JLB Section D

1 | P a g e

REYES vs. STA. MARIA
A. Docket Number & Date of Promulgation
G.R. No. 1947-48 December 18, 2008
B. Title of the Case
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

C. Syllabi
WRIT OF MANDAMUS; IN MATTER OF MINISTERIAL DUTY - A ministerial duty is one that requires neither the
exercise of official discretion nor judgment. Writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty
but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion one way or the other.
ENVIRONMENT CODE; CLEAN-UP OPERATIONS - Clean-up Operations are conducted in removing the pollutants
discharged or spilled in water to restore it to pre-spill condition. It shall be the responsibility of the polluter to
contain, remove and clean-up water pollution incidents. In case of his failure to do so, the government agencies
concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean-up operations at the polluters expense.

D. Brief Statement of the Origin and Nature of the Case
The MWSS, LWUA, and PPA individually filed Notices of Appeal before the Court of Appeals. On the other hand,
the DENR, DPWH, MMDA, PCG, PNP-Maritime Group, and five other executive departments and agencies filed
directly in the Supreme Court a petition for review under Rule 45. The Supreme Court sent their petition to the
Court of Appeals for consolidation.
The petitioners contended before the Court of Appeals that the pertinent provisions of the Environment Code
(PD 1152) relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. And apart
from raising concerns about the lack of funds appropriated for cleaning purposes, petitioners also asserted that
the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.
However, the CA did not find merit in their 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.
The petitioners filed before the Supreme Court an appeal to negate the decision of the Court of Appelas when
they aligned their decision with the Regional Trial Court.

E. Name of the Justice Who Penned for the Majority
Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.

F. Statement of the Facts
The government agencies namely, MWSS, LWUA, DENR, PPA, MMDA, DA, DBM, DPWH, DOH, DECS, and PNP
did not take notice of the present danger to public health and the depletion and contamination of the marine life
of Manila Bay. According to the Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay, the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen
way below the allowable standards set by law. The water samples collected from different beaches around the
Manila Bay showed that the amount of fecal coliform content ranged from 50,000 to 80,000 Most Probable
Number (MPN)/ml which is beyond the standard prescribed as a safe level for bathing and other forms of contact
recreational activities under DENR Administrative Order No. 34-90. And so, on January 29, 1999, the Concerned
JLB Section D

2 | P a g e

Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite against these
government agencies, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. They also prayed that the
petitioners submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for its accomplishment.

G. Statement of the Case
Authorities from DENR and MWSS testified in favor of the petitioners that the bay is in safe-level bathing and
that they are doing their function in reducing water pollution. However, the RTC found evident cause of action in
favor of the Concerned Residents of Manila Bay. The petitioners were held liable and were ordered to clean up and
rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its water quality to Class B waters.
The petitioners appealed before the Court of Appeals contending that the pertinent 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 that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by
mandamus. The CA sustained RTCs decision stressing that petitioners were not required to do tasks outside of
their basic functions under existing laws.

H. Statement of the Issue/s
(1) Whether or not the cleaning, restoration and rehabilitation of Manila Bay is the ministerial act of the
government agencies that can be induced by mandamus.
(2) Whether or not Section 17 and 20 of Presidential Decree 1152 relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution
incidents and do not cover cleaning in general.





I. Opinion
1) The obligations to perform the duties (as defined by law) of the petitioners and on how they carry out such
duties are two distinct concepts. The former pertains to the discretionary duties of the petitioners while the latter
is their ministerial duty. As for this case, it is the discretion of the petitioners to choose not to perform or to
perform their duties as defined by law. And when they have chosen to perform their duties, the way they carry out
those duties are called ministerial acts. It is very clear in their charters that aside from performing their main
function as an agency, they are also mandated to perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the
cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay.
(2) Sections 17 and 20 of P.D. 1152 include cleaning in general. Section 17 provides that in case the water quality
has deteriorated, the government agencies concerned shall act on it to bring back the standard quality of water.
On the other hand, Section 20 also mandates the government agencies concerned to take action in cleaning-up in
case the polluters failed to do their part. The government agencies concerned have the duties of cleaning the
water not only in times when the water is polluted. Moreover, even without such provisions, it is the inescapable
duty of everyone to protect the water and prevent pollution, because of the tenable need of present and future
generations as provided in Art. 2 Sec. 16 of the 1987 Constitution that the State shall protect and advance the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

J. Adjudication or the Dispositive Portion
The Supreme Court rendered a decision in favor of the Concerned Residents of Manila Bay and ordered the
government agencies involved to clean up, rehabilitate, restore and maintain its waters to SB level to make them
fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation.
In particular:
The LWUA, to see to it that the water districts under its wings, provide, construct and operate sewage facilities
for the proper disposal of waste.
The 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.
The 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.
The 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
JLB Section D

3 | P a g e

wastes.
The 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.
The DBM, to provide and set aside an adequate budget solely for the purpose of cleaning up and rehabilitation
of Manila Bay.
The 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.
The 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.
The DECS, to inculcate in the minds and hearts of the people through education the importance of preserving
and protecting the environment.
The Philippine Coast Guard and the PNP Maritime Group, to protect at all costs the Manila Bay from all forms of
illegal fishing.

K. Names of the Justices who Participated in the Decision-Making
1. Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
2. Justice Reynato S. Puno
3. Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing
4. Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago
5. Justice Antonio T. Carpio
6. Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez
7. Justice Renato C. Corona
8. Justice Conchita Carpio Morales
9. Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna
10. Justice Dante O. Tinga
11. Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario
12. Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura
13. Justice Ruben T. Reyes
14. Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
15. Justice Arturo D. Brion