Case Digest (G.R. No. 171947-48)
Facts:
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority et al. v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008, the Supreme Court En Banc, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.
On January 29, 1999, Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Imus, Cavite (Civil Case No. 1851-99), naming several national government agencies — including MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PPA, MWSS, LWUA, the Philippine Coast Guard, and the PNP Maritime Group — as defendants and seeking an order to clean up, rehabilitate, and restore Manila Bay to Class B (SB) water quality standards under PD 1152 and related laws. The complaint alleged massive, ongoing pollution (including fecal coliform levels greatly exceeding prescribed limits) that impaired public health, fisheries, and recreational uses, and invoked constitutional and statutory rights and duties (PD 1152, PD 979, PD 1067, RA 9003, RA 9275, RA 8550, RA 6969, among others).
The trial included an ocular inspection and testimony (notably DENR testimony showing fecal coliform counts far above the SB standard). On September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered judgment ordering the defendant agencies, jointly and solidarily, to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and to restore its waters to SB classification, specifying tasks for several agencies (e.g., MWSS to install sewerage treatment; DENR as lead to remove toxic/hazardous substances; MMDA to establish sanitary landfill; DBM to set aside budget; DPWH to remove structures obstructing flow).
The MWSS, LWUA, and PPA appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) (consolidated as CA-G.R. CV No. 76528). Several other petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 45 directly with the Supreme Court; the Court, by Resolution dated December 9, 2002, transmitted that petition to the CA for consolidation with the CA appeals (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74944). By Decision dated September 28, 2005, the CA denied the appeals and affirmed the RTC in toto, holding that the trial court had not required agencies to act beyond their statutory functions.
Petitioners then sought relief from this Court via a Rule 45 petition, arguing principally that (1) Section...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Can petitioners be compelled by writ of mandamus to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay — i.e., are their duties ministerial?
- Do Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 (as amended by Sec. 16 of RA 9275) authorize cleanup in general (not limited to specific pollution incidents) so as to ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)