Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4-MMDA Vs Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

    Uploaded by

    somonetohelp
    72 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) PD 1152 requires government agencies to clean up Manila Bay in general, not just during specific pollution incidents, and (2) the MMDA can be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay because cleaning the bay is a ministerial duty under the law, not a discretionary one. While implementation details may involve decision making, the underlying obligation to comply with environmental laws is not discretionary. The Court upheld the lower court ruling in favor of citizens requiring the MMDA and other agencies to clean up Manila Bay.

    Original Description:

    Natres Case Digest

    Original Title

    4-MMDA vs Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) PD 1152 requires government agencies to clean up Manila Bay in general, not just during specific pollution incidents, and (2) the MMDA can be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay because cleaning the bay is a ministerial duty under the law, not a discretionary one. While implementation details may involve decision making, the underlying obligation to comply with environmental laws is not discretionary. The Court upheld the lower court ruling in favor of citizens requiring the MMDA and other agencies to clean up Manila Bay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    72 views1 page

    4-MMDA Vs Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

    Uploaded by

    somonetohelp
    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) PD 1152 requires government agencies to clean up Manila Bay in general, not just during specific pollution incidents, and (2) the MMDA can be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay because cleaning the bay is a ministerial duty under the law, not a discretionary one. While implementation details may involve decision making, the underlying obligation to comply with environmental laws is not discretionary. The Court upheld the lower court ruling in favor of citizens requiring the MMDA and other agencies to clean up Manila Bay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    (4) METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.

    CONCERNED RESIDENTS
    OF MANILA BAY
    G.R. No. 171947, February 15, 2011
    (Natres)

    FACTS: Concerned Residents of Manila Bay represented by Ilas et al., filed a complaint before the Regional
    Trial Court in Cavite on January 29, 1999 against the MMDA and several other agencies alleging that the water
    quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law and for the cleanup,
    rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay.
    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: PD 1152; PD 984; PD 1067;
    PD 856; PD 825; PD 979; Executive Order No. 192; Republic Act No. 6969; Civil Code provisions on nuisance
    and human relations; The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship; and International Law.
    Respondents prayed that petitioners be compelled to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the Regional
    Trial Court a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.
    Regional Trial Court-Cavite rendered a decision in favor of the Citizens, ordering the MMDA to clean
    up and rehabilitate Manila Bay.
    The MWSS, Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), and PPA filed before the Court of Appeals
    (CA) individual Notices of Appeal; while the 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. The Court sent the
    said petition to the CA for consolidation with the consolidated appeals of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA.
    MMDA et al., argued that PD 1152 relates only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not
    cover cleaning in general. MMDA also raised concerns about the lack of funds and asserted that the cleaning of
    the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act, which can be compelled by mandamus. Unconvinced by the petitioner’s
    averments, the Court of Appeals sustained the Regional Trial Court’s decision. Hence, the petition.

    ISSUES:
    (1) Whether PD 1152 include a cleanup in general or is it limited only to the cleanup of specific pollution
    incidents
    (2) Whether petitioners may be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay

    RULING:
    (1) The Supreme Court upheld the Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay and ruled that PD 1152 does not in
    any way state that the government agencies concerned must to confine themselves to the containment,
    removal, and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. 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.
    (2) The Supreme Court upheld the Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay in ruling that MMDA may be
    compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay. The Court states that petitioners’
    obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such
    duties, on the other, are two different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDA’s mandated
    tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the
    law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. The MMDA’s duty
    in the area of solid waste disposal 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 waste disposal system cannot be
    characterized as discretionary, for, as earlier stated, discretion presupposes the power or right given by
    law to public functionaries to act officially according to their judgment or conscience.

    You might also like