The document discusses two court cases related to cleaning up and rehabilitating Manila Bay in the Philippines. In the first case, residents filed a complaint against government agencies to compel them to cleanup the heavily polluted Manila Bay. The trial court ordered the agencies to develop a plan to clean and restore the bay. The court of appeals upheld this decision. The second case discusses the legal obligations of government under environmental laws to address pollution problems.
The document discusses two court cases related to cleaning up and rehabilitating Manila Bay in the Philippines. In the first case, residents filed a complaint against government agencies to compel them to cleanup the heavily polluted Manila Bay. The trial court ordered the agencies to develop a plan to clean and restore the bay. The court of appeals upheld this decision. The second case discusses the legal obligations of government under environmental laws to address pollution problems.
The document discusses two court cases related to cleaning up and rehabilitating Manila Bay in the Philippines. In the first case, residents filed a complaint against government agencies to compel them to cleanup the heavily polluted Manila Bay. The trial court ordered the agencies to develop a plan to clean and restore the bay. The court of appeals upheld this decision. The second case discusses the legal obligations of government under environmental laws to address pollution problems.
HON. HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ v. PICOP RESOURCES, INC.G.R. No.
162243, December 3, 2009
Chico-Nazario, J.: Doctrine: A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the non- impairment clause. Facts: PICOP filed with the DENR an application to have its Timber License Agreement (TLA) No. 43converted into an IFMA.PICOP filed before the (RTC) City a Petition for Mandamus
against then DENR Sec Alvarez for unlawfully refusing and/or neglecting to sign and execute the IFMA contract of PICOP even as the latter has complied with all the legal requirements for the automatic conversion of TLA No. 43, as amended, into an IFMA. The cause of action of PICOP Resources, Inc. (PICOP) in its Petition for Mandamus with the tria lcourt is clear: the government is bound by contract, a 1969 Document signed by then President Ferdinand Marcos, to enter into an Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) with PICOP. Issue: Whether the 1969 Document is a contract recognized under the non-impairment clause by which the government may be bound (for the issuance of the IFMA) Held: NO. Our definitive ruling in Oposa v. Factoran that a timber license is not a contract within the purview of the non- impairment clause is edifying. We declared:
Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution.
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, which reads: "SEC. 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed." cannot be invoked.The Presidential Warranty cannot, in any manner, be construed as a contractual undertaking assuringPICOP of exclusive possession and enjoyment of its concession areas. Such an interpretation wouldresult in the complete abdication by the State in favor of PICOP of the sovereign power to control andsupervise the exploration, development and utilization of the natural resources in the area MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
G.R. Nos. 171947-48 December 18, 2008
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME GROUP, and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, petitioners, vs. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and joined by DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL SANTOS, JR., DINAH DELA PEA, PAUL DENNIS QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA CALOZA, FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE SEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA, SARAH JOELLE LINTAG, HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS, FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, and JAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA, respondents.
EN BANC
The need to address environmental pollution, as a cause of climate change, has of late gained the attention of the international community. Media have finally trained their sights on the ill effects of pollution, the destruction of forests and other critical habitats, oil spills, and the unabated improper disposal of garbage. And rightly so, for the magnitude of environmental destruction is now on a scale few ever foresaw and the wound no longer simply heals by itself. But amidst hard evidence and clear signs of a climate crisis that need bold action, the voice of cynicism, naysayers, and procrastinators can still be heard.
This case turns on government agencies and their officers who, by the nature of their respective offices or by direct statutory command, are tasked to protect and preserve, at the first instance, our internal waters, rivers, shores, and seas polluted by human activities. To most of these agencies and their official complement, the pollution menace does not seem to carry the high national priority it deserves, if their track records are to be the norm. Their cavalier attitude towards solving, if not mitigating, the environmental pollution problem, is a sad commentary on bureaucratic efficiency and commitment.
At the core of the case is the Manila Bay, a place with a proud historic past, once brimming with marine life and, for so many decades in the past, a spot for different contact recreation activities, but now a dirty and slowly dying expanse mainly because of the abject official indifference of people and institutions that could have otherwise made a difference.
Facts:
On January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay.
The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code.
In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect of petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of, among others:
(1) Respondents constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced 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 be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.
Issues:
a) Whether or not pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general.
b) Whether or not the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.
Held:
Regional Trial Courts Order to Clean Up and Rehabilitate Manila Bay
On September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondents. Finding merit in the complaint, the Court ordered defendant-government agencies, jointly and solidarily, to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to SB classification to make it fit for swimming, skin-diving and other forms of contact recreation.
To attain this, defendant-agencies, with defendant DENR as the lead agency, are directed, within six (6) months from receipt hereof, to act and perform their respective duties by devising a consolidated, coordinated and concerted scheme of action for the rehabilitation and restoration of the bay.
In particular:
Defendant MWSS is directed to install, operate and maintain adequate [sewerage] treatment facilities in strategic places under its jurisdiction and increase their capacities.
Defendant LWUA, to see to it that the water districts under its wings, provide, construct and operate sewage facilities for the proper disposal of waste.
Defendant DENR, which is the lead agency in cleaning up Manila Bay, to install, operate and maintain waste facilities to rid the bay of toxic and hazardous substances.
Defendant PPA, to prevent and also to treat the discharge not only of ship-generated wastes but also of other solid and liquid wastes from docking vessels that contribute to the pollution of the bay.
Defendant MMDA, to establish, operate and maintain an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and/or adequate solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal system such as re-use or recycling of wastes.
Defendant DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, to revitalize the marine life in Manila Bay and restock its waters with indigenous fish and other aquatic animals.
Defendant DBM, to provide and set aside an adequate budget solely for the purpose of cleaning up and rehabilitation of Manila Bay.
Defendant DPWH, to remove and demolish structures and other nuisances that obstruct the free flow of waters to the bay. These nuisances discharge solid and liquid wastes which eventually end up in Manila Bay. As the construction and engineering arm of the government, DPWH is ordered to actively participate in removing debris, such as carcass of sunken vessels, and other non-biodegradable garbage in the bay.
Defendant DOH, to closely supervise and monitor the operations of septic and sludge companies and require them to 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 the people through education the importance of preserving and protecting the environment.
Defendant Philippine Coast Guard and the PNP Maritime Group, to protect at all costs the Manila Bay from all forms of illegal fishing.
The Court of Appeals Sustained the RTCs Decision
The MWSS, Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), and PPA filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) individual Notices of Appeal. On the other hand, the DENR, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group, and five other executive departments and agencies filed directly with this Court a petition for review under Rule 45.
In the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the Court wishes to emphasize the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments and agencies to immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and obligations. Indeed, time is of the essence; hence, there is a need to set timetables for the performance and completion of the tasks, some of them as defined for them by law and the nature of their respective offices and mandates.
The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource, playground, and as a historical landmark cannot be over-emphasized. It is not yet too late in the day to restore the Manila Bay to its former splendor and bring 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 all civic-minded individuals, would put their minds to these tasks and take responsibility. This means that the State, through petitioners, has to take the lead in the preservation and protection of the Manila Bay.
So it was that in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. the Court stated that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them.
By a Decision of September 28, 2005, the CA denied petitioners appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto, stressing that the trial courts decision did not require petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions under existing laws. MMDA, et al. vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008 FACTS: On January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed acompl ai nt bef ore the Regi onal Tri al Court (RTC) i n I mus, Cavi t e agai nst several government agencies, among them the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, andprotection of the Manila Bay, and to submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen waybelow the allowable standards set by law, which was confirmed by DENRs Water Quality Management Chief, Renato T. Cruz that water samples collected from differentbeaches around the Manila Bay showed that the amount of fecal coliform contentranged from 50,000 to 80,000 most probable number (MPN)/ml which is beyond thestandard 200 MPN/100ml or the SB level under DENR Administrative Order No. 34- 90.The r e c k l e s s , who l e s a l e , a c c umul a t e d a nd o n g o i ng a c t s of omi s s i o n o r commission [of the defendants] resulting in the clear and present danger to publichealth and in the depletion and contamination of the marine life of Manila Bay, the RTChel d pet i ti oners l i abl e and ordered to cl ean up and rehabi l i t ate Mani l a Bay and t orestore its water quality to class B waters fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other formsof contact recreation. [3] Herein petitioners appealed before the Court of Appeals contending that thepertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. They also asserted thatt he cl eani ng of t he Mani l a Bay i s not a mi ni st eri a l act whi ch can be compel l ed bymandamus.The CA sustained RTCs decision stressing that petitioners were not required todo tasks outside of their basic functions under existing laws, hence, this appeal. ISSUE:
(1) W h e t h e r o r n o t S e c t i o n s 1 7 a n d 2 0 o f P D 1 1 5 2 u n d e r t h e headings, Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean-up Operations, envisage acleanup in general or are they limited only to the cleanup of specific pollutionincidents; (2) Whether or not peti ti oners be compel l ed by manda mus t o cl ean up andrehabilitate the Manila Bay. HELD: Supreme Court held that the cleaning up and rehabilitating Manila Bay is aministerial in nature and can be compelled by mandamus.Sec. 3(c) of R.A. No. 7924 (the law creating MMDA) states that the MMDA ismandated to put up an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste andliquid disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal systems. SC also notedt hat MMDA s dut y i n t he area of sol i d waste di sposal i s set f orth not onl y i n t heEnvironment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but also in its charter, therefore, it isministerial in nature and can be compelled by mandamus.