgent manner, this Court has unfortunately
encroached upon prerogatives solely to be exercised by the
President and by Congress.
On 18 December 2008, the Court promulgated its decision
in MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos.
171947-48, denying the petition of the government agencies,
defendants in Civil Case No. 1851-99. It held that the Court of
Appeals, subject to some modifications, was correct in
affirming the 13 September 2002 Decision of the Regional
Trial
_______________
1 Justice Dr. A.S. Anand, Supreme Court of India,Judicial Review

Judicial Activism Need for Caution,in Soli Sorabjees Law and Justice: An
Anthology,Universal Law Publishing Company, (2003), at 377. Also in Justice
A.S. Anand, Millenium Law Lecture Series, Thursday, October 21, 1999,
K o c h i , K e r a l a , a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / a i r w e b w o r l d . c o m / a r t i c l e s /
index.php.(visited 17 November 2010)
129
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
129
Manila Bay
Court in Civil Case No. 1851-99. It ordered the abovenamed
defendant-government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate, and
preserve Manila Bay, and restore and maintain its waters to
SB level (Class B sea waters per Water Classification Tables
under DENR Administrative Order No. 34 [1990]) to make
them fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact
recreation.
The Court further issued each of the aforementioned
agencies specific orders to comply with their statutory
mandate.2
_______________
2In particular: (1) Pursuant to Sec. 4 of EO 192, assigning the DENR as

the primary agency responsible for the conservation, management,
development, and proper use of the countrys environment and natural
resources, and Sec. 19 of RA 9275, designating the DENR as the primary
government agency responsible for its enforcement and implementation, the
DENR is directed to fully implement itsOperational Plan for the Manila Bay
Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation, restoration, and conservation of the
Manila Bay at the earliest possible time. It is ordered to call regular
coordination meetings with concerned government departments and agencies
to ensure the successful implementation of the aforesaid plan of action in
accordance with its indicated completion schedules.
(2) Pursuant to Title XII (Local Government) of the Administrative Code
of 1987 and Sec. 25 of the Local Government Code of 1991, the DILG, in
exercising the Presidents power of general supervision and its duty to
promulgate guidelines in establishing waste management programs under Sec.
43 of the Philippine Environment Code (PD 1152), shall direct all LGUs in
Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to
inspect all factories, commercial establishments, and private homes along the
banks of the major river systems in their respective areas of jurisdiction, such
as but not limited to the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR
(Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-
Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the
Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other
minor rivers and waterways that eventually discharge water into the Manila
Bay; and the lands abutting the bay, to determine whether they have
wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed by
existing laws, ordinances,
130
130
Manila Bay
Pursuant to the judgment above, the Court established its
ownManila Bay Advisory Committee.Upon the recommenda-
_______________
and rules and regulations. If none be found, these LGUs shall be ordered to
require non-complying establishments and homes to set up said facilities or
septic tanks within a reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes, sewage
water, and human wastes from flowing into these rivers, waterways, esteros,
and the Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of fines and other
sanctions.
(3) As mandated by Sec. 8 of RA 9275, the MWSS is directed to provide,

install, operate, and maintain the necessary adequate waste water treatment
facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite where needed at the earliest
possible time.
(4) Pursuant to RA 9275, the LWUA, through the local water districts and
in coordination with the DENR, is ordered to provide, install, operate, and
maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe
collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna,
Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan where needed at the earliest possible
time.
(5)Pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 8550, the DA, through the BFAR, is ordered
to improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay. It is also directed to
assist the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga,
and Bataan in developing, using recognized methods, the fisheries and aquatic
resources in the Manila Bay.
(6) The PCG, pursuant to Secs. 4 and 6 of PD 979, and the PNP Maritime
Group, in accordance with Sec. 124 of RA 8550, in coordination with each
other, shall apprehend violators of PD 979, RA 8550, and other existing laws
and regulations designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.
(7) Pursuant to Secs. 2 and 6-c of EO 513 and the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the PPA is ordered to
immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge and dumping of
solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay
waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators.
(8) The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs and
projects for flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila, in
coordination with the DPWH, DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group,
Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), and other
agencies, shall dismantle
131
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
131
Manila Bay
tions of the said Committee, the present Resolution was
issued. It encompasses several of the specific instructions laid
_______________
and remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachments

established or built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along
the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias)
Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting
waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH, as the principal
implementor of programs and projects for flood control services in the rest of
the country more particularly in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and
Laguna, in coordination with the DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group,
HUDCC, and other concerned government agencies, shall remove and
demolish all structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in
breach of RA 7279 and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-
Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River,
the Laguna De Bay, and other rivers, connecting waterways, andesterosthat
discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay.
In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish, operate, and maintain a

sanitary landfill, as prescribed by RA 9003, within a period of one (1) year
from finality of this Decision. On matters within its territorial jurisdiction and
in connection with the discharge of its duties on the maintenance of sanitary
landfills and like undertakings, it is also ordered to cause the apprehension
and filing of the appropriate criminal cases against violators of the respective
penal provisions of RA 9003, Sec. 27 of RA 9275 (the Clean Water Act), and
other existing laws on pollution.
(9) The DOH shall, as directed by Art. 76 of PD 1067 and Sec. 8 of RA
9275, within one (1) year from finality of this Decision, determine if all
licensed septic and sludge companies have the proper facilities for the
treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks.
The DOH shall give the companies, if found to be non-complying, a reasonable
time within which to set up the necessary facilities under pain of cancellation
of its environmental sanitation clearance.
(10) Pursuant to Sec. 53 of PD 1152, Sec. 118 of RA 8550, and Sec. 56 of
RA 9003, the DepEd shall integrate lessons on pollution prevention, waste
management, environmental protection, and like subjects in the school
curricula of all levels to inculcate in the minds and hearts of students and,
through them, their parents and friends,
132
132
Manila Bay
out by the court in the original case, but also goes further by
requiring reports and updates from the said government
agencies, and setting deadlines for the submission thereof.
I find these directives in the Majority Resolution patently
irreconcilable with basic constitutional doctrines and with the
legislative mechanisms already in place, such as the
Administrative Code and the Local Government Code, which
explicitly grant control and supervision over these agenciesto
the President alone, and to no one else. For these reasons, I
respectfully dissent from the Majority Resolution.
In issuing these directives, the Court has
encroached upon the exclusive authority
of the Executive Department and violated
the doctrine of Separation of Powers
The Resolution assigned the Department of Natural
Resources as the primary agency for environment protection
and required the implementation of its Operational Plan for
the
_______________
the importance of their duty toward achieving and maintaining a balanced and
healthful ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entire Philippine archipelago.
(11) The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequate budget in the

General Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover the expenses
relating to the cleanup, restoration, and preservation of the water quality of
the Manila Bay, in line with the countrys development objective to attain
economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection, preservation, and
revival of our marine waters.
(12) The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA,
DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG, and also of MWSS, LWUA,
and PPA, in line with the principle of continuing mandamus,shall, from
finality of this Decision, each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive
report of the activities undertaken in accordance with this Decision.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
133
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
133
Manila Bay
Manila Bay Coastal Strategy. It ordered the DENR to submit
the updated operational plan directly to the Court; to
summarize data on the quality of Manila Bay waters; and to
submit the names and addresses of persons and companies
that generate toxic or hazardous waste on or before September
30, 2011.
The Department of the Interior and Local Government is
directed toorder the Mayors of all cities in Metro Manila; the
Governors of Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga and
Bataan; and the Mayors of all the cities and towns in said
provinces to inspect all factories, commercial establishments
and private homes along the banks of the major river
systems to determine if they have wastewater treatment
facilities, on or before 30 June 2011. The LGUs are given a
deadline of 30 September 2011 to finish the inspection. In
cooperation with the Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH), these local governments are required to
submit their plan for the removal of informal settlers and
encroachments which are in violation of Republic Act No. 7279.
The said demolition must take place not later than 31
December 2012.
The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
(MWSS) is required to submit its plans for the construction of
wastewater treatment facilities in areas where needed, the
completion period for which shall not go beyond the year 2020.
On or before 30 June 2011, the MWSS is further required to
have its two concessionaires submit a report on the amount
collected as sewerage fees. The Local Water Utilities
Administration (LWUA) is ordered to submit on or before 30
September 2011 its plan to install and operate sewerage and
sanitation facilities in the towns and cities where needed,
which must be fully implemented by 31 December 2020.
The Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Aquatic
Fisheries and Resources are ordered to submit on or before 30
June 2011 a list of areas where marine life in Manila Bay has
improved, and the assistance extended to different Local Gov-
134
134
Manila Bay
ernment Units in this regard. The Philippine Ports Authority
(PPA) is ordered to report the names, make, and capacity of
each ship that would dock in PPA ports; the days they docked
and the days they were at sea; the activities of the
concessionaire that would collect solid and liquid ship-
generated waste, the volume, treatment and disposal sites for
such wastes; and the violators that PPA has apprehended.
The Department of Health (DOH) is required to submit the
names and addresses of septic and sludge companies that have
no treatment facilities. The said agency must also require
companies to procure a license to operate issued by the DOH.
The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and
the seventeen (17) LGUs in Metro Manila must submit a
report on the amount of garbage collected per districtvis--
vis the average amount of garbage disposed monthly in
landfills and dumpsites. MMDA must also submit a plan for
the removal of informal settlers and encroachments along NCR
Rivers which violate R.A. No. 7279.
Clearly, the Court has no authority to issue these directives.
They fall squarely under the domain of the executive branch of
the state. The issuance of specific instructions to subordinate
agencies in the implementation of policy mandates in all laws,
not just those that protect the environment, is an exercise of
the power of supervision and controlthe sole province of the
Office of the President.
Both the 1987 Constitution and Executive Order No. 292, or
the Administrative Code of the Philippines, state:
Exercise of Executive Power.The Executive power shall be
vested in the President.3
Power of Control.The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the
laws be faithfully executed.4
_______________
3E.O. 292, Book II, Chapter 3, Sec. 11; and 1987 Constitution, Art. 7, Sec.
1.
135
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
135
Manila Bay
In Anak Mindanao Party-list Group v. Executive Secretary,
5 this Court has already asserted that the enforcement of all
laws is the sole domain of the Executive. The Court
pronounced that the express constitutional grant of authority
to the Executive is broad and encompassing, such that it
justifies reorganization measures6 initiated by the President.
The Court said:
While Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, the
President executes the laws. The executive power is vested in the
President. It is generally defined as the power to enforce and
administer the laws. It is thepower of carrying the laws into practical
operationand enforcing their due observance.
As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief
Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees to it
that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his
department. He has control over the executive department, bureaus
and offices. This means that he has the authority to assume directly
the functions of the executive department, bureau and office, or
interfere with the discretion of its officials. Corollary to the power of
control, the President also has the duty of supervising and
enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and public
order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and
offices under his control to enable him to discharge his duties
effectively.
To herein petitioner agencies impleaded below, this Court
has given very specific instructions to report the progress and
status of their operations directly to the latter. The Court also
required the agencies to apprise it of any noncompliance with
the standards set forth by different laws as to environment
_______________
4E.O. 292, Book III, Chapter 1, Sec. 1; and 1987 Constitution, Art. 7, Sec.
17.
5G.R. No. 166052, 29 August 2007, 531 SCRA 583.
6E.O. 379 and 364 were promulgated, placing the Presidential Commission
for the Urban Poor (PCUP) under the supervision and control of the DAR, and
the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as an attached agency
under the Department of Agrarian Reform.
136
136
Manila Bay
protection. This move is tantamount to making these agencies
accountable to the Court instead of the President. The very
occupation streamlined especially for the technical and
practical expertise of the Executive Branch is being usurped
without regard for the delineations of power in the
Constitution. In fact, the issuance of the Resolution itself is in
direct contravention of the Presidents exclusive power to issue
administrative orders, as shown thus:
Administrative Orders.Acts of the President which relate to
particular aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of his
duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative
orders.7
The Courts discussion in Ople v. Torres8 pertaining to the
extent and breadth of administrative power bestowed upon the
President is apt:
Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying
policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental
organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of
administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents.
To this end, he can issue administrative orders, rules and regulations.

An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President
which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of
government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for
the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the
legislative policy.
The implementation of the policy laid out by the legislature
in the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004, the Toxic and
Hazardous Waste Act or Republic Act 6969, the Environment
Code, and other laws geared towards environment protection
is under the competence of the President.
_______________
7E.O. 292, Book 3, Title 1, Chapter 2, Sec. 3.

8G.R. No. 127685, 23 July 1998, 293 SCRA 141.
137
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
137
Manila Bay
Achieved thereby is a uniform standard of administrative
efficiency. And since it is through administrative orders
promulgated by the President that specific operational aspects
for these policies are laid out, the Resolution of this Court
overlaps with the Presidents administrative power. No matter
how urgent and laudatory the cause of environment protection
has become, it cannot but yield to the higher mandate of
separation of powers and the mechanisms laid out by the
people through the Constitution.
One of the directives is that which requires local
governments to conduct inspection of homes and
establishments along the riverbanks, and to submit a plan for
the removal of certain informal settlers. Not content with
arrogating unto itself the powers of control and supervision
granted by the Administrative Code to the President over said
petitioner administrative agencies, the Court is also violating
the latters general supervisory authority over local
governments:
Sec. 18.General Supervision Over Local Governments.The
President shall exercise general supervision over local governments.9
Sec.25.National Supervision over Local Government Units.(a)
Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy, the President
shall exercise general supervision over local government units to
ensure that their acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers
and functions.10
The powers expressly vested in any branch of the Government
shall not be exercised by, nor delegated to, any other branch of the
Government, except to the extent authorized by the Constitution.11
As has often been repeated by this Court, the doctrine of
separation of powers is the very wellspring from which the
Court draws its legitimacy. Former Chief Justice Reynato S.
_______________
9 1987 Constitution, Art. 2 on State Policies.

10E.O. 292, Book 3, Title 1, Chapter 6, Sec. 25.
11E.O 292, Book 2, Chapter 1, Sec. 1(8).
138
138
Manila Bay
Puno has traced its origin and rationale as inhering in the
republican system of government:
The principle of separation of powers prevents
theconcentrationof legislative, executive, and judicial powers to a
single branch of government by deftly allocating their exercise to the
three branches of government...
In his famed treatise, The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu
authoritatively analyzed the nature of executive, legislative and
judicial powers and with a formidable foresight counselled that any
combination of these powers would create a system with an inherent
tendency towards tyrannical actions
Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated
from the legislative and the executive. Were it joined with the
legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to
arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it
joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence
and oppression.
There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the
same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those
three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public
resolutions, and that of trying the causes of individuals.12
Nor is there merit in the contention that these directives
will speed up the rehabilitation of Manila Bay better than if
said rehabilitation were left to the appropriate agencies.
Expediency is never a reason to abandon legitimacy. The
Separation of Powers often impairs efficiency, in terms of
dispatch and the immediate functioning of government. It is
thelong-term staying powerof government that is enhanced by
the mutual accommodation required by the separation of
powers.13
_______________
12 C.J. Reynato S. Puno, Separate Concurring Opinion, Macalintal v.

Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 157013, 10 July 2003, 405 SCRA 614.
13 United States v. American Tel. &Tel Co., 567 F 2d 121 (1977), citing J.
Brandeis, Separate Dissenting Opinion,Myers v. United States,US 52 293, 47
(1926).
139
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
139
Manila Bay
Mandamus does not lie to
compel a discretionary act.
In G.R. Nos. 171947-48, the Court explicitly admitted that
[w]hile 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.14 In denying the appeal of petitioners and
affirming the Decision of the RTC, the Court of Appeals
stressed that the trial courts Decision did not require
petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions
under existing laws.15
In its revised Resolution, the Court is now setting
deadlines for the implementation of policy formulations
which require decision-making by the agencies. It has
confused an order enjoining a duty, with an order
outliningspecific technical rules on how to performsuch a duty.
Assuming without conceding that mandamus were availing
under Rule 65, the Court can only require a particular action,
but it cannot provide for the means to accomplish such action.
It is at this point where the demarcation of the general act of
cleaning up the Manila Bay has become blurred, so much so
that the Court now engages in the slippery slope of overseeing
technical details.
InSps. Abaga v. Sps. Panes16the Court said:
From the foregoing Rule, there are two situations when a writ
of mandamus may issue: (1) when any tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust, or station; or (2) when any tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person unlawfully excludes another from the use and en-
_______________
14 P. 12, MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, 15

December 2008, 574 SCRA 661.
15Id.,at p. 9.
16G.R. No. 147044, 24 August 2007, 531 SCRA 56, 62-63.
140
140
Manila Bay
joyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled. The duty
mentioned in the first situation is a ministerial duty, not a
discretionary duty, requiring the exercise of judgmentIn short, for
mandamus to lie, the duty sought to be compelled to be performed
must be a ministerial duty, not a discretionary duty, and the
petitioner must show that he has a well-defined, clear and certain
right.
Discretion, on the other hand, is a faculty conferred upon a
court or official by which he may decide the question either
way and still be right.17
The duty being enjoined in mandamus must be one
according to the terms defined in the law itself. Thus, the
recognized rule is that, in the performance of an official duty or
act involving discretion, the corresponding official can only be
directed by mandamus to act, but not to act one way or the
other. This is the end of any participation by the Court, if it is
authorized to participate at all.
In setting a deadline for the accomplishment of these
directives, not only has the Court provided the means of
accomplishing the task required, it has actually gone beyond
the standards set by the law. There is nothing in the
Environment Code, the Administrative Code, or the
Constitution which grants this authority to the judiciary. It is
already settled that, If the law imposes a duty upon a public
officer and gives him the right to decide when and how the
duty shall be performed, such duty is not
ministerial.18InAlvarez v. PICOP Resources,19the Court ruled
that,
As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to
compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary
one; mandamus will not issue to control the exercise of discretion of a
public officer where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his
judgment in reference to any manner in which he is required to
_______________
17Asuncion v. De Yriarte, 28 Phil. 67.

18Meralco Securities v. Savellano, L-36748, 23 October 1982, 117 SCRA 804.
19G.R. No. 162243, 29 November 2006, 508 SCRA 498.
141
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
141
Manila Bay
act, because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of
the court.
The Constitution does not authorize
the courts to monitor the execu-
tion of their decisions.
It is an oft-repeated rule that the Court has no power to
issue advisory opinions, much less directives requiring
progress reports from the parties respecting the execution of
its decisions. The requirements of actual case or controversy
and justiciability have long been established in order to limit
the exercise of judicial review. While its dedication to the
implementation of the fallo in G.R. 171947-48 is admirable,
the Courts power cannot spill over to actual encroachment
upon both the control and police powers of the State under
the guise of a continuing mandamus.
In G.R. 171947-48, the Court said: 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.
Needless to say, the continuing mandamus in this case
runs counter to principles of actual case or controversy and
other requisites for judicial review. In fact, the Supreme Court
is in danger of acting as a super-administrator20the
scenario presently unfolding in India where the supposed
remedy originated. There the remedy was first used in Vineet
Narain and Others v. Union of India,21 a public interest case
for corruption filed against high-level officials. Since then, the
_______________
20 A term used by Manu Nair, correspondent of The International
Environment News, describing the Supreme Court of India in the Forest
Conservation Case.Available at http://www.abanet.org/
intlaw/committees/business_regulation/environment/nairreportjune
05.pdf. (visited 17 November 2010)
211996 SC (2) 199 JT 1996 (1) 708 1996 SCALE (1) SP 31.
142
142
Manila Bay
remedy has been applied to environmental cases as an
oversight and control power by which the Supreme Court of
India has created committees (i.e. the Environment Pollution
Authority and the Central Empowered Committee in forest
cases) and allowed these committees to act as the policing
agencies.22But the most significant judicial intervention in this
regard was the series of orders promulgated by the Court
inT.N. Godavarman v. Union of India.23
Although the Writ Petition filed byGodavarmanwas an attempt
to seek directions from the Court regarding curbing the illegal felling
of trees, the Supreme Court went further to make policy
determinations in an attempt to improve the countrys forests. The
Court Order suspending felling of trees that did not adhere to state
government working plans resulted in effectively freezing the
countrys timber industry. The Supreme Court completely banned
tree felling in certain north-eastern states to any part of the country.
The courts role was even more pronounced in its later directions.
While maintaining the ban on felling of trees in the seven northeast
states, the court directed the state governments to gather, process,
sell, and otherwise manage the already felled timber in the manner
its specified the Supreme Court became the supervisor of all forest
issues, ranging from controlling, pricing and transport of timber to
management of forest revenue, as well as implementation of its
orders.24
Thus, while it was originally intended to assert public rights
in the face of government inaction and neglect, the remedy is
now facing serious criticism as it has spiraled out of control.
25In fact, even Justice J. S. Verma,who penned the
_______________
22 Rajeev Davan, Supreme Court advocate, Supreme Court of

India,Judicial Excessivism, available at http://www.indiaenvironment
portal.org.in/content/judicialexcessivism. (visited 17 November 2010)
23T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors (1997) 2 SCC
267.
24Supranote 20at page 2.
25 Abhaykumar Dilip Ostwal, Supreme Court advocate, Supreme Court of
India, Judicial Activism and Self-Restraint, available at http://
airwebworld.com/articles/index.php. (visited 17 November 2010)
143
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
143
Manila Bay
majority opinion in Vineet Narain in which continuing
mandamus first made its appearance, subsequently
pronounced that judicial activism should be neither judicial
ad hocism nor judicial tyranny.26 Justice B.N. Srikrishna
observed that judges now seem to want to engage themselves
with boundless enthusiasm in complex socio-economic issues
raising myriads of facts and ideological issues that cannot be
managed by judicially manageable standards.27Even Former
Chief Justice A. S. Anand, a known defender of judicial
activism, has warned against the tendency towards judicial
adventurism, reiterating the principle that the role of the
judge is that of a referee. I can blow my judicial whistle when
the ball goes out of play; but when the game restarts I must
neither take part in it nor tell the players how to play.28
Unless our own Supreme Court learns to curb its excesses
and apply to this case the standards for judicial review it has
developed over the years and applied to co-equal branches, the
scenario in India could very well play out in the Philippines.
The Court must try to maintain a healthy balance between the
departments, precisely as the Constitution mandates, by
delineating its deft strokes and bold lines,29ever so conscious
of the requirements of actual case and controversy. While,
admittedly, there are certain flaws in the operation and
implementation of the laws, the judiciary cannot take the
initiative to compensate for such perceived inaction.
The Court stated inTolentino v. Secretary of Finance:30
_______________
26 Justice J.S. Verma, Judicial activism should be neither judicial ad

hocism nor judicial tyranny, as published in The Indian Express, 06th April
2007 (http://www.indianexpress.com).
27Justice B.N. Srikrishna,Skinning a Cat (2005) 8 SCC (J) 3.
28Supranote 1.
29 A phrase used by Justice Laurel in Angara v. Electoral Commission,63
Phil. 130 (1936).
30 G.R. No. 115525, 25 August 1994, 435 SCRA 630, holding that judicial
inquiry whether the formal requirements for the enactment of statutes
beyond those prescribed by the Constitution
144
144
Manila Bay

Disregard of the essential limits imposed by the case and
controversy requirement can in the long run only result in
undermining our authority as a court of law. For, as judges, what we
are called upon to render is judgment according to law, not according
to what may appear to be the opinion of the day
Hence, over nothing but cases and controversies can courts
exercise jurisdiction, and it is to make the exercise of that
jurisdiction effective that they are allowed to pass upon
constitutional questions.31 Admirable though the sentiments
of the Court may be, it must act within jurisdictional limits.
These limits are founded upon the traditional requirement of
acause of action: the act or omission by which a party violates
a right of another.32 In constitutional cases, for every writ or
remedy, there must be a clear pronouncement of the
corresponding right which has been infringed. Only then can
there surface that clear concreteness provided when a
question emerges precisely framed and necessary for decision
from a clash of adversary argument exploring every aspect of a
multifaceted situation embracing conflicting and demanding
interests.33
Unfortunately, the Court fails to distinguish between a
pronouncement on violation of rights on one hand, and non-
performance of dutiesvis--visoperational instructions, on the
other. Moreover, it also dabbles in an interpretation of
constitutional rights in a manner that is dangerously pre-
emptive of legally available remedies.
The continuing mandamus palpably
overlaps with the power of congres-
sional oversight.
_______________
have been observed, is precluded by the principle of separation of powers.
31 Vicente V. Mendoza, The Nature and Function of Judicial Review, 31

IBP Journal 1 (2005).
32Rules of Court, Rule 2, Sec. 2.
33United States v. Fruehauf, 365 U.S. 146, 157 (1968).
145
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
145
Manila Bay
Article 6, Section 22 of the 1987 Constitution states:
The heads of department may upon their own initiative, with the
consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, or as
the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by
such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written
questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before
their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to
written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the
security of the state or the public interest so requires and the
President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in
executive session.
This provision pertains to the power to conduct a question
hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit
o f C o n g r e s s o v e r s i g h t f u n c t i o n . M a c a l i n t a l v .
Comelec34 discussed the scope of congressional oversight in
full.Oversightrefers to the power of the legislative department
to check, monitor and ensure that the laws it has enacted are
enforced:
The power of Congress does not end with the finished task
of legislation. Concomitant with its principal power to
legislate is the auxiliary power to ensure that the laws it
enacts are faithfully executed.As well stressed by one scholar, the
legislature fixes the main lines of substantive policy and is entitled
to see that administrative policy is in harmony with it; it establishes
the volume and purpose of public expenditures and ensures their
legality and propriety; it must be satisfied that internal
administrative controls are operating to secure economy and
efficiency; and it informs itself of the conditions of administration of
remedial measure.

Clearly, oversight concerns post-enactment measures
undertaken by Congress: (a) to monitor bureaucratic compliance with
program objectives, (b) to determine whether agencies are properly
_______________
34Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 157013, 10 July 2003, 405 SCRA
614.
146
146
Manila Bay
administered, (c) to eliminate executive waste and dishonesty, (d) to
prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority, and (d) to assess
executive conformity with the congressional perception of public
interest.

Congress, thus, uses its oversight power to make sure that
the administrative agencies perform their functions within
the authority delegated to them.
Macalintal v. Comelec further discusses that legislative
supervision under the oversight power connotes a continuing
and informed awareness o n the part of Congress regarding
executive operations in a given administrative area. Because
the power to legislate includes the power to ensure that the
laws are enforced, this monitoring power has been granted by
the Constitution to the legislature. In cases of executive non-
implementation of statutes, the courts cannot justify the use of
continuing mandamus, as it would by its very definition
overlap with the monitoring power under congressional
oversight. The Resolution does not only encroach upon the
general supervisory function of the Executive, it also
diminished and arrogated unto itself the power of
congressional oversight.
Conclusion
This Court cannot nobly defend the environmental rights of
generations of Filipinos enshrined in the Constitution while in
the same breath eroding the foundations of that very
instrument from which it draws its power. While the remedy of
continuing mandamus has evolved out of a Third World
jurisdiction similar to ours, we cannot overstep the boundaries
laid down by the rule of law. Otherwise, this Court would rush
recklessly beyond the delimitations precisely put in place to
safeguard excesses of power. The tribunal, considered by many
citizens as the last guardian of fundamental rights, would then
resemble nothing more than an idol with feet of clay: strong in
appearance, but weak in foundation.
147
, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
147
Manila Bay

The Court becomes a conscience by acting to remind us of
limitation on power, even judicial power, and the interrelation of
good purposes with good means. Morality is not an end
dissociated from means. There is a morality of morality, which
respects the limitation of office and the fallibility of the human
mindself-limitation is the first mark of the master. That, too is
part of the role of the conscience.35
The majority Resolution would, at the same time, cast the
light of scrutiny more harshly on judicial action in which the
Courts timely exercise of its powers is called foras in the
cases of prisoners languishing in jail whose cases await speedy
resolution by this Court. There would then be nothing to stop
the executive and the legislative departments from considering
as fair game the judiciarys own accountability in its clearly
delineated department.
DENR ordered to submit updated Operational Plan for the
Manila Bay Coastal Strategy; DILG shall order inspection of
all factories, commercial establishments and private homes
along banks of major rivers systems and other minor rivers and
waterways that discharge water into Manila Bay and lands
abutting it, MWSS shall submit to Court the list of areas in
Metro Manila, Rizal and Cavite that do not have wastewater
treatment facilities; The Local Water Utilities Administration
ordered to submit plan to provide, install, operate and
maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities; DA ordered to
submit report to Supreme Court on areas in Manila Bay where
marine life has to be restored or improved and the assistance it
has extended; The PPA shall report list of violators and status
of their cases; the PNP Maritime Group submit its plan of
action to apprehend violators of RA No. 8550; The MMDA shall
submit report of names and addresses of informal settlers along
Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR
_______________
35Paul Freund, quoting Justice Brandeis,In Law and Justice36(1968).

148
148
Manila Bay
rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers; The
DOH shall submit names and addresses of owners of septic and
sludge companies; and The DEPED shall report on integration
into school curricula for 2011-2012 subjects on pollution
prevention, waste management, environmental protection,
environmental laws and the like.
Notes.By virtue of its constitutional power of
administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel,
from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the
lowest municipal trial court clerk, it is only the Supreme Court
that can oversee the judges and court personnels compliance
with all laws, and take the proper administrative action
against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other
branch of government may intrude into this power, without
running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. (Caoibes,
Jr. vs. Ombudsman, 361 SCRA 395 [2001])
It would be too presumptuous on the part of the Supreme
Court to summarily compel public respondents to comply with
pertinent provisions of law regarding procurement of
government infrastructure projects without any factual basis
or prior determination of very particular violations committed
by specific government officials of the executive branchfor
the Court to do so would amount to a breach of the norms of
comity among co-equal branches of government. (Suplico vs.
National Economic and Development Authority, 558 SCRA 329
[2008])
o0o
The Four Laws of Ecology, with various simple explanations
given on different web sites, and which can be applied to ones
daily life, are:
1. Everything Is Connected To Everything Else. There is

one ecosphere for all living organisms and what affects one,
affects all. Humans and other species are connected/
dependent on other species. With this in mind it becomes
hard to practice anything other than compassion and
harmlessness.
2. Everything Must Go Somewhere. There is no waste
in nature, and there is no away to which things can be
thrown. Everything, such as wood smoke, nuclear waste,
carbon emissions, etc., must go somewhere.
3. Nature Knows Best. Humankind has fashioned
technology to improve upon nature, but such change in a
natural system is, says Commoner, likely to be detrimental
to that system. The Creation, one can argue, has an
intelligence, and to tinker with that unintellectually we get
global warming pollution, etc.
4. There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Exploitation
of nature will inevitably involve the conversion of resources
from useful to useless forms. In nature, both sides of the
equation must balance, for every gain there is a cost, and all
debts are eventually paid.

HW - 1 Envi Law

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

HW - 1 Envi Law

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

792

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO,all

Constitutional Law; The protection of the environment including

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of

Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full

is prayed for that judgment be rendered:

The complaint starts off with the general averments that

On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran,

order, not only was the defendants claimthat the complaint

On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the

8Paragraph 7, Petition, 6; Rollo, 20.

include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,

generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that

9Websters Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 1986, 1508.

We do not agree with the trial courts conclusion that the

11Annex B of Petition; Rollo, 43-44.

Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic) environment necessarily

12Record of the Constitutional Commission, vol. 4, 913.

promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, Section 4 of which

expressly mandates that the Department of Environment and

Section 1 thereof which reads:

each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment

hand, gave flesh to the said policy.

It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss

involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint

exercise the utmost care and circumspection in passing upon

this Court, says:

221991 ed., 226-227.

We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed,

x x x A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates

x x x Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the

26190 SCRA 673, 684 [1990].

The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not

Auditor General, to wit:

28110 Phil. 198, 203 [1960]; footnotes omitted.

I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the

Judgment and resolution affirmed.

Note.Equitable mortgage is a contract thatalthough

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

that need bold action, the voice of cynicism, naysayers, and

2 Gore,An Inconvenient Truth161.

8 Angchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 122728, February 13, 1997,

10Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456, 490 (1912).

12RA 9003 was approved on January 26, 2001.

14Blacks Law Dictionary(8th ed., 2004).

accomplish the tasks assigned to it under RA 9275.

19Sec.22.Linkage Mechanism.The [DENR] and its concerned attached

21 Sec. 14.Monitoring Control and Surveillance of the Philippine

(8)In accordance with Sec. 2 of EO 513, the PPA is

25Sec.124.Persons and Deputies Authorized to Enforce this Code x x x.

28 International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from

30 Sec.72.Scope of Supervision of the Department.The approval of the

32 Sec. 53.Environmental Education.The [DepEd] shall integrate

the socio-economic development plans and oriented towards the achievement

The disputed sections are quoted as follows:

length along banks of rivers and other waterways. Art. 51

40Asian Development Bank, The Garbage Book 44-45(November 2006).

42 Sec. 25.National Supervision over Local Government Units.(a)

45Sec.65.Functions of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.

G.R. Nos. 171947-48.February 15, 2011.*

Courts; Separation of Powers; Mandamus; The issuance of