METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY et.al. vs. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY G.R. Nos.

171947-48 December 18, 2008 Marianne De Vera and Florence Cacachan

FACTS: The government agencies namely, MWSS, LWUA, DENR, PPA, MMDA, DA, DBM, DPWH, DOH, DECS, and PNP did not take notice of the present danger to public health and the depletion and contamination of the marine life of Manila Bay. According to the Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay, the condition of Manila Bay did not matched to the intended SB level standard of water quality in such a way that swimming, ski diving and etc. are unallowable. Thus, the RTC ordered the government agencies to participate in cleaning the Bay. Authorities from DENR and MWSS testified in favor of the petitioners that the bay is in safe-level bathing and that they are doing their function in reducing water pollution. However the RTC decided in favor of the respondents and ordered the government agencies in violation of PD 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code to rehabilitate the bay. The petitioners argued to the CA that PD 1152s provisions only pertain to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. However, CA affirmed the RTCs decision. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not cleaning Manila Bay is the ministerial act of the petitioners that can be induced by mandamus. (2) Whether or not Section 17 and 20 of Presidential Decree 1152 only pertain to the specific cleaning of pollution (and not general cleaning). RATIO DECIDENDI: (1) The cleaning and rehabilitation of Manila Bay can be compelled by Mandamus. Petitioners claimed that it is not their ministerial duty to clean up the bay because for them it is a discretionary duty which cannot be compelled by mandamus. According to the Supreme Court, the obligations to perform the duties (as defined by law) of the petitioners and on how they carry out such duties are two distinct concepts. The former pertains to the discretionary duties of the petitioners while the latter is their ministerial duty. As for this case, it is the discretion of the petitioners to choose not to perform or to perform their duties as defined by law. And when they have chosen to perform their duties, the way they carry out those duties are called ministerial acts. It is very clear in their charters that aside from performing their main function as an agency, they are also mandated to perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay. (2) In the second issue, the Supreme Court held that Sections 17 and 20 of P.D. 1152 include cleaning in general. Section 17 provides that in case the water quality has deteriorated, the government agencies concerned shall act on it to bring back the standard quality of water. On the other hand, Section 20 also mandates the government agencies concerned to take action in cleaning-up in case the polluters failed to do their part. In the succeeding section 62(g) and (h) of the same Code, provide that oil spilling is the cause of pollution that should be done in clean-up operations. This provision actually, expanded the coverage of Sec. 20 because it included oilspilling as one of the causes of pollutions that need to be cleaned-up by the government agencies concerned. Moreover, Sec. 17 emphasizes that government agencies should clean that water for the sake of meeting and maintaining the right quality standard. This presupposes that the government agencies concerned have the duties of cleaning the water not only in times when the water is polluted. Moreover, even without such provisions, it is the inescapable duty of everyone to protect the water and prevent pollution, because of the tenable need of present and future generations as provided in Art. 2 Sec. 16 of the 1987 Constitution, that the State shall protect and advance the right to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.