Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    018 - MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

    Uploaded by

    AbbyElbambo
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of residents who filed a complaint requiring government agencies to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay. The Court found that the relevant provisions of environmental laws like the Environment Code require the government to undertake general cleanups when water quality deteriorates, not just for specific pollution incidents. The Court also found that cleaning up Manila Bay constitutes a ministerial duty that can be compelled by a writ of mandamus, as it does not require the exercise of judgment or discretion by the government agencies. As a result, the Court denied the petition by government agencies challenging the lower court ruling and ordered them to cleanup and restore Manila Bay to make it fit for recreation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    018 - MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

    Uploaded by

    AbbyElbambo
    40 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of residents who filed a complaint requiring government agencies to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay. The Court found that the relevant provisions of environmental laws like the Environment Code require the government to undertake general cleanups when water quality deteriorates, not just for specific pollution incidents. The Court also found that cleaning up Manila Bay constitutes a ministerial duty that can be compelled by a writ of mandamus, as it does not require the exercise of judgment or discretion by the government agencies. As a result, the Court denied the petition by government agencies challenging the lower court ruling and ordered them to cleanup and restore Manila Bay to make it fit for recreation.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    018_MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of residents who filed a complaint requiring government agencies to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay. The Court found that the relevant provisions of environmental laws like the Environment Code require the government to undertake general cleanups when water quality deteriorates, not just for specific pollution incidents. The Court also found that cleaning up Manila Bay constitutes a ministerial duty that can be compelled by a writ of mandamus, as it does not require the exercise of judgment or discretion by the government agencies. As a result, the Court denied the petition by government agencies challenging the lower court ruling and ordered them to cleanup and restore Manila Bay to make it fit for recreation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views4 pages

    018 - MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

    Uploaded by

    AbbyElbambo
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of residents who filed a complaint requiring government agencies to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay. The Court found that the relevant provisions of environmental laws like the Environment Code require the government to undertake general cleanups when water quality deteriorates, not just for specific pollution incidents. The Court also found that cleaning up Manila Bay constitutes a ministerial duty that can be compelled by a writ of mandamus, as it does not require the exercise of judgment or discretion by the government agencies. As a result, the Court denied the petition by government agencies challenging the lower court ruling and ordered them to cleanup and restore Manila Bay to make it fit for recreation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    The Promotion of Health and Ecology: Art. 2, Sec. 15-16; Art. 13, Sec.

    11-13

    MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

    G.R. No. 171947-48

    Date of Promulgation: December 18, 2008

    Ponente: Velasco, Jr. J.

    Petition: certiorari

    Petitioner/s: Solicitor General

    Respondent/s: Antonio A. Oposa and Fortun, Narvasa and Salazar

    Facts:

     January 29, 1999 respondents, Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a


    complaint before the RTF in Imus, Cavite against several government
    agencies (petitioners) for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the
    Manila Bay.
     Complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below
    allowable standards set by law, (PD 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code).

     Their individual cases of action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect of
    petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of:
    - Respondents' constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced ecology
    - Environment Code (PD 1152)
    - Pollution Control Law (PD 984)
    - Water Code (PD 1067)
    - Sanitation Code (PD 856)
    - Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825)
    - Marine Pollution Law (PD 979)
    - EO 192
    - Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (RA 6969)
    - Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations
    - Trust Doctrine and Principle of Guardianship
    - International Law
     Petitioners filed a petition for the order for respondents to clean the Manila Bay and
    submit to the RTC a concrete plan of action for the purpose
     September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the respondents -
    ordering the defendant (government agencies) to jointly and solidarily, to clean up

    Prepared by Erson Villangca (1E)


    and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to make it fit for swimming, skin-
    diving, and other forms of contact recreation. DENR is to act as lead agency.

    Government agencies ordered to clean up Manila Bay:

    -MWSS

    -LWUA -DENR

    -PPA

    -MMDA

    -DA

    -DBM

    -DPWH

    -DOH

    -DECS

    -PNP Maritime Group

    -Philippine Coast Guard

     MWSS, LWUA, and PPA filed individual appeals to CA which was eventually
    consolidated as CA-GR CV 76528
     DENR, DPWH, MMDA, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, and five others filed a petition for
    review under Rule 45 directly to SC
     The Court sent the petition to CA for consolidation with the appeals of MWSS,
    LWUA, and PPA

    Petitioners argue:

    -that the provisions of the Environment Code relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution
    incidents and do not cover general cleaning

    -Cleaning of Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus

     CA Sustains ruling of RTC

    Issues:

    1. Whether Sect 17 and 20 (pertinent provisions of the Environment Code) under


    headings Upgrading of Water Quality and Cleanup Operations, envisage a
    cleanup in general? – YES

    Prepared by Erson Villangca (1E)


    2. Can petitioners be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the
    Manila Bay? (whether cleanup is a ministerial act) – YES

    -Sect 17 does not state that the government agencies concern is solely when a specific
    pollution incident occurs

    -Sec 20 of PD 1152, covers for all intents and purposes a general cleanup situation.

    MMDA duties to clean solid waste and other environmental responsibilities are expressed
    not only in the Environment Code and RA 9003, but in it charter as well. Also the DENR is
    tasked under RA 9275 to manage and report water quality.

    -Tasks of clean up is not up for discretionary process which government must contemplate
    on. It is a simple judgment of perform or not to perform. Thus it is a MINISTERIAL ACT and
    compelled by MANDAMUS.

    Decision:

    Petition is DENIED. Defendant-government agencies are ordered to cleanup, rehabilitate,


    and preserve the Manila Bay and make it fitting for contact recreation

    OPINIONS:

    concur: Puno (CJ), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales,

    Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Nachura, and Reyes

    NOTES:

    -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 is simple performance or non performance.

    Environment Code aka PD 1152 Sect 17.

    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

    Prepared by Erson Villangca (1E)


    Sect 20

    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

    Prepared by Erson Villangca (1E)

    You might also like