G.R. No. 171947-48, December 18, 2008
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 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 SANTIS, JR., DINAH DELA PEÑA, 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.

FACTS

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, including the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. The complaint alleged that the water quality of Manila Bay had fallen below allowable standards, specifically noting fecal coliform levels far exceeding the safe level for contact recreation. It attributed this pollution to the defendants’ acts of omission or commission, violating various laws and constitutional rights. The plaintiffs prayed that the defendants be ordered to clean Manila Bay and submit a concerted plan of action. After trial, which included an ocular inspection, the RTC rendered a Decision on September 13, 2002, ordering the defendant-government agencies, jointly and solidarily, to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to SB classification fit for contact recreation. It directed the agencies, with the DENR as lead, to devise a consolidated scheme of action within six months and issued specific directives to each agency. Some agencies appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC Decision in toto on September 28, 2005. Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether Sections 17 and 20 of Presidential Decree No. 1152 (the Philippine Environment Code) relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents or cover cleaning in general.
2. Whether petitioners can be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court ruled that Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152, and other pertinent provisions, impose a positive obligation on government agencies to clean and rehabilitate polluted water bodies, not limited to specific incidents. The Court found that these provisions, read with other laws like the Civil Code provisions on nuisance, the Clean Water Act, and the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, establish a continuing mandamus for agencies to perform their duties in protecting and rehabilitating the environment.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed that mandamus is proper to compel the performance of ministerial duties defined by statute. The Court held that the cleaning and rehabilitation of Manila Bay is a ministerial duty imposed by law on the concerned government agencies. The Court affirmed the CA decision with modifications, ordering the petitioners and other concerned agencies to faithfully perform their duties as mandated by law and as specified in the RTC decision, and to submit to the RTC periodic progress reports. The Court emphasized the principle of “continuing mandamus” to ensure the execution of the judgment.