Environmental Law Cases Atty Nolasco

8/12/2019 Environmental Law Cases Atty Nolasco

1/15

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. Nos. 171947-48 December 18, 2008

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES,DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS,1DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS,DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINECOAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE MARITIMEGROUP, and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCALGOVERNMENT,petitioners,vs.CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and

joined by DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUELSANTOS, JR., DINAH DELA PEA, PAUL DENNIS QUINTERO, MA.VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA CALOZA, FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICESEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA, SARAH JOELLE LINTAG,HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS, FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, andJAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

VELASCO, JR., J.:

The need to address environmental pollution, as a cause of climatechange, has of late gained the attention of the international community.Media have finally trained their sights on the ill effects of pollution, thedestruction of forests and other critical habitats, oil spills, and theunabated improper disposal of garbage. And rightly so, for themagnitude of environmental destruction is now on a scale few everforesaw and the wound no longer simply heals by itself.2But amidsthard evidence and clear signs of a climate crisis that need bold action,the voice of cynicism, naysayers, and procrastinators can still beheard.

This case turns on government agencies and their officers who, by the

nature of their respective offices or by direct statutory command, aretasked to protect and preserve, at the first instance, our internalwaters, rivers, shores, and seas polluted by human activities. To mostof these agencies and their official complement, the pollution menacedoes not seem to carry the high national priority it deserves, if theirtrack records are to be the norm. Their cavalier attitude towardssolving, if not mitigating, the environmental pollution problem, is a sadcommentary on bureaucratic efficiency and commitment.

At the core of the case is the Manila Bay, a place with a proud historicpast, once brimming with marine life and, for so many decades in thepast, a spot for different contact recreation activities, but now a dirtyand slowly dying expanse mainly because of the abject officialindifference of people and institutions that could have otherwise madea difference.

This case started when, on January 29, 1999, respondents ConcernedResidents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional TrialCourt (RTC) in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies,among them the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, andprotection of the Manila Bay. Raffled to Branch 20 and docketed asCivil Case No. 1851-99 of the RTC, the complaint alleged that thewater quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowablestandards set by law, specifically Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 orthe Philippine Environment Code. This environmental aberration, thecomplaint stated, stemmed from:

x x x [The] reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoingacts of omission or commission [of the defendants] resultingin the clear and present danger to public health and in thedepletion and contamination of the marine life of Manila Bay,

[for which reason] ALL defendants must be held jointlyand/or solidarily liable and be collectively ordered to clean upManila Bay and to restore its water quality to class B watersfit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contactrecreation.3

In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged that thecontinued neglect of petitioners in abating the pollution of the ManilaBay constitutes a violation of, among others:

(1) Respondents constitutional right to life, health, and abalanced ecology;

(2) The Environment Code (PD 1152);

(3) The Pollution Control Law (PD 984);

(4) The Water Code (PD 1067);

(5) The Sanitation Code (PD 856);

(6) The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825);

(7) The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979);

(8) Executive Order No. 192;

(9) The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No.6969);

(10) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations;

(11) The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship;and

(12) International Law

Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners beordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concertedconcrete plan of action for the purpose.

The trial of the case started off with a hearing at the Manila Yacht Clubfollowed by an ocular inspection of the Manila Bay. Renato T. Cruz, theChief of the Water Quality Management Section, EnvironmentalManagement Bureau, Department of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR), testifying for petitioners, stated that water samplescollected from different beaches around the Manila Bay showed thatthe amount of fecal coliform content ranged from 50,000 to 80,000most probable number (MPN)/ml when what DENR AdministrativeOrder No. 34-90 prescribed as a safe level for bathing and other formsof contact recreational activities, or the "SB" level, is one not exceeding200 MPN/100 ml.4

Rebecca de Vera, for Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System

(MWSS) and in behalf of other petitioners, testified about the MWSSefforts to reduce pollution along the Manila Bay through the ManilaSecond Sewerage Project. For its part, the Philippine Ports Authority(PPA) presented, as part of its evidence, its memorandum circulars onthe study being conducted on ship-generated waste treatment anddisposal, and its Linis Dagat (Clean the Ocean) project for the cleaningof wastes accumulated or washed to shore.

The RTC Ordered Petitioners to Clean Up and Rehabilitate ManilaBay

On September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision5in favor ofrespondents. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, finding merit in the complaint, judgment is

hereby rendered ordering the abovenamed defendant-government agencies, jointly and solidarily, to clean up andrehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to SBclassification to make it fit for swimming, skin-diving andother forms of contact recreation. To attain this, defendant-agencies, with defendant DENR as the lead agency, aredirected, within six (6) months from receipt hereof, to act andperform their respective duties by devising a consolidated,coordinated and concerted scheme of action for therehabilitation and restoration of the bay.

In particular:

Defendant MWSS is directed to install, operate and maintainadequate [sewerage] treatment facilities in strategic placesunder its jurisdiction and increase their capacities.

Defendant LWUA, to see to it that the water districts underits wings, provide, construct and operate sewage facilities forthe proper disposal of waste.

Defendant DENR, which is the lead agency in cleaning upManila Bay, to install, operate and maintain waste facilities torid the bay of toxic and hazardous substances.

Defendant PPA, to prevent and also to treat the dischargenot only of ship-generated wastes but also of other solid andliquid wastes from docking vessels that contribute to thepollution of the bay.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt1


2/15

Defendant MMDA, to establish, operate and maintain anadequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and/or adequatesolid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternativegarbage disposal system such as re-use or recycling ofwastes.

Defendant DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources, to revitalize the marine life in Manila Bay andrestock its waters with indigenous fish and other aquaticanimals.

Defendant DBM, to provide and set aside an adequatebudget solely for the purpose of cleaning up andrehabilitation of Manila Bay.

Defendant DPWH, to remove and demolish structures andother nuisances that obstruct the free flow of waters to thebay. These nuisances discharge solid and liquid wasteswhich eventually end up in Manila Bay. As the constructionand engineering arm of the government, DPWH is ordered toactively participate in removing debris, such as carcass ofsunken vessels, and other non-biodegradable garbage in thebay.

Defendant DOH, to closely supervise and monitor theoperations of septic and sludge companies and require themto have proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of

fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks.

Defendant DECS, to inculcate in the minds and hearts of thepeople through education the importance of preserving andprotecting the environment.

Defendant Philippine Coast Guard and the PNP MaritimeGroup, to protect at all costs the Manila Bay from all forms ofillegal fishing.

No pronouncement as to damages and costs.

SO ORDERED.

The MWSS, Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), and PPAfiled before the Court of Appeals (CA) individual Notices of Appealwhich were eventually consolidated and docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.76528.

On the other hand, the DENR, Department of Public Works andHighways (DPWH), Metropolitan Manila Development Authority(MMDA), Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), Philippine National Police(PNP) Maritime Group, and five other executive departments andagencies filed directly with this Court a petition for review under Rule45. The Court, in a Resolution of December 9, 2002, sent the saidpetition to the CA for consolidation with the consolidated appeals ofMWSS, LWUA, and PPA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74944.

Petitioners, before the CA, were one in arguing in the main that the

pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only tothe cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning ingeneral. And apart from raising concerns about the lack of fundsappropriated for cleaning purposes, petitioners also asserted that thecleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can becompelled by mandamus.

The CA Sustained the RTC

By a Decision6of September 28, 2005, the CA denied petitionersappeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto, stressing that thetrial courts decision did not require petitioners to do tasks outside oftheir usual basic functions under existing laws.7

Petitioners are now before this Court praying for the allowance of their

Rule 45 petition on the following ground and supporting arguments:

THE [CA] DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOTHERETOFORE PASSED UPON BY THE HONORABLECOURT, I.E., IT AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURTSDECISION DECLARING THAT SECTION 20 OF [PD] 1152REQUIRES CONCERNED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TOREMOVE ALL POLLUTANTS SPILLED AND DISCHARGEDIN THE WATER SUCH AS FECAL COLIFORMS.

ARGUMENTS

I

[SECTIONS] 17 AND 20 OF [PD] 1152 RELATE ONLY TOTHE CLEANING OF SPECIFIC POLLUTION INCIDENTS

AND [DO] NOT COVER CLEANING IN GENERAL

II

THE CLEANING OR REHABILITATION OF THE MANILABAY IS NOT A MINISTERIAL ACT OF PETITIONERS THATCAN BE COMPELLED BY MANDAMUS.

The issues before us are two-fold. First, do Sections 17 and 20 of PD1152 under the headings, Upgrading of Water Qualityand Clean-upOperations, envisage a cleanup in general or are they limited only tothe cleanup of specific pollution incidents? And second, can petitionersbe compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the ManilaBay?

On August 12, 2008, the Court conducted and heard the parties onoral arguments.

Our Ruling

We shall first dwell on the propriety of the issuance of mandamusunder the premises.

The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila BayCan be Compelled by Mandamus

Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of aministerial duty.8A ministerial duty is one that "requires neither theexercise of official discretion nor judgment."9It connotes an act inwhich nothing is left to the discretion of the person executing it. It is a"simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted or proved toexist and imposed by law."10Mandamus is available to compel action,when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct theexercise of judgment or discretion one way or the other.

Petitioners maintain that the MMDAs duty to take measures andmaintain adequate solid waste and liquid disposal systems necessarilyinvolves policy evaluation and the exercise of judgment on the part ofthe agency concerned. They argue that the MMDA, in carrying out its

mandate, has to make decisions, including choosing where a landfillshould be located by undertaking feasibility studies and cost estimates,all of which entail the exercise of discretion.

Respondents, on the other hand, counter that the statutory commandis clear and that petitioners duty to comply with and act according tothe clear mandate of the law does not require the exercise ofdiscretion. According to respondents, petitioners, the MMDA inparticular, are without discretion, for example, to choose which bodiesof water they are to clean up, or which discharge or spill they are tocontain. By the same token, respondents maintain that petitioners arebereft of discretion on whether or not to alleviate the problem of solidand liquid waste disposal; in other words, it is the MMDAs ministerialduty to attend to such services.

We agree with respondents.

First off, we wish to state that petitioners obligation to perform theirduties as defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry outsuch duties, on the other, are two different concepts. While theimplementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doingwhat the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may becompelled by mandamus. We said so in Social Justice Society v.

Atienza11in which the Court directed the City of Manila to enforce, as amatter of ministerial duty, its Ordinance No. 8027 directing the threebig local oil players to cease and desist from operating their businessin the so-called "Pandacan Terminals" within six months from theeffectivity of the ordinance. But to illustrate with respect to the instantcase,the MMDAs duty to put up an adequate and appropriate sanitarylandfill and solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative

garbage disposal systems is ministerial, its duty being a statutoryimposition. The MMDAs duty in this regard is spelled out in Sec. 3(c)of Republic Act No. (RA) 7924 creating the MMDA. This sectiondefines and delineates the scope of the MMDAs waste disposalservices to include:

Solid waste disposal and management which includeformulation and implementation of policies, standards,programs and projects for proper and sanitary wastedisposal. It shall likewise include the establishment andoperation of sanitary land fill and related facilitiesandthe implementation of other alternative programs intended toreduce, reuse and recycle solid waste. (Emphasis added.)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt6


3/15

The MMDA is duty-bound to comply with Sec. 41 of the EcologicalSolid Waste Management Act (RA 9003) which prescribes theminimum criteria for the establishment of sanitary landfills and Sec. 42which provides the minimum operating requirements that each siteoperator shall maintain in the operation of a sanitary landfill.Complementing Sec. 41 are Secs. 36 and 37 of RA 9003,12enjoiningthe MMDA and local government units, among others, after theeffectivity of the law on February 15, 2001, from using and operatingopen dumps for solid waste and disallowing, five years after sucheffectivity, the use of controlled dumps.

The MMDAs duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted,is set forth not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003,but in its charter as well. This duty of putting up a proper wastedisposal system cannot be characterized as discretionary, for, asearlier stated, discretion presupposes the power or right given by lawto public functionaries to act officially according to their judgment orconscience.13A discretionary duty is one that "allows a person toexercise judgment and choose to perform or not to perform."14Anysuggestion that the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform itssolid waste disposal-related duties ought to be dismissed for want oflegal basis.

A perusal of other petitioners respective charters or like enablingstatutes and pertinent laws would yield this conclusion: thesegovernment agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation,to perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the cleanup,rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay. They are

precluded from choosing not to perform these duties. Consider:

(1) The DENR, under Executive Order No. (EO) 192,15is the primaryagency responsible for the conservation, management, development,and proper use of the countrys environment and natural resources.Sec. 19 of the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004 (RA 9275), on theother hand, designates the DENR as the primary government agencyresponsible for its enforcement and implementation, more particularlyover all aspects of water quality management. On water pollution, theDENR, under the Acts Sec. 19(k), exercises jurisdiction "over allaspects of water pollution, determine[s] its location, magnitude, extent,severity, causes and effects and other pertinent information onpollution, and [takes] measures, using available methods andtechnologies, to prevent and abate such pollution."

The DENR, under RA 9275, is also tasked to prepare a National WaterQuality Status Report, an Integrated Water Quality ManagementFramework, and a 10-year Water Quality Management Area ActionPlan which is nationwide in scope covering the Manila Bay andadjoining areas. Sec. 19 of RA 9275 provides:

Sec. 19 Lead Agency.The [DENR] shall be the primarygovernment agency responsible for the implementation andenforcement of this Act x x x unless otherwise providedherein. As such, it shall have the following functions, powersand responsibilities:

a) Prepare a National Water Quality Status report withintwenty-four (24) months from the effectivity of this Act:Provided, That the Department shall thereafter review orrevise and publish annually, or as the need arises, said

report;

b) Prepare an Integrated Water Quality ManagementFramework within twelve (12) months following thecompletion of the status report;

c) Prepare a ten (10) year Water Quality Management AreaAction Plan within 12 months following the completion of theframework for each designated water management area.Such action plan shall be reviewed by the water qualitymanagement area governing board every five (5) years or asneed arises.

The DENR has prepared the status report for the period 2001 to 2005and is in the process of completing the preparation of the Integrated

Water Quality Management Framework.16Within twelve (12) monthsthereafter, it has to submit a final Water Quality Management Area

Action Plan.17Again, like the MMDA, the DENR should be made toaccomplish the tasks assigned to it under RA 9275.

Parenthetically, during the oral arguments, the DENR Secretarymanifested that the DENR, with the assistance of and in partnershipwith various government agencies and non-government organizations,has completed, as of December 2005, the final draft of acomprehensive action plan with estimated budget and time frame,denominated as Operation Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy,for the rehabilitation, restoration, and rehabilitation of the Manila Bay.

The completion of the said action plan and even the implementation ofsome of its phases should more than ever prod the concernedagencies to fast track what are assigned them under existing laws.

(2) The MWSS, under Sec. 3 of RA 6234,18is vested with jurisdiction,supervision, and control over all waterworks and sewerage systems inthe territory comprising what is now the cities of Metro Manila andseveral towns of the provinces of Rizal and Cavite, and charged withthe duty:

(g) To construct, maintain, and operate such sanitary

sewerages as may be necessary for the proper sanitationand other uses of the cities and towns comprising theSystem; x x x

(3) The LWUA under PD 198 has the power of supervision and controlover local water districts. It can prescribe the minimum standards andregulations for the operations of these districts and shall monitor andevaluate local water standards. The LWUA can direct these districts toconstruct, operate, and furnish facilities and services for the collection,treatment, and disposal of sewerage, waste, and storm water.

Additionally, under RA 9275, the LWUA, as attached agency of theDPWH, is tasked with providing sewerage and sanitation facilities,inclusive of the setting up of efficient and safe collection, treatment,and sewage disposal system in the different parts of the country.19Inrelation to the instant petition, the LWUA is mandated to providesewerage and sanitation facilities in Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan,

Pampanga, and Bataan to prevent pollution in the Manila Bay.

(4) The Department of Agriculture (DA), pursuant to the AdministrativeCode of 1987 (EO 292),20is designated as the agency tasked topromulgate and enforce all laws and issuances respecting theconservation and proper utilization of agricultural and fisheryresources. Furthermore, the DA, under the Philippine Fisheries Codeof 1998 (RA 8550), is, in coordination with local government units(LGUs) and other concerned sectors, in charge of establishing amonitoring, control, and surveillance system to ensure that fisheriesand aquatic resources in Philippine waters are judiciously utilized andmanaged on a sustainable basis.21Likewise under RA 9275, the DA ischarged with coordinating with the PCG and DENR for theenforcement of water quality standards in marine waters.22Morespecifically, its Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)under Sec. 22(c) of RA 9275 shall primarily be responsible for the

prevention and control of water pollution for the development,management, and conservation of the fisheries and aquatic resources.

(5) The DPWH, as the engineering and construction arm of thenational government, is tasked under EO 29223to provide integratedplanning, design, and construction services for, among others, floodcontrol and water resource development systems in accordance withnational development objectives and approved government plans andspecifications.

In Metro Manila, however, the MMDA is authorized by Sec. 3(d), RA7924 to perform metro-wide services relating to "flood control andsewerage management which include the formulation andimplementation of policies, standards, programs and projects for anintegrated flood control, drainage and sewerage system."

On July 9, 2002, a Memorandum of Agreement was entered intobetween the DPWH and MMDA, whereby MMDA was made theagency primarily responsible for flood control in Metro Manila. For therest of the country, DPWH shall remain as the implementing agency forflood control services. The mandate of the MMDA and DPWH on floodcontrol and drainage services shall include the removal of structures,constructions, and encroachments built along rivers, waterways, andesteros (drainages) in violation of RA 7279, PD 1067, and otherpertinent laws.

(6) The PCG, in accordance with Sec. 5(p) of PD 601, or the RevisedCoast Guard Law of 1974, and Sec. 6 of PD 979,24or the MarinePollution Decree of 1976, shall have the primary responsibility ofenforcing laws, rules, and regulations governing marine pollution withinthe territorial waters of the Philippines. It shall promulgate its own rules

and regulations in accordance with the national rules and policies setby the National Pollution Control Commission upon consultation withthe latter for the effective implementation and enforcement of PD 979.It shall, under Sec. 4 of the law, apprehend violators who:

a. discharge, dump x x x harmful substances from or out ofany ship, vessel, barge, or any other floating craft, or otherman-made structures at sea, by any method, means ormanner, into or upon the territorial and inland navigablewaters of the Philippines;

b. throw, discharge or deposit, dump, or cause, suffer orprocure to be thrown, discharged, or deposited either from orout of any ship, barge, or other floating craft or vessel of any
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt12


4/15

kind, or from the shore, wharf, manufacturing establishment,or mill of any kind, any refuse matter of any kind ordescription whatever other than that flowing from streets andsewers and passing therefrom in a l iquid state into tributaryof any navigable water from which the same shall float or bewashed into such navigable water; and

c. deposit x x x material of any kind in any place on the bankof any navigable water or on the bank of any tributary of anynavigable water, where the same shall be liable to bewashed into such navigable water, either by ordinary or hightides, or by storms or floods, or otherwise, wherebynavigation shall or may be impeded or obstructed orincrease the level of pollution of such water.

(7) When RA 6975 or the Department of the Interior and LocalGovernment (DILG) Act of 1990 was signed into law on December 13,1990, the PNP Maritime Group was tasked to "perform all policefunctions over the Philippine territorial waters and rivers." Under Sec.86, RA 6975, the police functions of the PCG shall be taken over bythe PNP when the latter acquires the capability to perform suchfunctions. Since the PNP Maritime Group has not yet attained thecapability to assume and perform the police functions of PCG overmarine pollution, the PCG and PNP Maritime Group shall coordinatewith regard to the enforcement of laws, rules, and regulationsgoverning marine pollution within the territorial waters of thePhilippines. This was made clear in Sec. 124, RA 8550 or thePhilippine Fisheries Code of 1998, in which both the PCG and PNP

Maritime Group were authorized to enforce said law and other fisherylaws, rules, and regulations.25

(8) In accordance with Sec. 2 of EO 513, the PPA is mandated "toestablish, develop, regulate, manage and operate a rationalizednational port system in support of trade and national development."26Moreover, Sec. 6-c of EO 513 states that the PPA has police authoritywithin the ports administered by it as may be necessary to carry out itspowers and functions and attain its purposes and objectives, withoutprejudice to the exercise of the functions of the Bureau of Customs andother law enforcement bodies within the area. Such police authorityshall include the following:

x x x x

b) To regulate the entry to, exit from, and movement withinthe port, of persons and vehicles, as well as movementwithin the port of watercraft.27

Lastly, as a member of the International Marine Organization and asignatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollutionfrom Ships, as amended by MARPOL 73/78,28the Philippines, throughthe PPA, must ensure the provision of adequate reception facilities atports and terminals for the reception of sewage from the ships dockingin Philippine ports. Thus, the PPA is tasked to adopt such measures asare necessary to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquidwastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay watersfrom vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators. When thevessels are not docked at ports but within Philippine territorial waters, itis the PCG and PNP Maritime Group that have jurisdiction over saidvessels.

(9) The MMDA, as earlier indicated, is duty-bound to put up andmaintain adequate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposalsystem as well as other alternative garbage disposal systems. It isprimarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of theprovisions of RA 9003, which would necessary include its penalprovisions, within its area of jurisdiction.29

Among the prohibited acts under Sec. 48, Chapter VI of RA 9003 thatare frequently violated are dumping of waste matters in public places,such as roads, canals or esteros, open burning of solid waste,squatting in open dumps and landfills, open dumping, burying ofbiodegradable or non- biodegradable materials in flood-prone areas,establishment or operation of open dumps as enjoined in RA 9003,and operation of waste management facilities without an environmental

compliance certificate.

Under Sec. 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992(RA 7279), eviction or demolition may be allowed "when persons orentities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbagedumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public placessuch as sidewalks, roads, parks and playgrounds." The MMDA, aslead agency, in coordination with the DPWH, LGUs, and concernedagencies, can dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, andother encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other pertinentlaws along the rivers, waterways, and esterosin Metro Manila. Withrespect to rivers, waterways, and esterosin Bulacan, Bataan,Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna that discharge wastewater directly oreventually into the Manila Bay, the DILG shall direct the concernedLGUs to implement the demolition and removal of such structures,

constructions, and other encroachments built in violation of RA 7279and other applicable laws in coordination with the DPWH andconcerned agencies.

(10) The Department of Health (DOH), under Article 76 of PD 1067(the Water Code), is tasked to promulgate rules and regulations for theestablishment of waste disposal areas that affect the source of a watersupply or a reservoir for domestic or municipal use. And under Sec. 8of RA 9275, the DOH, in coordination with the DENR, DPWH, andother concerned agencies, shall formulate guidelines and standards forthe collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage and theestablishment and operation of a centralized sewage treatmentsystem. In areas not considered as highly urbanized cities, septage ora mix sewerage-septage management system shall be employed.

In accordance with Sec. 7230of PD 856, the Code of Sanitation of thePhilippines, and Sec. 5.1.131of Chapter XVII of its implementing rules,the DOH is also ordered to ensure the regulation and monitoring of theproper disposal of wastes by private sludge companies through thestrict enforcement of the requirement to obtain an environmentalsanitation clearance of sludge collection treatment and disposal beforethese companies are issued their environmental sanitation permit.

(11) The Department of Education (DepEd), under the PhilippineEnvironment Code (PD 1152), is mandated to integrate subjects onenvironmental education in its school curricula at all levels.32UnderSec. 118 of RA 8550, the DepEd, in collaboration with the DA,

Commission on Higher Education, and Philippine Information Agency,shall launch and pursue a nationwide educational campaign topromote the development, management, conservation, and proper useof the environment. Under the Ecological Solid Waste Management

Act (RA 9003), on the other hand, it is directed to strengthen theintegration of environmental concerns in school curricula at all levels,with an emphasis on waste management principles.33

(12) The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is taskedunder Sec. 2, Title XVII of the Administrative Code of 1987 to ensurethe efficient and sound utilization of government funds and revenuesso as to effectively achieve the countrys development objectives.34

One of the countrys development objectives is enshrined in RA 9275or the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004. This law stresses that theState shall pursue a policy of economic growth in a manner consistent

with the protection, preservation, and revival of the quality of our fresh,brackish, and marine waters. It also provides that it is the policy of thegovernment, among others, to streamline processes and procedures inthe prevention, control, and abatement of pollution mechanisms for theprotection of water resources; to promote environmental strategies anduse of appropriate economic instruments and of control mechanismsfor the protection of water resources; to formulate a hol istic nationalprogram of water quality management that recognizes that issuesrelated to this management cannot be separated from concerns aboutwater sources and ecological protection, water supply, public health,and quality of life; and to provide a comprehensive managementprogram for water pollution focusing on pollution prevention.

Thus, the DBM shall then endeavor to provide an adequate budget toattain the noble objectives of RA 9275 in line with the countrysdevelopment objectives.

All told, the aforementioned enabling laws and issuances are inthemselves clear, categorical, and complete as to what are theobligations and mandate of each agency/petitioner under the law. Weneed not belabor the issue that their tasks include the cleanup of theManila Bay.

Now, as to the crux of the petition. Do Secs. 17 and 20 of theEnvironment Code encompass the cleanup of water pollution ingeneral, not just specific pollution incidents?

Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment CodeInclude Cleaning in General

The disputed sections are quoted as follows:

Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality.Where the qualityof water has deteriorated to a degree where its state willadversely affect its best usage, the government agenciesconcerned shall take such measures as may be necessaryto upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribedwater quality standards.

Section 20. Clean-up Operations.It shall be theresponsibility of the polluter to contain, remove and clean-upwater pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of hisfailure to do so, the government agencies concerned shallundertake containment, removal and clean-up operations
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt25


5/15

and expenses incurred in said operations shall be chargedagainst the persons and/or entities responsible for suchpollution.

When the Clean Water Act (RA 9275) took effect, its Sec. 16 on thesubject, o, amended the counterpart provision (Sec. 20) of theEnvironment Code (PD 1152). Sec. 17 of PD 1152 continues,however, to be operational.

The amendatory Sec. 16 of RA 9275 reads:

SEC. 16. Cleanup Operations.Notwithstanding theprovisions of Sections 15 and 26 hereof, any person whocauses pollution in or pollutes water bodies in excess of theapplicable and prevailing standards shall be responsible tocontain, remove and clean up any pollution incident at hisown expense to the extent that the same water bodies havebeen rendered unfit for utilization and beneficial use:Provided, That in the event emergency cleanup operationsare necessary and the polluter fails to immediately undertakethe same, the [DENR] in coordination with other governmentagencies concerned, shall undertake containment, removaland cleanup operations. Expenses incurred in saidoperations shall be reimbursed by the persons found to havecaused such pollution under proper administrativedetermination x x x. Reimbursements of the cost incurredshall be made to the Water Quality Management Fund or to

such other funds where said disbursements were sourced.

As may be noted, the amendment to Sec. 20 of the Environment Codeis more apparent than real since the amendment, insofar as it isrelevant to this case, merely consists in the designation of the DENRas lead agency in the cleanup operations.

Petitioners contend at every turn that Secs. 17 and 20 of theEnvironment Code concern themselves only with the matter ofcleaning up in specific pollution incidents, as opposed to cleanup ingeneral. They aver that the twin provisions would have to be readalongside the succeeding Sec. 62(g) and (h), which defines the terms"cleanup operations" and "accidental spills," as follows:

g. Clean-up Operations [refer] to activities conducted in

removing the pollutants discharged or spilled in water torestore it to pre-spill condition.

h. Accidental Spills [refer] to spills of oil or other hazardoussubstances in water that result from accidents such ascollisions and groundings.

Petitioners proffer the argument that Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152merely direct the government agencies concerned to undertakecontainment, removal, and cleaning operations of a specific pollutedportion or portions of the body of water concerned. They maintain thatthe application of said Sec. 20 is limited only to "water pollutionincidents," which are situations that presuppose the occurrence ofspecific, isolated pollution events requiring the correspondingcontainment, removal, and cleaning operations. Pushing the pointfurther, they argue that the aforequoted Sec. 62(g) requires "cleanup

operations" to restore the body of water to pre-spill condition, whichmeans that there must have been a specific incident of eitherintentional or accidental spillage of oil or other hazardous substances,as mentioned in Sec. 62(h).

As a counterpoint, respondents argue that petitioners erroneously readSec. 62(g) as delimiting the application of Sec. 20 to the containment,removal, and cleanup operations for accidental spills only. Contrary topetitioners posture, respondents assert that Sec. 62(g), in fact, evenexpanded the coverage of Sec. 20. Respondents explain that withoutits Sec. 62(g), PD 1152 may have indeed covered only pollutionaccumulating from the day-to-day operations of businesses around theManila Bay and other sources of pollution that slowly accumulated inthe bay. Respondents, however, emphasize that Sec. 62(g), far frombeing a delimiting provision, in fact even enlarged the operationalscope of Sec. 20, by including accidental spills as among the water

pollution incidents contemplated in Sec. 17 in relation to Sec. 20 of PD1152.

To respondents, petitioners parochial view on environmental issues,coupled with their narrow reading of their respective mandated roles,has contributed to the worsening water quality of the Manila Bay.

Assuming, respondents assert, that petitioners are correct in sayingthat the cleanup coverage of Sec. 20 of PD 1152 is constricted by thedefinition of the phrase "cleanup operations" embodied in Sec. 62(g),Sec. 17 is not hobbled by such limiting definition. As pointed out, thephrases "cleanup operations" and "accidental spills" do not appear insaid Sec. 17, not even in the chapter where said section is found.

Respondents are correct. For one thing, said Sec. 17 does not in anyway state that the government agencies concerned ought to confinethemselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning operationswhen a specific pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17requires them to act even in the absence of a specific pollutionincident, as long as water quality "has deteriorated to a degree whereits state will adversely affect its best usage." This section, to stress,commands concerned government agencies, when appropriate, "totake such measures as may be necessary to meet the prescribedwater quality standards." In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade thequality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollutionincident.

For another, a perusal of Sec. 20 of the Environment Code, ascouched, indicates that it is properly applicable to a specific situation inwhich the pollution is caused by polluters who fail to clean up the messthey left behind. In such instance, the concerned government agenciesshall undertake the cleanup work for the polluters account. Petitionersassertion, that they have to perform cleanup operations in the ManilaBay only when there is a water pollution incident and the erringpolluters do not undertake the containment, removal, and cleanupoperations, is quite off mark. As earlier discussed, the complementarySec. 17 of the Environment Code comes into play and the specificduties of the agencies to clean up come in even if there are nopollution incidents staring at them. Petitioners, thus, cannot plausiblyinvoke and hide behind Sec. 20 of PD 1152 or Sec. 16 of RA 9275 onthe pretext that their cleanup mandate depends on the happening of aspecific pollution incident. In this regard, what the CA said with respect

to the impasse over Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 is at once valid as itis practical. The appellate court wrote: "PD 1152 aims to introduce acomprehensive program of environmental protection and management.This is better served by making Secs. 17 & 20 of general applicationrather than limiting them to specific pollution incidents."35

Granting arguendothat petitioners position thus described vis--visthe implementation of Sec. 20 is correct, they seem to have overlookedthe fact that the pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude andscope that it is well-nigh impossible to draw the line between a specificand a general pollution incident. And such impossibility extends topinpointing with reasonable certainty who the polluters are. We notethat Sec. 20 of PD 1152 mentions "water pollution incidents" whichmay be caused by polluters in the waters of the Manila Bay itself or bypolluters in adjoining lands and in water bodies or waterways thatempty into the bay. Sec. 16 of RA 9275, on the other hand, specifically

adverts to "any person who causes pollution in or pollutes waterbodies," which may refer to an individual or an establishment thatpollutes the land mass near the Manila Bay or the waterways, suchthat the contaminants eventually end up in the bay. In this situation, thewater pollution incidents are so numerous and involve nameless andfaceless polluters that they can validly be categorized as beyond thespecific pollution incident level.

Not to be ignored of course is the reality that the government agenciesconcerned are so undermanned that it would be almost impossible toapprehend the numerous polluters of the Manila Bay. It may perhapsnot be amiss to say that the apprehension, if any, of the Manila Baypolluters has been few and far between. Hence, practically nobody hasbeen required to contain, remove, or clean up a given water pollutionincident. In this kind of setting, it behooves the Government to step inand undertake cleanup operations. Thus, Sec. 16 of RA 9275,

previously Sec. 20 of PD 1152, covers for all intents and purposes ageneral cleanup situation.

The cleanup and/or restoration of the Manila Bay is only an aspect andthe initial stage of the long-term solution. The preservation of the waterquality of the bay after the rehabilitation process is as important as thecleaning phase. It is imperative then that the wastes and contaminantsfound in the rivers, inland bays, and other bodies of water be stoppedfrom reaching the Manila Bay. Otherwise, any cleanup effort would justbe a futile, cosmetic exercise, for, in no time at all, the Manila Baywater quality would again deteriorate below the ideal minimumstandards set by PD 1152, RA 9275, and other relevant laws. It thusbehooves the Court to put the heads of the petitioner-department-agencies and the bureaus and offices under them on continuing noticeabout, and to enjoin them to perform, their mandates and dutiestowards cleaning up the Manila Bay and preserving the quality of itswater to the ideal level. Under what other judicial discipline describesas "continuing mandamus,"36the Court may, under extraordinarycircumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that itsdecision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction orindifference. In India, the doctrine of continuing mandamus was usedto enforce directives of the court to clean up the length of the GangesRiver from industrial and municipal pollution.37

The Court can take judicial notice of the presence of shanties andother unauthorized structures which do not have septic tanks along thePasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the National Capital Region (NCR)(Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycuayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan)Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the LagunaDe Bay, and other minor rivers and connecting waterways, river banks,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt35


6/15

and esteros which discharge their waters, with all the accompanyingfilth, dirt, and garbage, into the major rivers and eventually the ManilaBay. If there is one factor responsible for the pollution of the major riversystems and the Manila Bay, these unauthorized structures would beon top of the list. And if the issue of illegal or unauthorized structures isnot seriously addressed with sustained resolve, then practically allefforts to cleanse these important bodies of water would be for naught.The DENR Secretary said as much.38

Giving urgent dimension to the necessity of removing these illegalstructures is Art. 51 of PD 1067 or the Water Code,39which prohibitsthe building of structures within a given length along banks of riversand other waterways. Art. 51 reads:

The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of theseas and lakes throughout their entire length and withina zone of three (3) meters in urban areas, twenty (20)meters in agricultural areas and forty (40) meters in forestareas, along their margins, are subject to the easement ofpublic use in the interest of recreation, navigation,floatage, fishing and salvage. No person shall beallowed to stay in this zonelonger than what is necessaryfor recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage or tobuild structures of any kind. (Emphasis added.)

Judicial notice may likewise be taken of factories and other industrialestablishments standing along or near the banks of the Pasig River,

other major rivers, and connecting waterways. But while they may notbe treated as unauthorized constructions, some of theseestablishments undoubtedly contribute to the pollution of the PasigRiver and waterways. The DILG and the concerned LGUs, have,accordingly, the duty to see to i t that non-complying industrialestablishments set up, within a reasonable period, the necessarywaste water treatment facilities and infrastructure to prevent theirindustrial discharge, including their sewage waters, from flowing intothe Pasig River, other major rivers, and connecting waterways. Aftersuch period, non-complying establishments shall be shut down orasked to transfer their operations.

At this juncture, and if only to dramatize the urgency of the need forpetitioners-agencies to comply with their statutory tasks, we cite the

Asian Development Bank-commissioned study on the garbageproblem in Metro Manila, the results of which are embodied in the The

Garbage Book. As there reported, the garbage crisis in themetropolitan area is as alarming as it is shocking. Some highlights ofthe report:

1. As early as 2003, three land-filled dumpsites in MetroManila - the Payatas, Catmon and Rodriquez dumpsites -generate an alarming quantity of lead and leachate or liquidrun-off. Leachate are toxic liquids that flow along the surfaceand seep into the earth and poison the surface andgroundwater that are used for drinking, aquatic life, and theenvironment.

2. The high level of fecal coliform confirms the presence of alarge amount of human waste in the dump sites andsurrounding areas, which is presumably generated byhouseholds that lack alternatives to sanitation. To say that

Manila Bay needs rehabilitation is an understatement.

3. Most of the deadly leachate, lead and other dangerouscontaminants and possibly strains of pathogens seepsuntreated into ground water and runs into the Marikina andPasig River systems and Manila Bay.40

Given the above perspective, sufficient sanitary landfills should nowmore than ever be established as prescribed by the Ecological SolidWaste Management Act (RA 9003). Particular note should be taken ofthe blatant violations by some LGUs and possibly the MMDA of Sec.37, reproduced below:

Sec. 37. Prohibition against the Use of Open Dumps forSolid Waste.No open dumps shall be established and

operated, nor any practice or disposal of solid waste by anyperson, including LGUs which [constitute] the use of opendumps for solid waste, be allowed after the effectivity of this

Act: Provided, further that no controlled dumps shall beallowed (5) years following the effectivity of this Act.(Emphasis added.)

RA 9003 took effect on February 15, 2001 and the adverted graceperiod of five (5) years which ended on February 21, 2006 has comeand gone, but no single sanitary landfill which strictly complies with theprescribed standards under RA 9003 has yet been set up.

In addition, there are rampant and repeated violations of Sec. 48 of RA9003, like littering, dumping of waste matters in roads, canals, esteros,

and other public places, operation of open dumps, open burning ofsolid waste, and the like. Some sludge companies which do not haveproper disposal facilities simply discharge sludge into the Metro Manilasewerage system that ends up in the Manila Bay. Equally unabatedare violations of Sec. 27 of RA 9275, which enjoins the pollution ofwater bodies, groundwater pollution, disposal of infectious wastes fromvessels, and unauthorized transport or dumping into sea waters ofsewage or solid waste and of Secs. 4 and 102 of RA 8550 whichproscribes the introduction by human or machine of substances to theaquatic environment including "dumping/disposal of waste and othermarine litters, discharge of petroleum or residual products of petroleumof carbonaceous materials/substances [and other] radioactive, noxious

or harmful liquid, gaseous or solid substances, from any water, land orair transport or other human-made structure."

In the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the Court wishesto emphasize the extreme necessity for all concerned executivedepartments and agencies to immediately act and discharge theirrespective official duties and obligations. Indeed, time is of theessence; hence, there is a need to set timetables for the performanceand completion of the tasks, some of them as defined for them by lawand the nature of their respective offices and mandates.

The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource, playground, andas a historical landmark cannot be over-emphasized. It is not yet toolate in the day to restore the Manila Bay to its former splendor andbring back the plants and sea life that once thrived in its blue waters.But the tasks ahead, daunting as they may be, could only be

accomplished if those mandated, with the help and cooperation of allcivic-minded individuals, would put their minds to these tasks and takeresponsibility. This means that the State, through petitioners, has totake the lead in the preservation and protection of the Manila Bay.

The era of delays, procrastination, and ad hocmeasures is over.Petitioners must transcend their limitations, real or imaginary, andbuckle down to work before the problem at hand becomesunmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that different governmentagencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk from their mandates; theymust perform their basic functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating theManila Bay. We are disturbed by petitioners hiding behind twountenable claims: (1) that there ought to be a specific pollution incidentbefore they are required to act; and (2) that the cleanup of the bay is adiscretionary duty.

RA 9003 is a sweeping piece of legislation enacted to radicallytransform and improve waste management. It implements Sec. 16, Art.II of the 1987 Constitution, which explicitly provides that the State shallprotect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthfulecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

So it was that in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.the Court stated that the rightto a balanced and healthful ecology need not even be written in theConstitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rightsguaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankindand it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerationalimplications.41Even assuming the absence of a categorical legalprovision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they andthe men and women representing them cannot escape their obligationto future generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay

clean and clear as humanly as possible. Anything less would be abetrayal of the trust reposed in them.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 28, 2005Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 76528 and SP No. 74944 andthe September 13, 2002 Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 1851-99 are AFFIRMEDbut with MODIFICATIONSin view of subsequentdevelopments or supervening events in the case. The falloof the RTCDecision shall now read:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering theabovenamed defendant-government agencies to clean up,rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore andmaintain its waters to SB level (Class B sea waters perWater Classification Tables under DENR AdministrativeOrder No. 34 [1990]) to make them fit for swimming, skin-

diving, and other forms of contact recreation.

In particular:

(1) Pursuant to Sec. 4 of EO 192, assigning the DENR as the primaryagency responsible for the conservation, management, development,and proper use of the countrys environment and natural resources,and Sec. 19 of RA 9275, designating the DENR as the primarygovernment agency responsible for its enforcement andimplementation, the DENR is directed to fully implement its OperationalPlan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategyfor the rehabilitation,restoration, and conservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest possibletime. It is ordered to call regular coordination meetings with concernedgovernment departments and agencies to ensure the successful
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt38


7/15

implementation of the aforesaid plan of action in accordance with itsindicated completion schedules.

(2) Pursuant to Title XII (Local Government) of the Administrative Codeof 1987 and Sec. 25 of the Local Government Code of 1991,42theDILG, in exercising the Presidents power of general supervision andits duty to promulgate guidelines in establishing waste managementprograms under Sec. 43 of the Philippine Environment Code (PD1152), shall direct all LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite,Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all factories, commercialestablishments, and private homes along the banks of the major riversystems in their respective areas of jurisdiction, such as but not limitedto the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote,Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers,the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay(Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and otherminor rivers and waterways that eventually discharge water into theManila Bay; and the lands abutting the bay, to determine whether theyhave wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks asprescribed by existing laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations. Ifnone be found, these LGUs shall be ordered to require non-complyingestablishments and homes to set up said facilities or septic tankswithin a reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes, sewage water,and human wastes from flowing into these rivers, waterways, esteros,and the Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of fines andother sanctions.

(3) As mandated by Sec. 8 of RA 9275,43the MWSS is directed to

provide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary adequate wastewater treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite whereneeded at the earliest possible time.

(4) Pursuant to RA 9275,44the LWUA, through the local water districtsand in coordination with the DENR, is ordered to provide, install,operate, and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and theefficient and safe collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in theprovinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan whereneeded at the earliest possible time.

(5) Pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 8550,45the DA, through the BFAR, isordered to improve and restore the marine l ife of the Manila Bay. It isalso directed to assist the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite,Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan in developing, using

recognized methods, the fisheries and aquatic resources in the ManilaBay.

(6) The PCG, pursuant to Secs. 4 and 6 of PD 979, and the PNPMaritime Group, in accordance with Sec. 124 of RA 8550, incoordination with each other, shall apprehend violators of PD 979, RA8550, and other existing laws and regulations designed to preventmarine pollution in the Manila Bay.

(7) Pursuant to Secs. 2 and 6-c of EO 51346and the InternationalConvention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the PPA isordered to immediately adopt such measures to prevent the dischargeand dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generatedwastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports andapprehend the violators.

(8) The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs andprojects for flood control projects and drainage services in MetroManila, in coordination with the DPWH, DILG, affected LGUs, PNPMaritime Group, Housing and Urban Development CoordinatingCouncil (HUDCC), and other agencies, shall dismantle and remove allstructures, constructions, and other encroachments established or builtin violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias)Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, andconnecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH, as theprincipal implementor of programs and projects for flood controlservices in the rest of the country more particularly in Bulacan, Bataan,Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, in coordination with the DILG,affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, HUDCC, and other concernedgovernment agencies, shall remove and demolish all structures,constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279

and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando(Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River,the Laguna De Bay, and other rivers, connecting waterways, andesterosthat discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay.

In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish, operate, and maintain asanitary landfill, as prescribed by RA 9003, within a period of one (1)year from finality of this Decision. On matters within its territorial

jurisdiction and in connection with the discharge of its duties on themaintenance of sanitary landfills and like undertakings, it is alsoordered to cause the apprehension and filing of the appropriatecriminal cases against violators of the respective penal provisions ofRA 9003,47Sec. 27 of RA 9275 (the Clean Water Act), and otherexisting laws on pollution.

(9) The DOH shall, as directed by Art. 76 of PD 1067 and Sec. 8 of RA9275, within one (1) year from finality of this Decision, determine if alllicensed septic and sludge companies have the proper facilities for thetreatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septictanks. The DOH shall give the companies, if found to be non-complying, a reasonable time within which to set up the necessaryfacilities under pain of cancellation of i ts environmental sanitationclearance.

(10) Pursuant to Sec. 53 of PD 1152,48Sec. 118 of RA 8550, and Sec.56 of RA 9003,49the DepEd shall integrate lessons on pollutionprevention, waste management, environmental protection, and likesubjects in the school curricula of all levels to inculcate in the mindsand hearts of students and, through them, their parents and friends,the importance of their duty toward achieving and maintaining abalanced and healthful ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entirePhilippine archipelago.

(11) The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequate budget in theGeneral Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover theexpenses relating to the cleanup, restoration, and preservation of thewater quality of the Manila Bay, in line with the countrys developmentobjective to attain economic growth in a manner consistent with theprotection, preservation, and revival of our marine waters.

(12) The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH,DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG, and also of

MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in line with the principle of "continuingmandamus," shall, from finality of this Decision, each submit to theCourt a quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken inaccordance with this Decision.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_171947_2008.html#fnt42


8/15

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993

JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, allsurnamed OPOSA, minors, and represented by their parentsANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA NICOLE SADIUA,minor, represented by her parents CALVIN and ROBERTASADIUA, CARLO, AMANDA SALUD and PATRISHA, all surnamedFLORES, minors and represented by their parents ENRICO andNIDA FLORES, GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN, minor, represented byher parents SIGRID and DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA.CONCEPCION, all surnamed MISA, minors and represented bytheir parents GEORGE and MYRA MISA, BENJAMIN ALAN V.PESIGAN, minor, represented by his parents ANTONIO and ALICEPESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE ALFARO, minor, represented by herparents JOSE and MARIA VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIACONCEPCION T. CASTRO, minor, represented by her parentsFREDENIL and JANE CASTRO, JOHANNA DESAMPARADO,minor, represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELADESAMPRADO, CARLO JOAQUIN T. NARVASA, minor,

represented by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE CHARITYNARVASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA andMARIE GABRIELLE, all surnamed SAENZ, minors, represented bytheir parents ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ, KRISTINE, MARYELLEN, MAY, GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all surnamedKING, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and HAYDEEKING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and THERESE VICTORIA, allsurnamed ENDRIGA, minors, represented by their parentsBALTAZAR and TERESITA ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINAMA., all surnamed ABAYA, minors, represented by their parentsANTONIO and MARICA ABAYA, MARILIN, MARIO, JR. andMARIETTE, all surnamed CARDAMA, minors, represented by theirparents MARIO and LINA CARDAMA, CLARISSA, ANN MARIE,NAGEL, and IMEE LYN, all surnamed OPOSA, minors andrepresented by their parents RICARDO and MARISSA OPOSA,PHILIP JOSEPH, STEPHEN JOHN and ISAIAH JAMES, all

surnamed QUIPIT, minors, represented by their parents JOSEMAX and VILMI QUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO, CRISANTO, ANNA,DANIEL and FRANCISCO, all surnamed BIBAL, minors,represented by their parents FRANCISCO, JR. and MILAGROSBIBAL, and THE PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK, INC.,petitioners,vs.THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in hiscapacity as the Secretary of the Department of Environment andNatural Resources, and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U.ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66,respondents.

Oposa Law Office for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J. :

In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to abalanced and healthful ecology which the petitioners dramaticallyassociate with the twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility"and "inter-generational justice." Specifically, it touches on the issue ofwhether the said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent themisappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrestthe unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systemsand continued rape of Mother Earth."

The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77 which wasfiled before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of the Regional TrialCourt (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region. The principal plaintiffstherein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors duly representedand joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as an additionalplaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic,non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, interalia, engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of ourenvironment and natural resources. The original defendant was theHonorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of theDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Hissubstitution in this petition by the new Secretary, the Honorable AngelC. Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by thepetitioners.1The complaint2was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit 3and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the

Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use andenjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgintropical forests." The same was filed for themselves and others whoare equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are"so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before theCourt." The minors further asseverate that they "represent theirgeneration as well as generations yet unborn." 4Consequently, it isprayed for that judgment be rendered:

. . . ordering defendant, his agents,representatives and other persons acting in hisbehalf to

(1) Cancel all existing timber l icense agreementsin the country;

(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting,processing, renewing or approving new timberlicense agreements.

and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and equitableunder the premises."5

The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippinearchipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty million(30,000,000) hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant

rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of flora and faunamay be found; these rainforests contain a genetic, biological andchemical pool which is irreplaceable; they are also the habitat ofindigenous Philippine cultures which have existed, endured andflourished since time immemorial; scientific evidence reveals that inorder to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology, the country's landarea should be utilized on the basis of a ratio of fifty-four per cent(54%) for forest cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for agricultural,residential, industrial, commercial and other uses; the distortion anddisturbance of this balance as a consequence of deforestation haveresulted in a host of environmental tragedies, such as (a) watershortages resulting from drying up of the water table, otherwise knownas the "aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks and streams, (b)salinization of the water table as a result of the intrusion therein of saltwater, incontrovertible examples of which may be found in the island ofCebu and the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion andthe consequential loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with

the volume of soil eroded estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000)cubic meters per annum approximately the size of the entire islandof Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and extinction of the country'sunique, rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance anddislocation of cultural communities, including the disappearance of theFilipino's indigenous cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers and seabeds andconsequential destruction of corals and other aquatic life leading to acritical reduction in marine resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells ofdrought as is presently experienced by the entire country, (h)increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result from the absence ofwindbreakers, (i) the floodings of lowlands and agricultural plainsarising from the absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, (j) thesiltation and shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso damsconstructed and operated for the purpose of supplying water fordomestic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric power, and (k)the reduction of the earth's capacity to process carbon dioxide gases

which has led to perplexing and catastrophic climatic changes such asthe phenomenon of global warming, otherwise known as the"greenhouse effect."

Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequencesof continued and deforestation are so capable of unquestionabledemonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicialnotice. This notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to presentexpert witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and filmevidence in the course of the trial.

As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:

CAUSE OF ACTION

7. Plaintiffs replead by reference theforegoing allegations.

8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines hadsome sixteen (16) million hectares of rainforestsconstituting roughly 53% of the country's landmass.

9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that thereremained no more than 1.2 mill ion hectares of saidrainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of the country'sland area.


9/15

10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere850,000 hectares of virgin old-growth rainforestsare left, barely 2.8% of the entire land mass of thePhilippine archipelago and about 3.0 millionhectares of immature and uneconomicalsecondary growth forests.

11. Public records reveal that the defendant's,predecessors have granted timber licenseagreements ('TLA's') to various corporations to cutthe aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares forcommercial logging purposes.

A copy of the TLA holders and the correspondingareas covered is hereto attached as Annex "A".

12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e.about200,000 hectares per annum or 25 hectares perhour nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays andholidays included the Philippines will be bereftof forest resources after the end of this ensuingdecade, if not earlier.

13. The adverse effects, disastrousconsequences, serious injury and irreparabledamage of this continued trend of deforestation tothe plaintiff minor's generation and to generations

yet unborn are evident and incontrovertible. As amatter of fact, the environmental damagesenumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are alreadybeing felt, experienced and suffered by thegeneration of plaintiff adults.

14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLAholders to cut and deforest the remaining foreststands will work great damage and irreparableinjury to plaintiffs especially plaintiff minors andtheir successors who may never see, use,benefit from and enjoy this rare and unique naturalresource treasure.

This act of defendant constitutes a

misappropriation and/or impairment of the naturalresource property he holds in trust for the benefitof plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.

15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional rightto a balanced and healthful ecology and areentitled to protection by the State in its capacity astheparens patriae.

16. Plaintiff have exhausted all administrativeremedies with the defendant's office. On March 2,1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant a finaldemand to cancel all logging permits in thecountry.

A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990is hereto attached as Annex "B".

17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses tocancel the existing TLA's to the continuing seriousdamage and extreme prejudice of plaintiffs.

18. The continued failure and refusal by defendantto cancel the TLA's is an act violative of the rightsof plaintiffs, especially plaintiff minors who may beleft with a country that is desertified (sic), bare,barren and devoid of the wonderful flora, faunaand indigenous cultures which the Philippines hadbeen abundantly blessed with.

19. Defendant's refusal to cancel theaforementioned TLA's is manifestly contrary to thepublic policy enunciated in the PhilippineEnvironmental Policy which, in pertinent part,states that it is the policy of the State

(a) to create, develop, maintain and improveconditions under which man and nature can thrivein productive and enjoyable harmony with eachother;

(b) to fulfill the social, economic and otherrequirements of present and future generations ofFilipinos and;

(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmentalquality that is conductive to a life of dignity andwell-being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977)

20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal tocancel the aforementioned TLA's is contradictoryto the Constitutional policy of the State to

a. effect "a more equitable distribution ofopportunities, income and wealth" and "make fulland efficient use of natural resources (sic)."

(Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution);

b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2,ibid);

c. "conserve and promote the nation's culturalheritage and resources (sic)" (Section 14, ArticleXIV, id.);

d. "protect and advance the right of the people to abalanced and healthful ecology in accord with therhythm and harmony of nature." (Section 16,

Article II, id.)

21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to thehighest law of humankind the natural law and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservationand perpetuation.

22. There is no other plain, speedy andadequate remedy in law other than theinstant action to arrest the unabatedhemorrhage of the country's vital lifesupport systems and continued rape ofMother Earth. 6

On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., fileda Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely:(1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the issue

raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains tothe legislative or executive branches of Government. In their 12 July1990 Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners maintain that (1) thecomplaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, (2) themotion is dilatory and (3) the action presents a justiciable question as itinvolves the defendant's abuse of discretion.

On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting theaforementioned motion to dismiss.7In the said order, not only was thedefendant's claim that the complaint states no cause of actionagainst him and that it raises a political question sustained, therespondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief pr

Documents

Environmental Law Cases Atty Nolasco