Mmda Vs CRMB Dulay
Mmda Vs CRMB Dulay
Mmda Vs CRMB Dulay
Respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the RTC in
Imus, Cavite against several government agencies, among them the petitioners, for the cleanup,
rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay.
The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below
the allowable standards set by law, which was confirmed by DENR’s Water Quality
Management Chief, Renato T. Cruz 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 which is beyond the standard 200 MPN/100ml or the
SB level under DENR Administrative Order No. 34-90.
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 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, the RTC held petitioners liable and ordered to clean up and
rehabilitate Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to class B waters fit for
swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation.
The DENR, DPWH, Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA),
Philippine Coast Guard , PNP Maritime Group, and five other executive departments
and agencies filed directly with this Court a petition for review under Rule 45.
Petitioners were one in arguing in the main that the pertinent provisions of the
Environment Code 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 by mandamus.
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.
ISSUE: