UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORP. (CORN DIVISION), VS. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

[G.R. NO. 191427, MAY 30, 2011]Doctrines:

•

The thrust of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is that courts must

allowadministrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities

within thespecialized areas of their respective competence.

•

Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense

for it isenough that the party is given the chance to be heard before the case against him is

decided.

Facts:

Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), respondent, found that Universal Robina Corp.

failed to complywith government standards provided under Department of Environment and

Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Orders (DAOs) Nos. 34 and 35, series of 1990. After

conducting hearings, the LLDA resolvedthat respondent is found to be discharging pollutive

wastewater. Petitioner moved to reconsider however theLLDA denied petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration and reiterated its order to pay the penalties. Petitioner challenged by certiorari

the orders before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court went on to chidepetitioner’s

petition for certiorari as premature since the law provides for an appeal from decisions or

orders of the LLDA to the DENR Secretary or the Office of the President, a remedy which should

have first beenexhausted before invoking judicial intervention.

Issue:

Whether petitioner was deprived of due process and lack of any plain, speedy or adequate

remedy as groundswhich exempted it from complying with the rule on exhaustion of

administrative remedies.

Held:

No. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial

system. The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out

their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their

respective competence. The rationale for this doctrine isobvious. It entails lesser expenses and

provides for the speedier resolution of controversies. Comity andconvenience also impel courts

of justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redresshas been

completed.Petitioner had thus available administrative remedy of appeal to the DENR

Secretary. Itscontrary arguments to show that an appeal to the DENR Secretary would be an

exercise in futility as the latter merely adopts the LLDA’s findings is at best, speculative and

presumptuous.The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative

proceedings, an opportunityto explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration

of the action or ruling complained of. Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with

due process in its strict judicial sense for it is enoughthat the party is given the chance to be

heard before the case against him is decided.

PACIFIC STEAM LAUNDRY, INC.

v

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY608 SCRA 442CARPIO, J. 18 December 2009

Facts:

Petitioner Pacific Steam Laundry, Inc. (petitioner) is a company engaged in the business

of laundry services. On 5 September 2001, the Environmental Quality Management Division of

Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) conducted wastewater sampling of petitioner’s

effluent which showed non-compliance. After a series of subsequent water sampling, PSL still

failed to conform tothe regulatory standards. Another wastewater sampling which was

conducted on 5 June 2002, inresponse to the 17 May 2002 request for re-sampling received by

LLDA, finally showed compliancewith the effluent standard in all parameters. On 16 September

2002, LLDA issued an Order to Payindicating therein that the penalty should be imposed from

the date of initial sampling to the date therequest for re-sampling was received by the

Authority.Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the LLDA denied.

Issue:

WON the grant of implied power to LLDA to impose penalties violate the rule on non-delegation

of legislative powers.

Ruling:

LLDA’s power to impose fines is not unrestricted. It was only after the investigation findingthe

petitioner failing to meet the established water and effluent quality standards that the

LLDAimposed the penalty of P 1,000.00 per day. The P 1,000 penalty per day is in accordance

with the amount of penalty prescribed under PD 984.

Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA

G.R. Nos. 120865-71, December 7, 1995

Hermosisima Jr., J.

Facts:

RA 4850 was enacted creating the "Laguna Lake Development Authority." Thisagency was

supposed to accelerate the development and balanced growth of the LagunaLake area and the

surrounding provinces, cities and towns, in the act, within the context of the national and

regional plans and policies for social and economic development.PD 813 amended certain

sections RA 4850 because of the concern for the rapidexpansion of Metropolitan Manila, the

suburbs and the lakeshore towns of Laguna de Bay,combined with current and prospective uses

of the lake for municipal-industrial watersupply, irrigation, fisheries, and the like. To effectively

perform the role of the Authority under RA 4850, the Chief Executiveissued EO 927 further

defined and enlarged the functions and powers of the Authority andnamed and enumerated

the towns, cities and provinces encompassed by the term "Lagunade Bay Region". Also,

pertinent to the issues in this case are the following provisions of EO927 which include in

particular the sharing of fees:Sec 2: xxx the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue

permit forthe use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting thesaid region

including navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fishenclosures, fish corrals and

the like.SEC. 3.

Collection of Fees

. The Authority is hereby empowered to collectfees for the use of the lake water and its

tributaries for all beneficialpurposes including but not limited to fisheries, recreation,

municipal,industrial, agricultural, navigation, irrigation, and waste disposal purpose;Provided,

that the rates of the fees to be collected, and the sharing withother government agencies and

political subdivisions, if necessary, shall besubject to the approval of the President of the

Philippines uponrecommendation of the Authority's Board, except fishpen fee, which will

beshared in the following manner: 20 percent of the fee shall go to thelakeshore local

governments, 5 percent shall go to the Project DevelopmentFund which shall be administered

by a Council and the remaining 75 percentshall constitute the share of LLDA. However, after the

implementation withinthe three-year period of the Laguna Lake Fishery Zoning and

ManagementPlan the sharing will be modified as follows: 35 percent of the fishpen feegoes to

the lakeshore local governments, 5 percent goes to the ProjectDevelopment Fund and the

remaining 60 percent shall be retained by LLDA;Provided, however, that the share of LLDA shall

form part of its corporatefunds and shall not be remitted to the National Treasury as an

exception tothe provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1234. Then came Republic Act No. 7160.

The municipalities in the Laguna Lake Regioninterpreted the provisions of this law to mean that

the newly passed law gave municipalgovernments the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing

privileges within their municipalwaters because R.A. 7160 provides:Sec. 149. Fishery Rentals;

Fees and Charges (a) Municipalities shall have theexclusive authority to grant fishery privileges

in the municipal waters and impose rental fees or charges therefor in accordance with the

provisions of this Section.Municipal governments thereupon assumed the authority to

issuefishing privileges and fishpen permits. Big fishpen operators took advantageof the occasion

to establish fishpens and fishcages to the consternation of the Authority. Unregulated fishpens

and fishcages occupied almost one-thirdthe entire lake water surface area, increasing the

occupation drastically from7,000 ha in 1990 to almost 21,000 ha in 1995. The Mayor's permit

toconstruct fishpens and fishcages were all undertaken in violation of thepolicies adopted by

the Authority on fishpen zoning and the Laguna Lakecarrying capacity. In view of the foregoing

circumstances, the Authorityserved notice to the general public that:

1.

All fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in the Laguna deBay Region, which

were not registered or to which no application for registrationand/or permit has been filed with

Laguna Lake Development Authority as of March31, 1993 are hereby declared outrightly as

illegal.2.All fishpens; fishcages and other aqua-culture structures so declared asillegal shall be

subject to demolition which shall be undertaken by the Presidential Task Force for illegal

Fishpen and Illegal Fishing.

3.

Owners of fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures declared asillegal shall, without

prejudice to demolition of their structures be criminally chargedin accordance with Section 39-

A of Republic Act 4850 as amended by P.D. 813 forviolation of the same laws. Violations of

these laws carries a penalty of imprisonment of not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding

Five Thousand Pesosor both at the discretion of the court.All operators of fishpens, fishcages

and other aqua-culture structuresdeclared as illegal in accordance with the foregoing Notice

shall have one (1)month on or before 27 October 1993 to show cause before the LLDA whytheir

said fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures should notbe

demolished/dismantled.One month, thereafter, the Authority sent notices to the concerned

owners of theillegally constructed fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures

advising them todismantle their respective structures within 10 days from receipt thereof,

otherwise,demolition shall be effected. The fishpen owners filed injunction cases against the 

LLDA. The LLDA filed motions todismiss the cases against it on jurisdictional grounds. The 

motions to dismiss were denied.Meanwhile, TRO/writs of preliminary mandatory injunction 

were issued enjoining the LLDAfrom demolishing the fishpens and similar structures in 

question. Hence, the present petitionfor certiorari, prohibition and injunction. The CA 

dismissed the LLDA’s consolidated petitions.It ruled that (A) LLDA is not among those quasi-

judicial agencies of government appealableonly to the Court of Appeals; (B) the LLDA charter 

does vest LLDA with quasi-judicialfunctions insofar as fishpens are concerned; (C) the 

provisions of the LLDA charter insofar asfishing privileges in Laguna de Bay are concerned had 

been repealed by the LocalGovernment Code of 1991; (D) in view of the aforesaid repeal, the 

power to grant permitsdevolved to respective local government units concerned.

Issue:

Which agency of the Government - the LLDA or the towns and municipalitiescomprising the

region - should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its environsinsofar as the

issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned?

Held:

LLDA. Section 4 (k) of RA 4850, the provisions of PD 813, and Section 2 of EO 927,specifically

provide that the LLDA shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for theuse or all surface

water for any projects or activities in or affecting the said region, includingnavigation,

construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like.On the other

hand, RA 7160 has granted to the municipalities the exclusive authority togrant fishery

privileges in municipal waters. The Sangguniang Bayan may grant fisheryprivileges to erect fish

corrals, oyster, mussels or other aquatic beds or bangus fry areawithin a definite zone of the

municipal waters. The provisions of RA7160 do not necessarily repeal the laws creating the

LLDA andgranting the latter water rights authority over Laguna de Bay and the lake region. The

Local Government Code of 1991 does not contain any express provision whichcategorically

expressly repeal the charter of the Authority. It has to be conceded that therewas no intent on

the part of the legislature to repeal Republic Act No. 4850 and itsamendments. The repeal of

laws should be made clear and expressed.It has to be conceded that the charter of the LLDA

constitutes a special law. RA 7160is a general law. It is basic is basic in statutory construction

that the enactment of a laterlegislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have

repealed a special law. It is awell-settled rule in this jurisdiction that "a special statute, provided

for a particular case orclass of cases, is not repealed by a subsequent statute, general in its

terms, provisions andapplication, unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest, although the

terms of the generallaw are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law."

Where there is aconflict between a general law and a special statute, the special statute should

prevail sinceit evinces the legislative intent more clearly that the general statute. The special

law is to betaken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances

forcing acontrary conclusion. This is because implied repeals are not favored and as much

aspossible, given to all enactments of the legislature. A special law cannot be

repealed,amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication.Considering the

reasons behind the establishment of the Authority, which areenviromental protection,

navigational safety, and sustainable development, there is everyindication that the legislative

intent is for the Authority to proceed with its mission.We are on all fours with the

manifestation of LLDA that "Laguna de Bay, like anyother single body of water has its own

unique natural ecosystem. The 900 km lake surfacewater, the 8 major river tributaries and

several other smaller rivers that drain into the lake,the 2,920 km2 basin or watershed

transcending the boundaries of Laguna and Rizalprovinces, constitute one integrated delicate

natural ecosystem that needs to be protectedwith uniform set of policies; if we are to be

serious in our aims of attaining sustainabledevelopment. This is an exhaustible natural

resource-a very limited one-which requires judicious management and optimal utilization to

ensure renewability and preserve itsecological integrity and balance. Managing the lake

resources would mean theimplementation of a national policy geared towards the protection,

conservation, balancedgrowth and sustainable development of the region with due regard to

the inter-generationaluse of its resources by the inhabitants in this part of the earth. The

authors of Republic Act4850 have foreseen this need when they passed this LLDA law-the

special law designed togovern the management of our Laguna de Bay lake resources. Laguna de

Bay thereforecannot be subjected to fragmented concepts of management policies where

lakeshore local

Hizon vs CA dec 13, 1996

DOCTRINE

The authorities found nothing on the boat that would have indicated any form of illegal fishing.

All the documents of the boat and the fishermen were in order. It was only after the fish

specimens were tested, albeit under suspicious circumstances, that petitioners werecharged

with illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances.

FACTSAccused crew members and fishermen of F/B Robinson owned by First Fishermen Fishing

Industries, Inc., caught fish with use of obnoxious or poisonous substance (sodium cyanide), of

more or less one (1) ton of assorted live fishes which were illegally caught thru theuse of

obnoxious/poisonous substance (sodium cyanide).Petitioners were arraigned and they pled not

guilty to the charge. As defense, they claimed that they are legitimate fishermen of the

FirstFishermen Industries, Inc., a domestic corporation licensed to engage in fishing. They

alleged that they catch fish by the hook and linemethod and that they had used this method for

one month and a half in the waters of Cuyo Island.n July 9, 1993, the trial court found the thirty

one petitioners guilty.On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Hence, this petition

ISSUE:

whether or not the conviction was proper

HELD Not Guilty.Petitioners were charged with illegal fishing penalized under sections 33 and

38 of P.D. 704 which provide as follows:“Sec. 33. Illegal fishing, illegal possession of explosives

intended for illegal fishing; dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic products. -- It shall

be unlawful for any person to catch, take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or gatheredfish

or fishery/aquatic products in Philippine waters with the use of explosives, obnoxious or

poisonous substance, or by the useof electricity as defined in paragraphs (l), (m) and (d),

respectively, of section 3 hereof: Provided, That mere possession of suchexplosives with intent

to use the same for illegal fishing as herein defined shall be punishable as hereinafter provided:

Provided,That the Secretary may, upon recommendation of the Director and subject to such

safeguards and conditions he deemsnecessary, allow for research, educational or scientific

purposes only, the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance or electricity to catch,

take or gather fish or fishery/aquatic products in the specified area: Provided, further, That the

use of chemicals to eradicate predators in fishponds in accordance with accepted scientific

fishery practices without causing deleteriouseffects in neighboring waters shall not be

construed as the use of obnoxious or poisonous substance within the meaning of thissection:

Provided, finally, That the use of mechanical bombs for killing whales, crocodiles, sharks or

other large dangerousfishes, may be allowed, subject to the approval of the Secretary.The

prosecution failed to explain the contradictory findings on the fish samples and this omission

raises a reasonable doubt that the one tonof fishes in the cage were caught with the use of

sodium cyanide.Apparently, the members of the PNP Maritime Command and the Task Force

Bantay Dagat were the ones engaged in an illegal fishingexpedition.This method of fishing

needs approximately two hundred (200) fishermen to execute. What the apprehending officers

instead discoveredwere twenty eight (28) fishermen in their discovered were twenty eight (28)

fishermen in their sampans fishing by hook and line. Theauthorities found nothing on the boat

that would have indicated any form of illegal fishing. All the documents of the boat and

thefishermen were in order. It was only after the fish specimens were tested, albeit under

suspicious circumstances, that petitioners werecharged with illegal fishing with the use of

poisonous substances

TANO v. SOCRATES

Facts:

The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of:(1)

Ordinance No. 15-92 entitled:

"

AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVEFISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO

PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1,1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS,

PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF"(2) Office Order No. 23, requiring any person

engaged or intending to engage in any business,trade, occupation, calling or profession or

having in his possession any of the articles for which a permit isrequired to be had, to obtain

first a Mayor’s and authorizing and directing to check or conduct necessaryinspections on

cargoes containing live fish and lobster being shipped out from Puerto Princesa and,(3)

Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2 entitled: "A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THECATCHING,

GATHERING, POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF LIVE MARINECORAL DWELLING

AQUATIC ORGANISMS”The petitioners contend that the said Ordinances deprived them of due

process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted them from the practice of their trade, in

violation of Section 2, Article XIIand Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution and

that the Mayor had the absolute authorityto determine whether or not to issue the

permit.They also claim that it took away their right to earn their livelihood in lawful ways; and

insofar asthe Airline Shippers Association are concerned, they were unduly prevented from

pursuing their vocationand entering "into contracts which are proper, necessary, and essential

to carry out their businessendeavors to a successful conclusionPublic respondents Governor

Socrates and Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan defended the validity of

Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, as a valid exercise of the ProvincialGovernment's power under

the general welfare clause; they likewise maintained that there was noviolation of the due

process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.

Issue:

Whether or not the Ordinances in question are unconstitutional

Held: NO

Ratio:

In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the LGC and

thepowers granted therein to local government units under Section 16 (the General Welfare

Clause), andunder Sections 149, 447(a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) and 468 (a) (1) (vi), which

unquestionably involve theexercise of police power, the validity of the questioned Ordinances

cannot be doubted.***Sec. 16.

General Welfare

. — Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted,those necessarily

implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for itsefficient and

effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general

welfare.Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and

support, amongother things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and

safety,

enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology

, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliantscientific and

technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and

social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and

preserve thecomfort and convenience of their inhabitants. (emphasis supplied).It is clear to the

Court that both Ordinances have two principal objectives or purposes: (1) toestablish a "closed

season" for the species of fish or aquatic animals covered therein for a period of fiveyears; and

(2) to protect the coral in the marine waters of the City of Puerto Princesa and the Province

of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing activities.

It imposes upon the sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang panlungsod, and the

sangguniangpanlalawigan the duty to enact ordinances to "[p]rotect the environment and

impose appropriate penaltiesfor acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing

and other forms of destructivefishing . . . and such other activities which result in pollution,

acceleration of eutrophication of rivers andlakes or of ecological imbalance."

The petition is dismissed.

Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII provide:Sec. 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the

commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiativeand self-

reliance.xxx xxx xxxSec. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially

of local communities, to the preferential use of thecommunal marine and fishing resources,

both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through

appropriatetechnology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance,

and other services. The State shall also protect,develop, and conserve such resources. The

protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen againstforeign

intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and

fishing resources.

Province of Rizal vs Executive Secretary dec 13, 2005

DOCTRINE:

The law and the facts indicate that a mere MOA does not guarantee the dumpsite’s permanent

closure. An order for closure is in order.

FACTSGarbage was on the rise.At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its

environs, parts of the Marikina Watershed Reservation were set aside bythe Office of the

President, through Proclamation No. 635 dated 28 August 1995, for use as a sanitary landfill

and similar waste disposalapplications. In fact, this site, extending to more or less 18 hectares,

had already been in operation since 19 February 1990 for the solidwastes of Quezon City,

Marikina, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Pateros, Pasig, and Taguig. A petition filed by the Province of

Rizal, the municipality of San Mateo, and various concerned citizens for review on certiorari of

theDecision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41330, denying, for lack of cause of

action, the petition for certiorari, prohibition andmandamus with application for a temporary

restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction assailing the legality and constitutionality

of Proclamation No. 635.A case to the CA for the closure of the landfill stalled.

ISSUEWhether or not the landfill is contrary to law

HELD:SC held that the San Mateo Landfill will remain permanently closed. Although the

petitioners may be deemed to have waived or abandoned the issues raised in their previous

pleadings but not included in the

memorandum,certain events we shall relate below have inclined us to address some of the

more pertinent issues raised in the petition for the guidance of the herein respondents, and

pursuant to our symbolic function to educate the bench and bar. The law and the facts indicate

that a mere MOA does not guarantee the dumpsite’s permanent closure.The rally and

barricade staged by the people of Antipolo on 28 January 1999, with the full support of all the

mayors of Rizal Provincecaused the MMDA to agree that it would abandon the dumpsite after

six months. In return, the municipal mayors allowed the use of thedumpsite until 20 July

1999. Were it not for the TRO, then President Estrada’s instructions would have been lawfully

carried out, for as we observed in Oposa v.Factoran, the freedom of contract is not absolute.

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 PEÑA, 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 Court’s 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 RTC’s 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 court’s decision did not require petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions under existing laws.