Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs Concerned Residents of Ma nila Bay
574 SCRA 661 – Political Law – Ministerial vs Discretionary Functions – Mandaus Constitutional Law – Ri!"t to a #ealt"$ul %colo!y In 1999 1999,, the the Conc Concer erne ned d Resid Residen ents ts of Mani Manila la Bay Bay (CRO (CROMB MB)) file filed d an actio action n for for mandamus to compel the Metropolitan Manila Development uthority (MMD) and other !ove !overn rnme ment nt a!en a!enci cies es to clea clean n up the the Mani Manila la Bay Bay" CROM CROMB B ar!u ar!ued ed that that the the environmental state of the Manila Bay is already dan!erous to their health and the inaction of MMD and the other concerned !overnment a!encies violates their ri!hts to life, life, health health,, and a #alan #alanced ced ecolo ecolo!y !y !uaran !uarantee teed d #y the Constit Constituti ution" on" CROMB CROMB also also averred under the $nvironmental Code, it is MMD%s MMD%s duty to clean up the Manila Bay" Bay" &he trial court a!reed 'ith CROMB and ordered MMD et al to clean up the Manila Bay" Bay" MMD assailed the decision on the !round that MMD%s duty under the $nvironmental Code Code is merely merely a discre discretion tionary ary duty duty hence hence it cannot cannot #e compe compelle lled d #y mandam mandamus" us" urther, MMD ar!ued that the R&C%s order 'as for a !eneral clean up of the Manila Bay yet under the $nvironmental Code, MMD 'as only tased to attend to specific incidents of pollution and not to undertae a massive clean up such as that ordered #y the court" ISSUE: HELD:
*hether or not MMD may #e compelled #y mandamus to clean up Manila Bay"
+es" It is true that in order for MMD to implement la's lie the $nvironmental
Code, the process of implementin! usually involves the eercise of discretion i"e", 'here to set up landfills" But this does not mean that their function or mandate under the la' is already discretionary" -ooin! closer, MMD%s function to alleviate the pro#lem on solid and li.uid 'aste disposal pro#lems is a ministerial function" In short, MMD does not have the discretion to 'hether or not alleviate the !ar#a!e disposal pro#lem in Metro Manila, particularly in the Manila Bay area" *hile the implementation of the MMD%s mandated tass may entail a decision/main! process, the enforcement of the la' or the very act of doin! 'hat the la' eacts to #e done is ministerial in nature and may #e compelled #y mandamus" nent the issue on 'hether or not MMD%s MMD%s tas under the $nvironmental Code involves a !ene !enera rall clea clean n up, up, the the 0upr 0uprem eme e Cour Courtt rule ruled d that that MMD MMD%%s mand mandat ate e unde underr the the $nvironmental Code is to perform cleanin! in !eneral and not ust to attend to specific incidents of pollution" 2ence, MMD, to!ether 'ith the other !overnment a!encies, must act to clean up the Manila Bay as ordered #y the R&C"
Case Digest: MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay G.R. No. 171947 : February 15, 2011
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEELOPMENT A!T"ORIT#, DEPARTMENT OF ENIRONMENT AND NAT!RAL RE$O!R%E$, DEPARTMENT OF ED!%ATION, %!LT!RE AND $PORT$, DEPARTMENT OF "EALT", DEPARTMENT OF AGRI%!LT!RE, DEPARTMENT OF P!&LI% 'OR($ AND "IG"'A#$, DEPARTMENT OF &!DGET AND MANAGEMENT, P"ILIPPINE %OA$T G!ARD, P"ILIPPINE NATIONAL POLI%E MARITIME GRO!P, a)* DEPARTMENT OF T"E INTERIOR AND LO%AL GOERNMENT, Pe++o)er-, . %ON%ERNED RE$IDENT$ OF MANILA &A#, re/re-e)+e* a)* o)e* by DIINA . ILA$, $A&INIANO AL&ARRA%IN, MAN!EL $ANTO$, R., DINA" DELA PEA, PA!L DENNI$ 3!INTERO, MA. I%TORIA LLENO$, DONNA %ALOA, FATIMA 3!ITAIN, ENI%E $EGARRA, FRITIE TANG(IA, $ARA" OELLE LINTAG, "ANNI&AL A!G!$T!$ &O&I$, FELIMON $ANTIAG!EL, a)* AIME AG!$TIN R. OPO$A, Re-/o)*e)+-. FACTS: The Supreme Court rendered a Decision in G.R. Nos. 171947-4 orderin! petitioners to c"ean up# reha$i"itate and preser%e &ani"a 'a( in their di)erent capacities. The &ani"a 'a( Ad%isor( Committee *as created to recei%e and e%a"uate the +uarter"( pro!ressi%e reports on the acti%ities underta,en $( the a!encies in accordance *ith said decision and to monitor the eecution phase. n the a$sence o/ speci0c comp"etion periods# the Committee recommended that time /rames $e set /or the a!encies to per/orm their assi!ned tas,s.
I$$!E: 'e+er or )o+ +e re6oe)*a+o) by +e %o++ee - a) e)6roa6e)+ oer +e /o8er- a)* u)6+o)- o +e Ee6u+e &ra)6 ea*e* by +e Pre-*e)+ o +e P;//)e-. 23D: The petition "ac,s merit.
CNSTT5TNA3 3A6: Adudicati%e /unction The issuance o/ su$se+uent reso"utions $( the Court is simp"( an eercise o/ udicia" po*er under Art. 8 o/ the Constitution# $ecause the eecution o/ the Decision is $ut an inte!ra" part o/ the adudicati%e /unction o/ the Court. 6hi"e additiona" acti%ities are re+uired o/ the a!encies "i,e su$mission o/ p"ans o/ action# data or status reports# these directi%es are $ut part and parce" o/ the eecution sta!e o/ a 0na" decision under Ru"e 9 o/ the Ru"es o/ Court.
etition is D2N2D.
