Facts:

• The case involves 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 vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (G.R. Nos. 171947-48).
• Decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on February 15, 2011.
• Respondents, represented by concerned residents, filed a petition against government agencies for failing to clean and rehabilitate Manila Bay, declared a public nuisance due to pollution.
• On December 18, 2008, the Supreme Court ordered the agencies to restore the bay's waters for recreational use.
• The Court affirmed previous rulings from the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court in favor of the respondents.
• Mandated specific measures: establishment of wastewater treatment facilities, inspection of riverbank establishments, and removal of illegal structures.
• The Manila Bay Advisory Committee was created to oversee compliance, but agencies faced challenges, prompting further Court directives.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court ruled that it did not overstep its authority; issuing directives was a valid exercise of judicial power to ensure compliance.
• The Court held that the mandated actions were ne...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of "continuing mandamus," allowing oversight of decision implementation to prevent administrative inaction.
• Execution of the December 18, 2008 decision was integral to its adjudicative function, addressing the environmental crisis in Manila Bay.
• Cited Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, granting a...continue reading