WATER CODE

[G.R. No. 112526. October 12, 2001.]

STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitione

r, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUAN B. AMANTE, FRANCISCO L.
ANDAL, LUCIA ANDAL, ANDREA P. AYENDE, LETICIA P.
BALAT, FILOMENA B. BATINO, ANICETO A. BURGOS, JAIME
A. BURGOS, FLORENCIA CANUBAS, LORETO A. CANUBAS,
MAXIMO A. CANUBAS, REYNALDO CARINGAL, QUIRINO C.
CASALME, BENIGNO A. CRUZAT, ELINO A. CRUZAT,
GREGORIO F. CRUZAT, RUFINO C. CRUZAT, SERGIO CRUZAT,
SEVERINO F. CRUZAT, VICTORIA DE SAGUN, SEVERINO DE
SAGUN, FELICISIMO A. GONZALES, FRANCISCO A.
GONZALES, GREGORIO GONZALES, LEODEGARIO N.
GONZALES, PASCUAL P. GONZALES, ROLANDO A.
GONZALES, FRANCISCO A. JUANGCO, GERVACIO A.
JUANGCO, LOURDES U. LUNA, ANSELMO M. MANDANAS,
CRISANTO MANDANAS, EMILIO M. MANDANAS, GREGORIO
A. MANDANAS, MARIO G. MANDANAS, TEODORO
MANDANAS, CONSTANCIO B. MARQUEZ, EUGENIO B.
MARQUEZ, ARMANDO P. MATIENZO, DANIEL D. MATIENZO,
MAXIMINO MATIENZO, PACENCIA P. MATIENZO, DOROTEA L.
PANGANIBAN, JUANITO T. PEREZ, MARIANITO T. PEREZ,
SEVERO M. PEREZ, INOCENCIA S. PASQUIZA, BIENVENIDO
F. PETATE, IGNACIO F. PETATE, JUANITO PETATE, PABLO A.
PLATON, PRECILLO V. PLATON, AQUILINO B. SUBOL,
CASIANO T. VILLA, DOMINGO VILLA, JUAN T. VILLA, MARIO
C. VILLA, NATIVIDAD A. VILLA, JACINTA S. ALVARADO,
RODOLFO ANGELES, DOMINGO A. CANUBAS, EDGARDO L.
CASALME, QUIRINO DE LEON, LEONILO M. ENRIQUEZ,
CLAUDIA P. GONZALES, FELISA R. LANGUE, QUINTILLANO
LANGUE, REYNALDO LANGUE, ROMEO S. LANGUE,
BONIFACIO VILLA, ROGELIO AYENDE, ANTONIO B.
FERNANDEZ, ZACARIAS HERRERA, REYNARIO U. LAZO,
 AGAPITO MATIENZO, DIONISIO F. PETATE, LITO G. REYES,
JOSE M. SUBOL, CELESTINO G. TOPI NO, ROSA C. AMANTE,
SOTERA CASALME, REMIGIO M. SILVERIO, THE
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION
BOARD, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
REGISTEROF DEEDS OF LAGUNA,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR
REGION IV, and REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER
FOR REGION IV, respondents.

Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & Delos Angeles Law Offices for
petitioner.

Miguel M. Gonzales, Norberto L. Martinez and Rosemarie M. Osoteo for private

respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Two parcels of land, titled under TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891 registered
in the name of petitioner, later declared as watershed area by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), comprising
254.6 hectares were placed by the Departmentof Agrarian Reform (DAR)
under compulsory acquisition after service of the requisite notice of coverage
and letter of invitation and notice of acquisition. The same was objected to by
petitioner claiming that the area was not appropriate for agricultural purposes
and that the area was rugged in terrain with slopes of 18%. It presented proof
to that effect. Petitioner protested both the amountof compensation offered
and the notices of acquisition to the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB). Thereafter, the DAR Secretary issued a
memorandum directing the Land Bank to open a trust account in
favor of petitioner for P5,637,965.55, the valuation of the properties, as the
former rejected the offer of the DAR. The DARAB then rendered judgment
 dismissing the protest of petitioner and ordered Land Bank to pay petitioner
P7,841,997.64 and that should there be a rejection ofthe payment tendered, to
open, if none has yet been made, a trust account for said amount in the
name of petitioner. Petitioner elevated the issues to
the Court of Appeals which affirmed the assailed decision. Hence, this
recourse.
There are 2 modes of acquisition of private land under R.A. No. 6657.
One is compulsory and the other is voluntary. The present case falls under the
compulsory process. Under Sec. 16 of the law, in case the offer of the DAR to
pay the just compensation was rejected, the DAR shall deposit the amount in
cash or in Landbank Bonds with an accessible bank. In the case at bar, the
payment of just compensation was not in accordance with the procedural
requirement as the same was made by virtue of a trust account. However, in
view of the necessity to resolve the issue as to the true nature of the parcels
involved, the Court directed the DARAB to conduct a re-evaluation of the
issue.

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN

REFORM LAW (P.D. 6657); MODES OF ACQUISITION. UnderRepublic Act
No. 6657, there are two modes of acquisition of private land: compulsory and
voluntary. In the case at bar, the Department of Agrarian Reform sought the
compulsory acquisition of subject property under R.A. No. 6657, Section 16.

2. ID.; ID.; NOTICES REQUIRED. For a valid implementation of the CARP

Program, two notices are required: (1) the notice ofcoverage and
letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the
representative of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested
parties pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 12, series of 1989; and (2) the
notice of acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOTICE OF COVERAGE AND LETTER OF INVITATION TO A

PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE, PURPOSE. The importanceof the first notice,
that is, the notice of coverage and the letter of invitation to a conference, and its
actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed to comply with
the requirements of administrative due process.

4. ID.; ID.; IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM

LAW, EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER AND EMINENT DOMAIN. The
implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State's police power and the
power of eminent domain. To the extent that theCARL prescribes retention limits
to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the
regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to
carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in
excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking under the
power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not mere limitation ofthe
use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and physical
possession of the excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in
favor of the farmer beneficiary.

5. ID.; ID.; JUST COMPENSATION, HOW MADE. In Association of Small

Landowners in the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, we held that
"The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and
ownership of the land to the government on receipt of the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or
LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the
landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either."

6. POLITICAL LAW; STATE; POLICE POWER; POWER OF MUNICIPALITY TO

ISSUE ZONING CLASSIFICATION. The authority of the
municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna to issue zoning classification is an
exercise of its police power, not the power of eminent domain. "A zoning
ordinance is defined as a local city or municipal legislation which logically
arranges, prescribes, defines and apportions a given political subdivision into
specific land uses as present and future projection of needs."AacSTE

7. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN

REFORM LAW (P.D. 6657); PROPERTY WITH SLOPES OF 18% OR MORE,
EXEMPTED FROM ITS COVERAGE. Another factor that needs to be
mentioned is the fact that during the DARAB hearing, petitioner presented proof
that the Casile property has slopes of 18% and over, which exempted the land
from the coverage of CARL.R.A. No. 6657, Section 10, provides that
". . . watersheds . . . and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over,
except those already developed shall be exempt from coverage of this Act."

DECISION

PARDO, J : p

The case before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision of the Court of Appeals 1 affirming the decision of the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board 2 (hereafter DARAB) ordering
the compulsory acquisition of petitioner's property under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (hereafter SRRDC) was

the registered owner of two parcels of land, situated at Barangay Casile,
Cabuyao, Laguna covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891, with a total
area of 254.6 hectares. According to petitioner, the parcels of land are
watersheds, which provide clean potable water to the Canlubang community, and
that ninety (90) light industries are now located in the area. 3

Petitioner alleged that respondents usurped its rights over the property, thereby
destroying the ecosystem. Sometime in December 1985, respondents filed a civil
case 4 with the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, seeking an easement of a
right of way to and from Barangay Casile. By way of counterclaim, however,
petitioner sought the ejectment of private respondents.

In October 1986 to August 1987, petitioner filed with the Municipal Trial Court,
Cabuyao, Laguna separate complaints for forcible entry against respondents. 5

After the filing of the ejectment cases, respondents petitioned the

Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the compulsory acquisition of the
SRRDC property under the CARP.

On August 11, 1989, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Cabuyao,
Laguna issued a notice of coverage to petitioner and invited its officials or
representatives to a conference on August 18, 1989. 6 During the meeting, the
following were present: representatives of petitioner, the Land Bank of the
Philippines, PARCCOM, PARO of Laguna, MARO of Laguna, the BARC
Chairman ofBarangay Casile and some potential farmer beneficiaries, who are
residents of Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna. It was the consensus and
recommendation of the assembly that the landholding of SRRDC be placed
under compulsory acquisition.

On August 17, 1989, petitioner filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office
(MARO), Cabuyao, Laguna a "Protest and Objection" to the compulsory
acquisition of the property on the ground that the area was not appropriate for
agricultural purposes. The area was rugged in terrain with slopes of 18% and
above and that the occupants of the land were squatters, who were not entitled to
any land as beneficiaries. 7

On August 29, 1989, the farmer beneficiaries together with the BARC chairman
answered the protest and objection stating that the slope of the land is not 18%
but only 5-10% and that the land is suitable and economically viable for
agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the Certification of the
Department of Agriculture, municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna. 8

On September 8, 1989, MARO Belen dela Torre made a summary investigation

report and forwarded the Compulsory Acquisition Folder Indorsement (CAFI) to
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (hereafter PARO). 9

On September 21, 1989, PARO Durante Ubeda forwarded his

endorsement of the compulsory acquisition to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.

On November 23, 1989, Acting Director Eduardo C. Visperas of the

Bureau of Land Acquisition and Development, DAR forwarded two (2)
Compulsory Acquisition Claim Folders covering the landholding of SRRDC,
covered by TCT Nos. T-81949 and T-84891 to the President, Land Bank of the
Philippines for further review and evaluation. 10

On December 12, 1989, Secretary of Agrarian Reform Miriam Defensor Santiago

sent two (2) notices of acquisition 11 to petitioner, stating that petitioner's
landholdings covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891, containing an
area of 188.2858 and 58.5800 hectares, valued at P4,417,735.65 and
P1,220,229.93, respectively, had been placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program.

On February 6, 1990, petitioner SRRDC in two letters 12 separately addressed to

Secretary Florencio B. Abad and the Director, Bureau ofLand Acquisition and
Distribution, sent its formal protest, protesting not only the
amount of compensation offered by DAR for the property but also the two (2)
notices of acquisition.

On March 17, 1990, Secretary Abad referred the case to the DARAB for
summary proceedings to determine just compensation under R. A. No. 6657,
Section 16.

On March 23, 1990, the LBP returned the two (2) claim folders previously referred
for review and evaluation to the Director of BLAD mentioning its inability to value
the SRRDC landholding due to some deficiencies.

On March 28, 1990, Executive Director Emmanuel S. Galvez wrote Land Bank
President Deogracias Vistan to forward the two (2) claim folders involving the
property of SRRDC to the DARAB for it to conduct summary proceedings to
determine the just compensation for the land.

On April 6, 1990, petitioner sent a letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines
stating that its property under the aforesaid land titles were exempt from CARP
coverage because they had been classified as watershed area and were the
subject of a pending petition for land conversion.

On May 10, 1990, Director Narciso Villapando of BLAD turned over the two (2)
claim folders (CACF's) to the Executive Director of the DAR Adjudication Board
for proper administrative valuation. Acting on the CACF's, on September 10,
1990, the Board promulgated a resolution asking the office of the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to first resolve two (2) issues before it
proceeds with the summary land valuation proceedings. 13

The issues that need to be threshed out were as follows: (1) whether the subject
parcels of land fall within the coverage of the Compulsory Acquisition
Program of the CARP; and (2) whether the petition for land conversion of the
parcels of land may be granted.

On December 7, 1990, the Office of the Secretary, DAR, through the

Undersecretary for Operations (Assistant Secretary for Luzon Operations) and
the Regional Director of Region IV, submitted a report answering the two issues
raised. According to them, firstly, by virtue of the issuance of the
notice of coverage on August 11, 1989, and notice of acquisition on December
12, 1989, the property is covered under compulsory acquisition.
Secondly, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990, Section IV D also supports
the DAR position on the coverage of the said property. During the
consideration of the case by the Board, there was no pending petition for land
conversion specifically concerning the parcels of land in question.

On February 19, 1991, the Board sent a notice of hearing to all the parties
interested, setting the hearing for the administrative valuation of the subject
parcels of land on March 6, 1991. However, on February 22, 1991, Atty. Ma.
Elena P. Hernandez-Cueva, counsel for SRRDC, wrote the Board requesting for
its assistance in the reconstruction of the records of the case because the
records could not be found as her co-counsel, Atty. Ricardo Blancaflor, who
originally handled the case for SRRDC and had possession of all the
recordsof the case was on indefinite leave and could not be contacted. The
Board granted counsel's request and moved the hearing to April 4, 1991.

On March 18, 1991, SRRDC, submitted a petition to the Board for the latter to
resolve SRRDC's petition for exemption from CARP coverage before any
administrative valuation of their landholding could be had by the Board.

On April 4, 1991, the initial DARAB hearing of the case was held and
subsequently, different dates of hearing were set without objection from
counsel of SRRDC. During the April 15, 1991 hearing, the subdivision
plan of subject property at Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna was submitted and marked
as Exhibit "5" for SRRDC. At the hearing on April 23, 1991, the Land Bank asked
for a period of one month to value the land in dispute.

At the hearing on April 23, 1991, certification from Deputy Zoning Administrator
Generoso B. Opina was presented. The certification issued on September 8,
1989, stated that the parcels of land subject of the case were classified as
"industrial Park" per Sanguniang Bayan Resolution No. 45-89 dated March 29,
1989. 14

To avert any opportunity that the DARAB might distribute the lands to the farmer
beneficiaries, on April 30, 1991, petitioner filed a petition 15 with DARAB to
disqualify private respondents as beneficiaries. However, DARAB refused to
address the issue ofbeneficiaries.

In the meantime, on January 20, 1992, the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, Branch
24, rendered a decision, 16 finding that private respondents illegally entered the
SRRDC property, and ordered them evicted.

On July 11, 1991, DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong issued a memorandum

directing the Land Bank of the Philippines to open a trust account in
favor of SRRDC, for P5,637,965.55, as valuation for the SRRDC property.

On December 19, 1991, DARAB promulgated a decision, the decretal

portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Board hereby
orders:

"1. The dismissal for lack of merit of the protest against the compulsory
coverage of the
landholdings of Sta. Rosa RealtyDevelopment Corporation (Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. 81949 and 84891 with an area of 254.766
hectares) in Barangay Casile, Municipality of Cabuyao,
Province of Laguna under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program is hereby affirmed;

"2. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to

pay Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation the amount of Seven
Million Eight Hundred Forty-One Thousand, Nine Hundred Ninety-Seven
Pesos and Sixty-Four centavos (P7,841,997.64) for its landholdings
covered by the two (2) Transfer Certificates of Title mentioned above.
Should there be a rejection of the payment tendered, to open, if none
has yet been made, a trust account for said amount in the
name of Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation;
 "3. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Laguna to cancel with
dispatch Transfer certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949 and new one
be issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, free from liens
and encumbrances;

"4. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources either

through its Provincial Office in Laguna or the Regional Office, Region IV,
to conduct a final segregation survey on the lands covered by Transfer
certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949 so the same can be transferred
by the Register of Deeds to the name of the Republic of the Philippines;

"5. The Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform through its
Municipal and Provincial Agrarian Reform Office to take immediate
possession on the said landholding after Title shall have been
transferred to the name of the Republic of the Philippines, and distribute
the same to the immediate issuance of Emancipation Patents to the
farmer-beneficiaries as determined by the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Office of Cabuyao, Laguna." 17

On January 20, 1992, the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, Branch 24, rendered a
decision in Civil Case No. B-2333 18 ruling that respondents were builders in bad
faith.

On February 6, 1992, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
review of the DARAB decision. 19 On November 5, 1993,
the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision affirming the decision of DARAB.
The decretal portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the DARAB decision dated
September 19, 1991 is AFFIRMED, without prejudice to
petitionerSta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation ventilating its case
with the Special Agrarian Court on the issue of just compensation." 20

Hence, this petition. 21

On December 15, 1993, the Court issued a Resolution which reads:

"G.R. Nos. 112526
(Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et. al.)
Considering the compliance, dated December 13, 1993, filed by
counsel for petitioner, with the resolution of December 8, 1993 which
 required petitioner to post a cash bond or surety bond in the
amount of P1,500,000.00 Pesos before issuing a temporary restraining
order prayed for, manifesting that it has posted a CASH BOND in the
same amount with the Cashier of the Court as evidenced by the
attached official receipt no. 315519, the Court resolved to ISSUE the
Temporary Retraining Order prayed for.

"The Court therefore, resolved to restrain: (a) the Department of Agrarian

Reform Adjudication Board from enforcing its decision dated December
19, 1991 in DARAB Case No. JC-R-IV-LAG-0001, which was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals in a Decision dated November 5, 1993, and which
ordered, among others, the Regional Office of the
Department of Agrarian Reform through its Municipal and Provincial
Reform Office to take immediate possession of the landholding in
dispute after title shall have been transferred to the name of the
Republic of the Philippines and to distribute the same through the
immediate issuance ofEmancipation Patents to the farmer-beneficiaries
as determined by the Municipal Agrarian Officer of Cabuyao, Laguna, (b)
The Department of Agrarian Reform and/or the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board, and all persons acting for and in their behalf
and under their authority from entering the properties involved in this
case and from introducing permanent infrastructures thereon; and (c) the
private respondents from further clearing the said properties of their
green cover by the cutting or burning of trees and other vegetation,
effective today until further orders from this Court." 22

The main issue raised is whether the property in question is covered by CARP
despite the fact that the entire property was formed partof a watershed area prior
to the enactment of R.A. No. 6657.

Under Republic Act No. 6657, there are two modes of acquisition of private land:
compulsory and voluntary. In the case at bar, the Department of Agrarian Reform
sought the compulsory acquisition of subject property under R. A. No. 6657,
Section 16, to wit:
"Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. For
purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall
be followed:

a.) After having identified the land, the landowners and the
beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the
land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or
registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place
in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place
where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the
offer ofthe DAR to pay corresponding value in accordance
with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other
pertinent provisions hereof.

b.) Within thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt of written
notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the
landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform
the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.

c.) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall
pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within
thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a
deed of transfer in favor of the government and other
muniments oftitle.

d.) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct

summary administrative proceedings to determine the
compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP
and other interested parties to submit fifteen (15) days from
receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above
period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The
DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is
submitted for decision.

e.) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment,

or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner,
upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by
the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in
accordance with this act, the DAR shall make immediate
possession of the land and shall request the proper
 Register of Deeds to issue Transfer Certificate of Titles
(TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The
DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the
land to the qualified beneficiaries.

f.) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter
to the court 23 of proper jurisdiction for final
determination of just compensation.

In compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the landowners and

farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. After identification, the DAR shall
send a notice of acquisition to the landowner, by personal delivery or registered
mail, and post it in a conspicuous place in the municipal building
and barangay hall of the place where the property is located.

Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice of acquisition, the landowner, his
administrator or representative shall inform the DARof his acceptance or
rejection of the offer.

If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in

favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty (30)
days from the execution of the deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) pays the owner the purchase price. If the landowner accepts, he executes
and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the
certificateof title. Within thirty days from the execution of the deed of transfer, the
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase price. If the
landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make a reply, the DAR conducts
summary administrative proceedings to determine just compensation for the land.
The landowner, the LBP representative and other interested parties may submit
evidence on just compensation within fifteen days from notice. Within thirty days
from submission, the DAR shall decide the case and inform the owner of its
decision and the amount of just compensation.

Upon receipt by the owner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection
or lack of response from the latter, the DAR shall deposit the compensation in
cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take
possession of the land and cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in
the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be redistributed
to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may question the decision of the DAR in the
special agrarian courts (provisionally the SupremeCourt designated
branches of the regional trial court as special agrarian courts) for final
determination of just compensation.

The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition
to hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP). Under Sec. 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory
acquisition is the identification of the land, the landowners and the farmer
beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the identification process shall be
made. To fill this gap, on July 26, 1989, the DAR issued Administrative Order No.
12, series of 1989, which set the operating procedure in the identification of such
lands. The procedure is as follows:
A. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), with the
assistance of the pertinent Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee
(BARC), shall:

1. Update the masterlist of all agricultural lands covered under the

CARP in his area of responsibility; the masterlist should
include such information as required under the attached
CARP masterlist form which shall include the name ofthe
landowner, landholding area, TCT/OCT number, and tax
declaration number.

2. Prepare the Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for

each title (OCT/TCT) or landholding covered under Phase I
and II of the CARP except those for which the landowners
have already filed applications to avail of other
modes ofland acquisition. A case folder shall contain the
following duly accomplished forms:

a) CARP CA Form 1 MARO investigation report

b) CARP CA Form No. 2 Summary investigation report

findings and evaluation

c) CARP CA Form 3 Applicant's Information sheet

d) CARP CA Form 4 Beneficiaries undertaking

 e) CARP CA Form 5 Transmittal report to the PARO

The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the above-mentioned
forms have been examined and verified by him and that the same are true and correct.

3. Send notice of coverage and a letter of invitation to a

conference/meeting to the landowner covered by the
Compulsory Case Acquisition Folder. Invitations to the said
conference meeting shall also be sent to the prospective
farmer-beneficiaries, the BARC representatives, the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) representative, and the other
interested parties to discuss the inputs to the
valuation of the property.

He shall discuss the MARO/BARC investigation report and solicit

the views, objection, agreements or suggestions of the
participants thereon. The landowner shall also ask to indicate his
retention area. The minutes of the meeting shall be signed by all
participants in the conference and shall form an integral
part of the CACF.

4. Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian

Reform Officer (PARO).

B. The PARO shall:

1. Ensure the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his

MAROs.

2. Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the

valuation of the land in accordance with A.O. No. 6,
series of1988. The valuation worksheet and the related
CACF valuation forms shall be duly certified correct by the
PARO and all the personnel who participated in the
accomplishment of these forms.

3. In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of the MARO
through ocular inspection and verification of the property.
This ocular inspection and verification shall be mandatory
when the computed value exceeds P500,000 per estate.
 4. Upon determination of the valuation, forward the case folder,
together with the duly accomplished valuation forms and
his recommendations, to the Central Office.

The LBP representative and the MARO concerned shall be furnished a copy each of his
report.

C. DAR Central Office, specifically through the Bureau of Land

Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD), shall:

1. Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the
PARO, review, evaluate and determine the final land
valuation of the property covered by the case folder. A
summary review and evaluation report shall be prepared
and duly certified by the BLAD Director and the personnel
directly participating in the review and final valuation.

2. Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her duly

authorized representative, a notice of acquisition (CARP
Form 8) for the subject property. Serve the notice to the
landowner personally or through registered mail within
three days from its approval. The notice shall include
among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition,
and the amountof just compensation offered by DAR.

3. Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the

BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for
approval the order of acquisition. However, in
case of rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board
(DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative hearing
to determine just compensation, in accordance with the
procedures provided under Administrative Order No. 13,
series of 1989. Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's
decision on just compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and
submit to the Secretary for approval the required
order of acquisition.

4. Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in

case of acceptance, or upon deposit of payment in the
designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the
Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent
 Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the DAR,
through the PARO, shall take possession of the land for
redistribution to qualified beneficiaries."

Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal Agrarian
Reform Officer (MARO) keep an updated master list ofall agricultural lands under
the CARP in his area of responsibility containing all the required information. The
MARO prepares a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title
covered by CARP. The MARO then sends the landowner a "Notice ofCoverage"
and a "letter of invitation" to a "conference/meeting" over the land covered by the
CACF. He also sends invitations to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the
representatives of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to
the valuation of the property and solicit views, suggestions, objections or
agreements of the parties. At the meeting, the landowner is asked to indicate his
retention area.

The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer (PARO) who shall complete the valuation of the land. Ocular inspection
and verification of the property by the PARO shall be mandatory when the
computed value of the estate exceeds P500,000.00. Upon determination of the
valuation, the PARO shall forward all papers together with his recommendation to
the Central Office of the DAR. The DAR Central Office, specifically, the
Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) shall prepare, on the
signature of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative, a
notice of acquisition of the subject property. From this point, the provisions of R.
A. No. 6657, Section 16 shall apply.

For a valid implementation of the CARP Program, two notices are required: (1)
the notice of coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to
the landowner, the representative of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and
other interested parties pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 12, series of 1989; and (2) the
notice of acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.
The importance of the first notice, that is, the notice of coverage and the
letter of invitation to a conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated.
They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due
process. The implementationof the CARL is an exercise of the State's police
power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes
retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the
regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to
carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in
excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking under the
power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not mere limitation on the
use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and physical
possession of the excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in
favor of the farmer beneficiary.

In the case at bar, DAR has executed the taking of the property in question.
However, payment of just compensation was not in accordance with the
procedural requirement. The law required payment in cash or LBP bonds, not by
trust account as was done by DAR.

In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian

Reform, we held that "The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the
transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on
receipt of the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the
DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until
then, title also remains with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is
contemplated either." 24

Consequently, petitioner questioned before the Court of Appeals DARAB's

decision ordering the compulsory acquisition of petitioner's property. 25 Here,
petitioner pressed the question of whether the property was a watershed, not
covered by CARP.

Article 67 of the Water Code of the Philippines (P. D. No. 1067) provides:
"Art. 67. Any watershed or any area of land adjacent to any
surface water or overlying any ground water may be declared by the
Department of Natural resources as a protected area. Rules and
Regulations may be promulgated by such Department to prohibit or
 control such activities by the owners or occupants thereof within the
protected area which may damage or cause the deterioration of the
surface water or ground water or interfere with the investigation, use,
control, protection, management or administration of such waters."

Watersheds may be defined as "an area drained by a river and its tributaries and
enclosed by a boundary or divide which separates it from adjacent watersheds."
Watersheds generally are outside the commerce of man, so why was the Casile
property titled in the nameof SRRDC? The answer is simple. At the time of the
titling, the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources had not the declared
the property as watershed area. The parcels of land in Barangay Casile were
declared as "PARK" by a Zoning Ordinance adopted by the
municipality of Cabuyao in 1979, as certified by the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board. On January 5, 1994, the Sangguniang Bayan of Cabuyao,
Laguna issued a Resolution 26 voiding the zoning classification of the land at
Barangay Casile as Park and declaring that the land was now classified as
agricultural land.

The authority of the municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna to issue zoning

classification is an exercise of its police power, not the power ofeminent domain.
"A zoning ordinance is defined as a local city or municipal legislation which
logically arranges, prescribes, defines and apportions a given political subdivision
into specific land uses as present and future projection of needs." 27

In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform 28 we held that lands

classified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of theCARL may not be
compulsorily acquired for distribution to farmer beneficiaries.

However, more than the classification of the subject land as PARK is the fact that
subsequent studies and survey showed that the parcels of land in question form
a vital part of a watershed area. 29

Now, petitioner has offered to prove that the land in dispute is a "watershed or
part of the protected area for watershed purposes." Ecological balances and
environmental disasters in our day and age seem to be interconnected. Property
developers and tillers of the land must be aware of this deadly combination. In
the case at bar, DAR included the disputed parcels of land for compulsory
acquisition simply because the land was allegedly devoted to agriculture and was
titled to SRRDC, hence, private and alienable land that may be subject to CARP.

However, the scenario has changed, after an in-depth study, survey and
reassessment. We cannot ignore the fact that the disputed parcels of land form a
vital part of an area that need to be protected for watershed purposes. In a
report of the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB), a
research arm of the DENR, regarding the environmental assessment of the
Casile and Kabanga-an river watersheds, they concluded that:
"The Casile barangay covered by CLOA in question is situated in the
heartland of both watersheds. Considering the barangaysproximity to the
Matangtubig waterworks, the activities of the farmers which are in
conflict with proper soil and water conservation practices jeopardize and
endanger the vital waterworks. Degradation of the land would have
double edge detrimental effects. On the Casile side this would mean
direct siltation of the Mangumit river which drains to
the water impounding reservoir below. On the Kabanga-an side, this
would mean destruction of forest covers which acts as recharged
areas of the Matang Tubig springs. Considering that the people have
little if no direct interest in the protection of the Matang Tubig structures
they couldn't care less even if it would be destroyed.

The Casile and Kabanga-an watersheds can be considered a most vital

life support system to thousands of inhabitants directly and indirectly
affected by it. From these watersheds come the natural God-given
precious resource water. . . . . .

Clearing and tilling of the lands are totally inconsistent with sound
watershed management. More so, the introduction of earth disturbing
activities like road building and erection of permanent infrastructures.
Unless the pernicious agricultural activities of the Casile farmers are
immediately stopped, it would not be long before these watersheds
would cease to be of value. The impact ofwatershed degradation
threatens the livelihood of thousands of people dependent upon it.
Toward this, we hope that an acceptable comprehensive
watershed development policy and program be immediately formulated
and implemented before the irreversible damage finally happens.
 Hence, the following are recommended:

7.2 The Casile farmers should be relocated and given financial

assistance.

7.3 Declaration of the two watersheds as critical and in

need of immediate rehabilitation.

7.4 A comprehensive and detailed watershed management plan and

program be formulated and implemented by the Canlubang Estate in
coordination with pertinent government agencies." 30

The ERDB report was prepared by a composite team headed by Dr. Emilio
Rosario, the ERDB Director, who holds a doctorate degree inwater resources
from U.P. Los Banos in 1987; Dr. Medel Limsuan, who obtained his doctorate
degree in watershed management from Colorado University (US) in 1989; and
Dr. Antonio M. Dano, who obtained his doctorate degree in Soil
and Water Management Conservation from U.P. Los Banos in 1993.

Also, DENR Secretary Angel Alcala submitted a Memorandum for the President
dated September 7, 1993 (Subject: PFVR HWI Ref.: 933103 Presidential
Instructions on the Protection of Watersheds of the Canlubang Estates at Barrio
Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna) which reads:

"It is the opinion of this office that the area in question must be
maintained for watershed purposes for ecological and environmental
considerations, among others. Although the 88 families who are the
proposed CARP beneficiaries will be affected, it is important that a larger
view of the situation be taken as one should also consider the adverse
effect on thousands of residents downstream if the watershed will not be
protected and maintained for watershed purposes.

"The foregoing considered, it is recommended that if possible, an

alternate area be allocated for the affected farmers, and that the
Canlubang Estates be mandated to protect and maintain the area in
question as a permanent watershed reserved." 31

The definition does not exactly depict the complexities of a watershed. The most
important product of a watershed is water which is one of the most important
human necessity. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate
supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only
damage property but cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an
"intergenerational responsibility" that needs to be answered now.

Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that during the DARAB
hearing, petitioner presented proof that the Casile property has slopes of 18%
and over, which exempted the land from the coverage of CARL. R. A. No. 6657,
Section 10, provides:
"Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. Lands actually, directly and
exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest
reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding
grounds, watersheds and mangroves, national defense, school sites and
campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or
private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research
and pilot production centers, church sites and convents appurtenent
thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and
penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private
research and quarantine centers, and all lands with eighteen percent
(18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt
from coverageof this Act."

Hence, during the hearing at DARAB, there was proof showing that the disputed
parcels of land may be excluded from the compulsory acquisition
coverage of CARP because of its very high slopes.

To resolve the issue as to the nature of the parcels of land involved in the case at
bar, the Court directs the DARAB to conduct a re-evaluation of the issue.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court SETS ASIDE the

decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 27234.

In lieu thereof, the Court REMANDS the case to the DARAB for re-evaluation and
determination of the nature of the parcels of land involved to resolve the
issue of its coverage by the Comprehensive Land Reform Program.

In the meantime, the effects of the CLOAs issued by the DAR to supposed
farmer-beneficiaries shall continue to be stayed by the temporary restraining
order issued on December 15, 1993, which shall remain in effect until final
decision on the case.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J. and Ynares-Santiago, J., concur.

Puno, J., took no part due to relationship.

Kapunan, J., is on official leave.

Footnotes
(Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112526,
|||

[October 12, 2001], 419 PHIL 457-480)

 [G.R. No. 186450. April 8, 2010.]

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD (NWRB), petitioner, v

s. A. L. ANG NETWORK, INC., respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J : p

In issue is whether Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over appeals

from decisions, resolutions or orders of
the NationalWater Resources Board (petitioner).
A.L. Ang Network (respondent) filed on January 23, 2003 an application
for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) with petitioner to operate and
maintain a water service system in Alijis, Bacolod City.
Bacolod City Water District (BACIWA) opposed respondent's application
on the ground that it is the only government agency authorized to
operate a water service system within the city. 1
By Decision of August 20, 2003, petitioner granted respondent's CPC
application. BACIWA moved to have the decision reconsidered, contending
that its right to due process was violated when it was not allowed to present
evidence in support of its opposition. 2
Petitioner reconsidered its Decision and allowed BACIWA to present
evidence, 3 drawing respondent to file a petition for certiorari with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City against petitioner and BACIWA. Petitioner
moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the proper recourse of respondent
was to the Court of Appeals, citing Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
The RTC, by Order of April 15, 2005, 4 dismissed respondent's petition
for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it is the Court of Appeals which has
"exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions,
order[s] or awards of . . . quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commission[s] . . . except those within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court . . . ." Thus the RTC explained:
Art. 89 of P.D. 1067 having been long repealed by BP 129, as amended,
which has effectively and explicitly removed the Regional Trial Courts'
appellate jurisdiction over the decisions, resolutions, order[s] or awards
of quasi-judicial agencies such as [petitioner] NWRB, and vested with
the Court of Appeals, very clearly now, this Court has no jurisdiction over
this instant petition.
CSaITD

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, respondent

filed a petition for certiorari at the Court of Appeals, which, by Decision of
January 25, 2008, 5 annulled and set aside the RTC April 15, 2005, holding
that it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over appeals from petitioner's
decisions. Thus the appellate court discoursed.
In the analogous case of BF Northwest Homeowners
Association, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court[,] the Supreme
Court . . . categorically pronounced the RTC's jurisdiction over appeals
from the decisions of the NWRB consistent with Article 89 of P.D.No.
1067 and ratiocinated in this wise:

xxx xxx xxx.

The logical conclusion, therefore, is that jurisdiction over actions

for annulment of NWRC decisions lies with the Regional Trial
Courts, particularly, when we take note of the fact that the
appellate jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over NWRC
decisions covers such broad and all embracing grounds as grave
abuse of discretion, questions of law, and questions of fact and
law (Art. 89, P.D. No. 1067). This conclusion is also in keeping
with the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, which vests
Regional Trial Courts with original jurisdiction to issue writs
of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, etc. (Sec. 21 [1], B.P. Blg.
129) relating to acts or omissions of an inferior court (Sec. 4, Rule
65, Rules of Court).

xxx xxx xxx.

Similarly, in Tanjay Water District vs. Pedro Gabaton, the Supreme

Court conformably ruled, viz.:
 "Inasmuch as Civil Case No. 8144 involves the appropriation,
utilization and control of water, We hold that the jurisdiction to
hear and decide the dispute in the first instance, pertains to
the Water Resources Council as provided in PD No. 1067 which
is the special law on the subject. The Court of First Instance (now
Regional Trial Court) has only appellate jurisdiction over the
case."

Based on the foregoing jurisprudence, there is no doubt that [petitioner]

NWRB is mistaken in its assertion. As no repeal is expressly
made, Article 89 of P.D. No. 1067 is certainly meant to be an
exception to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over appeals
or petitions for certiorari of the decisions of quasi-judicial bodies.
This finds harmony with Paragraph 2, Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court wherein it is stated that, "If it involves the acts of a quasi-judicial
agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition
shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals." Evidently,
not all petitions forcertiorari under Rule 65 involving the decisions of
quasi-judicial agencies must be filed with the Court of Appeals. The rule
admits of some exceptions as plainly provided by the phrase "unless
otherwise provided by law or these rules" and Article 89 of P.D. No. 1067
is verily an example of these exceptions. (italics and emphasis partly
in the original; underscoring supplied) CASaEc

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been denied by the

appellate court by Resolution of February 9, 2009, 6petitioner filed the present
petition for review, contending that:
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS NO CERTIORARI JURISDICTION
OVER THE [PETITIONER] SINCE SECTION 89, PD NO. 1067,
REGARDING APPEALS, HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED AND REPEALED
BY [BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG] 129 AND THE RULES OF COURT.
FURTHERMORE, PD 1067 ITSELF DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE CERTIORARI
JURISDICTION OVER THE [PETITIONER]. 7 (underscoring supplied)

Petitioner maintains that the RTC does not have jurisdiction

over a petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul or modify its acts or
omissions as a quasi-judicial agency. Citing Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, petitioner contends that there is no law or rule which requires the
filing of a petition for certiorari over its acts or omissions in any other court or
tribunal other than the Court of Appeals. 8
Petitioner goes on to fault the appellate court in holding that Batas
Pambansa Bilang 129 (BP 129) or the Judiciary Reorganization Act did not
expressly repeal Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 (PD 1067)
otherwise known as the WaterCode of the Philippines. 9
Respondent, on the other hand, maintains the correctness of the
assailed decision of the appellate court.
The petition is impressed with merit.
Section 9 (1) of BP 129 granted the Court of Appeals (then known as
the Intermediate Appellate Court) original jurisdiction to issue writs
of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus and quo warranto, and
auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction. 10
Since the appellate court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over quasi-
judicial agencies under Rule 43 11 of the Rules of Court, petitions for writs
of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against the acts and omissions of quasi-
judicial agencies, like petitioner, should be filed with it. This is what Rule 65 of
the Rules imposes for procedural uniformity. The only exception to this
instruction is when the law or the Rules itself directs otherwise, as cited in
Section 4, Rule 65. 12 The appellate court's construction that Article 89 of PD
1067, which reads:
ART. 89. The decisions of the [NWRB] on water rights controversies
may be appealed to the [RTC] of the province where the subject matter
of the controversy is situated within fifteen (15) days from the date the
party appealing receives a copy of the decision, on any of the following
grounds: (1) grave abuse of discretion; (2) question of law; and (3)
questions of fact and law (emphasis and underscoring supplied), ATHCac

is such an exception, is erroneous.

 Article 89 of PD 1067 had long been rendered inoperative by the
passage of BP 129. Aside from delineating the jurisdictions of the Court of
Appeals and the RTCs, Section 47 of BP 129 repealed or modified:
. . . . [t]he provisions of Republic Act No. 296, otherwise known as
the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, of Republic Act No. 5179, as
amended, of the Rules of Court, and of all other statutes, letters of
instructions and general orders or parts thereof, inconsistent with
the provisions of this Act . . . . (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The general repealing clause under Section 47 "predicates the intended

repeal under the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in existing
and prior acts." 13
In enacting BP 129, the Batasang Pambansa was presumed to have
knowledge of the provision of Article 89 of P.D. No. 1067 and to have intended
to change it. 14 The legislative intent to repeal Article 89 is clear and manifest
given the scope and purpose ofBP 129, one of which is to
provide a homogeneous procedure for the review of adjudications of quasi-
judicial entities to the Court of Appeals.
More importantly, what Article 89 of PD 1067 conferred to the RTC was
the power of review on appeal the decisions of petitioner. It appears that the
appellate court gave significant consideration to the ground of "grave abuse of
discretion" to thus hold that the RTC has certiorari jurisdiction over petitioner's
decisions. A reading of said Article 89 shows, however, that it only made
"grave abuse of discretion" as another ground to invoke in an ordinary appeal
to the RTC. Indeed, the provision was unique to the Water Code at the time of
its application in 1976.
The issuance of BP 129, specifically Section 9 (Jurisdiction of the Court
of Appeals, then known as Intermediate Appellate Court), and the subsequent
formulation of the Rules, clarified and delineated the appellate
and certiorari jurisdictions of the Court of Appeals over adjudications of quasi-
judicial bodies. Grave abuse of discretion may be invoked before the appellate
court as aground for an error of jurisdiction.
It bears noting that, in the present case, respondent assailed petitioner's
order via certiorari before the RTC, invoking grave abuse of discretion
 amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as ground-basis thereof. In other
words, it invoked such ground not for an error of judgment.
While Section 9 (3) of BP 129 15 and Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court 16 does not list petitioner as "among" the quasi-judicial
agencies whose final judgments, orders, resolutions or awards are appealable
to the appellate court, it is non sequitur to hold that the Court of Appeals
has no appellate jurisdiction over petitioner's judgments, orders, resolutions or
awards. It is settled that the list of quasi-judicial agencies specifically
mentioned in Rule 43 is not meant to be exclusive. 17 The employment of the
word "among" clearly instructs so. DIECTc

BF Northwest Homeowners Association v. Intermediate Appellate

Court, 18 a 1987 case cited by the appellate court to support its ruling that
RTCs have jurisdiction over judgments, orders, resolutions or awards of
petitioner, is no longer controlling in light of the definitive instruction of Rule 43
of the Revised Rules of Court.
Tanjay Water District v. Gabaton 19 is not in point either as the issue
raised therein was which between the RTC and the
thenNational Water Resources Council had jurisdiction over disputes in the
appropriation, utilization and control of water.
IN FINE, certiorari and appellate jurisdiction over adjudications of
petitioner properly belongs to the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The April 15, 2005 Order of the
Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City dismissing petitioner's petition for lack of
jurisdiction is UPHELD.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
||| (National Water Resources Board v. A. L. Ang Network, Inc., G.R. No. 186450,
[April 8, 2010], 632 PHIL 22-32)
METROPOLITAN MANILA G.R. Nos. 171947-48
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Present:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
CULTURE AND SPORTS,[1] PUNO, C.J.,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, QUISUMBING,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC CARPIO,
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND CORONA,
MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE CARPIO MORALES,
COAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE AZCUNA,
NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME TINGA,
GROUP, and DEPARTMENT OF CHICO-NAZARIO,
THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL VELASCO, JR.,
GOVERNMENT, NACHURA,
Petitioners, REYES,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and
- versus - BRION, JJ.
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 Promulgated:
JAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA,
Respondents. December 18, 2008
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:

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.[2] 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.

This case started when, 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, among them the petitioners,
for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. Raffled to Branch
20 and docketed as Civil Case No. 1851-99 of the RTC, 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. This environmental aberration, the complaint stated, stemmed
from:
 x x x [The] reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of
omission or commission [of the defendants] resulting in the clear and
present danger to public health and in the depletion and contamination of
the marine life of Manila Bay, [for which reason] ALL defendants must
be held jointly and/or solidarily liable and be collectively ordered to
clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to class B waters fit
for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation. [3]

In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued

neglect of petitioners in abating the pollution of the ManilaBay 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.

The trial of the case started off with a hearing at the Manila Yacht Club
followed by an ocular inspection of the Manila Bay. Renato T. Cruz, the Chief of
the Water Quality Management Section, Environmental Management Bureau,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), testifying for
petitioners, stated that 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 when what DENR Administrative
Order No. 34-90 prescribed as a safe level for bathing and other forms of contact
recreational activities, or the SB level, is one not exceeding 200 MPN/100 ml.[4]

Rebecca de Vera, for Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System

(MWSS) and in behalf of other petitioners, testified about the MWSS efforts to
reduce pollution along the Manila Bay through the Manila Second Sewerage
Project. For its part, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) presented, as part of its
evidence, its memorandum circulars on the study being conducted on ship-
generated waste treatment and disposal, and its Linis Dagat (Clean the Ocean)
project for the cleaning of wastes accumulated or washed to shore.

The RTC Ordered Petitioners to Clean Up and Rehabilitate Manila Bay

On September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision [5] in favor of

respondents. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, finding merit in the complaint, judgment is hereby

rendered ordering the abovenamed 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.

No pronouncement as to damages and costs.

SO ORDERED.
The MWSS, Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), and PPA filed before
the Court of Appeals (CA) individual Notices of Appeal which were eventually
consolidated and docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 76528.

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. The Court, in a Resolution of December 9, 2002, sent the
said petition to the CA for consolidation with the consolidated appeals of MWSS,
LWUA, and PPA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74944.

Petitioners, before the CA, were one in arguing in the main 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.

The CA Sustained the RTC

[6]
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.[7]

Petitioners are now before this Court praying for the allowance of their Rule
45 petition on the following ground and supporting arguments:
THE [CA] DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT
HERETOFORE PASSED UPON BY THE HONORABLE COURT, I.E.,
IT AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURTS DECISION DECLARING
THAT SECTION 20 OF [PD] 1152 REQUIRES CONCERNED
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO REMOVE ALL POLLUTANTS
SPILLED AND DISCHARGED IN THE WATER SUCH AS FECAL
COLIFORMS.

ARGUMENTS
 I
[SECTIONS] 17 AND 20 OF [PD] 1152 RELATE ONLY TO
THE CLEANING OF SPECIFIC POLLUTION INCIDENTS AND
[DO] NOT COVER CLEANING IN GENERAL

II
THE CLEANING OR REHABILITATION OF
THE MANILA BAY IS NOT A MINISTERIAL ACT OF
PETITIONERS THAT CAN BE COMPELLED BY MANDAMUS.

The issues before us are two-fold. First, do Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152

under the headings, Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean-up Operations,
envisage a cleanup in general or are they limited only to the cleanup of specific
pollution incidents? And second, can petitioners be compelled by mandamus to
clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay?

On August 12, 2008, the Court conducted and heard the parties on oral
arguments.

Our Ruling

We shall first dwell on the propriety of the issuance of mandamus under the
premises.

The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay

Can be Compelled by Mandamus

Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty.
[8]
A ministerial duty is one that requires neither the exercise of official discretion
nor judgment.[9] It connotes an act in which nothing is left to the discretion of the
person executing it. It is a simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted
or proved to exist and imposed by law.[10] Mandamus is available to compel action,
when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise of
judgment or discretion one way or the other.
 Petitioners maintain that the MMDAs duty to take measures and maintain
adequate solid waste and liquid disposal systems necessarily involves policy
evaluation and the exercise of judgment on the part of the agency concerned. They
argue that the MMDA, in carrying out its mandate, has to make decisions,
including choosing where a landfill should be located by undertaking feasibility
studies and cost estimates, all of which entail the exercise of discretion.

Respondents, on the other hand, counter that the statutory command is clear
and that petitioners duty to comply with and act according to the clear mandate of
the law does not require the exercise of discretion. According to respondents,
petitioners, the MMDA in particular, are without discretion, for example, to choose
which bodies of water they are to clean up, or which discharge or spill they are to
contain. By the same token, respondents maintain that petitioners are bereft of
discretion on whether or not to alleviate the problem of solid and liquid waste
disposal; in other words, it is the MMDAs ministerial duty to attend to such
services.

We agree with respondents.

First off, we wish to state 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 MMDAs
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. We said so in Social Justice Society v.
Atienza[11] in which the Court directed the City of Manila to enforce, as a matter of
ministerial duty, its Ordinance No. 8027 directing the three big local oil players to
cease and desist from operating their business in the so-called Pandacan Terminals
within six months from the effectivity of the ordinance. But to illustrate with
respect to the instant case, the MMDAs duty to put up an adequate and appropriate
sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative
garbage disposal systems is ministerial, its duty being a statutory imposition. The
MMDAs duty in this regard is spelled out in Sec. 3(c) of Republic Act No. (RA)
7924 creating the MMDA. This section defines and delineates the scope of the
MMDAs waste disposal services to include:
 Solid waste disposal and management which include formulation
and implementation of policies, standards, programs and projects for
proper and sanitary waste disposal. It shall likewise include
the establishment and operation of sanitary land fill and related
facilities and the implementation of other alternative programs intended
to reduce, reuse and recycle solid waste. (Emphasis added.)

The MMDA is duty-bound to comply with Sec. 41 of the Ecological Solid

Waste Management Act (RA 9003) which prescribes the minimum criteria for the
establishment of sanitary landfills and Sec. 42 which provides the minimum
operating requirements that each site operator shall maintain in the operation of a
sanitary landfill. Complementing Sec. 41 are Secs. 36 and 37 of RA 9003,
[12]
enjoining the MMDA and local government units, among others, after the
effectivity of the law on February 15, 2001, from using and operating open dumps
for solid waste and disallowing, five years after such effectivity, the use of
controlled dumps.

The MMDAs duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted, 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.[13] A discretionary duty is one that allows a person to
exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to perform. [14] Any suggestion that
the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform its solid waste disposal-
related duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal basis.

A perusal of other petitioners respective charters or like enabling statutes and

pertinent laws would yield this conclusion: these government agencies are
enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions relating
directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of
the Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these duties.
Consider:

(1) The DENR, under Executive Order No. (EO) 192, [15] is the primary agency
responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the
countrys environment and natural resources. Sec. 19 of the Philippine Clean Water
Act of 2004 (RA 9275), on the other hand, designates the DENR as the primary
government agency responsible for its enforcement and implementation, more
particularly over all aspects of water quality management. On water pollution, the
DENR, under the Acts Sec. 19(k), exercises jurisdiction over all aspects of water
pollution, determine[s] its location, magnitude, extent, severity, causes and effects
and other pertinent information on pollution, and [takes] measures, using available
methods and technologies, to prevent and abate such pollution.
The DENR, under RA 9275, is also tasked to prepare a National Water Quality
Status Report, an Integrated Water Quality Management Framework, and a 10-year
Water Quality Management Area Action Plan which is nationwide in scope
covering the Manila Bay and adjoining areas. Sec. 19 of RA 9275 provides:

Sec. 19 Lead Agency.The [DENR] shall be the primary government

agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this Act x
x x unless otherwise provided herein. As such, it shall have the following
functions, powers and responsibilities:
a) Prepare a National Water Quality Status report within twenty-four
(24) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That the
Department shall thereafter review or revise and publish annually, or
as the need arises, said report;

b) Prepare an Integrated Water Quality Management Framework within

twelve (12) months following the completion of the status report;

c) Prepare a ten (10) year Water Quality Management Area Action Plan
within 12 months following the completion of the framework for
each designated water management area. Such action plan shall be
reviewed by the water quality management area governing board
every five (5) years or as need arises.

The DENR has prepared the status report for the period 2001 to 2005 and is in the
process of completing the preparation of the Integrated Water Quality Management
Framework.[16] Within twelve (12) months thereafter, it has to submit a final Water
Quality Management Area Action Plan.[17] Again, like the MMDA, the DENR
should be made to accomplish the tasks assigned to it under RA 9275.
Parenthetically, during the oral arguments, the DENR Secretary manifested that the
DENR, with the assistance of and in partnership with various government agencies
and non-government organizations, has completed, as of December 2005, the final
draft of a comprehensive action plan with estimated budget and time frame,
denominated as Operation Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy, for the
rehabilitation, restoration, and rehabilitation of the Manila Bay.

The completion of the said action plan and even the implementation of some of its
phases should more than ever prod the concerned agencies to fast track what are
assigned them under existing laws.

(2) The MWSS, under Sec. 3 of RA 6234, [18] is vested with jurisdiction,
supervision, and control over all waterworks and sewerage systems in the territory
comprising what is now the cities of Metro Manila and several towns of the
provinces of Rizal and Cavite, and charged with the duty:
(g) To construct, maintain, and operate such sanitary sewerages as may
be necessary for the proper sanitation and other uses of the cities and
towns comprising the System; x x x

(3) The LWUA under PD 198 has the power of supervision and control over
local water districts. It can prescribe the minimum standards and regulations for the
operations of these districts and shall monitor and evaluate local water standards.
The LWUA can direct these districts to construct, operate, and furnish facilities and
services for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewerage, waste, and storm
water. Additionally, under RA 9275, the LWUA, as attached agency of the DPWH,
is tasked with providing sewerage and sanitation facilities, inclusive of the setting
up of efficient and safe collection, treatment, and sewage disposal system in the
different parts of the country.[19] In relation to the instant petition, the LWUA is
mandated to provide sewerage and sanitation facilities in Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan,
Pampanga, and Bataan to prevent pollution in the Manila Bay.
(4) The Department of Agriculture (DA), pursuant to the Administrative Code of
1987 (EO 292),[20] is designated as the agency tasked to promulgate and enforce all
laws and issuances respecting the conservation and proper utilization of
agricultural and fishery resources. Furthermore, the DA, under the Philippine
Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA 8550), is, in coordination with local government units
(LGUs) and other concerned sectors, in charge of establishing a monitoring,
control, and surveillance system to ensure that fisheries and aquatic resources in
Philippine waters are judiciously utilized and managed on a sustainable basis.
[21]
Likewise under RA 9275, the DA is charged with coordinating with the PCG
and DENR for the enforcement of water quality standards in marine waters.
[22]
More specifically, its Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under
Sec. 22(c) of RA 9275 shall primarily be responsible for the prevention and control
of water pollution for the development, management, and conservation of the
fisheries and aquatic resources.

(5) The DPWH, as the engineering and construction arm of the national
government, is tasked under EO 292[23] to provide integrated planning, design, and
construction services for, among others, flood control and water resource
development systems in accordance with national development objectives and
approved government plans and specifications.

In Metro Manila, however, the MMDA is authorized by Sec. 3(d), RA 7924 to

perform metro-wide services relating to flood control and sewerage management
which include the formulation and implementation of policies, standards, programs
and projects for an integrated flood control, drainage and sewerage system.

On July 9, 2002, a Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the

DPWH and MMDA, whereby MMDA was made the agency primarily responsible
for flood control in Metro Manila. For the rest of the country, DPWH shall remain
as the implementing agency for flood control services. The mandate of the MMDA
and DPWH on flood control and drainage services shall include the removal of
structures, constructions, and encroachments built along rivers, waterways,
and esteros (drainages) in violation of RA 7279, PD 1067, and other pertinent laws.

(6) The PCG, in accordance with Sec. 5(p) of PD 601, or the Revised Coast
Guard Law of 1974, and Sec. 6 of PD 979, [24] or the Marine Pollution Decree of
1976, shall have the primary responsibility of enforcing laws, rules, and
regulations governing marine pollution within the territorial waters of
the Philippines. It shall promulgate its own rules and regulations in accordance
with the national rules and policies set by the National Pollution Control
Commission upon consultation with the latter for the effective implementation and
enforcement of PD 979. It shall, under Sec. 4 of the law, apprehend violators who:
 a. discharge, dump x x x harmful substances from or out of any ship,
vessel, barge, or any other floating craft, or other man-made structures at
sea, by any method, means or manner, into or upon the territorial and
inland navigable waters of the Philippines;

b. throw, discharge or deposit, dump, or cause, suffer or procure to be

thrown, discharged, or deposited either from or out of any ship, barge, or
other floating craft or vessel of any kind, or from the shore, wharf,
manufacturing establishment, or mill of any kind, any refuse matter of
any kind or description whatever other than that flowing from streets and
sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid state into tributary of any
navigable water from which the same shall float or be washed into such
navigable water; and

c. deposit x x x material of any kind in any place on the bank of any

navigable water or on the bank of any tributary of any navigable water,
where the same shall be liable to be washed into such navigable water,
either by ordinary or high tides, or by storms or floods, or otherwise,
whereby navigation shall or may be impeded or obstructed or increase
the level of pollution of such water.

(7) When RA 6975 or the Department of the Interior and Local Government
(DILG) Act of 1990 was signed into law on December 13, 1990, the PNP Maritime
Group was tasked to perform all police functions over the Philippine territorial
waters and rivers. Under Sec. 86, RA 6975, the police functions of the PCG shall
be taken over by the PNP when the latter acquires the capability to perform such
functions. Since the PNP Maritime Group has not yet attained the capability to
assume and perform the police functions of PCG over marine pollution, the PCG
and PNP Maritime Group shall coordinate with regard to the enforcement of laws,
rules, and regulations governing marine pollution within the territorial waters of
the Philippines. This was made clear in Sec. 124, RA 8550 or the Philippine
Fisheries Code of 1998, in which both the PCG and PNP Maritime Group were
authorized to enforce said law and other fishery laws, rules, and regulations.[25]

(8) In accordance with Sec. 2 of EO 513, the PPA is mandated to establish,

develop, regulate, manage and operate a rationalized national port system in
support of trade and national development. [26] Moreover, Sec. 6-c of EO 513 states
that the PPA has police authority within the

ports administered by it as may be necessary to carry out its powers and

functions and attain its purposes and objectives, without prejudice to the
exercise of the functions of the Bureau of Customs and other law
enforcement bodies within the area. Such police authority shall include
the following:
xxxx

b) To regulate the entry to, exit from, and movement within the port, of
persons and vehicles, as well as movement within the port of watercraft.
[27]

Lastly, as a member of the International Marine Organization and a signatory

to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as
amended by MARPOL 73/78,[28] the Philippines, through the PPA, must ensure the
provision of adequate reception facilities at ports and terminals for the reception of
sewage from the ships docking in Philippine ports. Thus, the PPA is tasked to adopt
such measures as are necessary to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and
liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the ManilaBay waters from
vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators. When the vessels are not
docked at ports but within Philippine territorial waters, it is the PCG and PNP
Maritime Group that have jurisdiction over said vessels.

(9) The MMDA, as earlier indicated, is duty-bound to put up and maintain

adequate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal system as well as
other alternative garbage disposal systems. It is primarily responsible for the
implementation and enforcement of the provisions of RA 9003, which would
necessary include its penal provisions, within its area of jurisdiction.[29]

Among the prohibited acts under Sec. 48, Chapter VI of RA 9003 that are
frequently violated are dumping of waste matters in public places, such as roads,
canals or esteros, open burning of solid waste, squatting in open dumps and
landfills, open dumping, burying of biodegradable or non- biodegradable materials
in flood-prone areas, establishment or operation of open dumps as enjoined in RA
9003, and operation of waste management facilities without an environmental
compliance certificate.

Under Sec. 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (RA 7279),
eviction or demolition may be allowed when persons or entities occupy danger
areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines,
waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks and
playgrounds. The MMDA, as lead agency, in coordination with the DPWH, LGUs,
and concerned agencies, can dismantle and remove all structures, constructions,
and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other pertinent laws along
the rivers, waterways, and esteros in Metro Manila. With respect to rivers,
waterways, and esteros in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna that
discharge wastewater directly or eventually into the Manila Bay, the DILG shall
direct the concerned LGUs to implement the demolition and removal of such
structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in violation of RA 7279
and other applicable laws in coordination with the DPWH and concerned agencies.

(10) The Department of Health (DOH), under Article 76 of PD 1067 (the

Water Code), is tasked to promulgate rules and regulations for the establishment of
waste disposal areas that affect the source of a water supply or a reservoir for
domestic or municipal use. And under Sec. 8 of RA 9275, the DOH, in
coordination with the DENR, DPWH, and other concerned agencies, shall
formulate guidelines and standards for the collection, treatment, and disposal of
sewage and the establishment and operation of a centralized sewage treatment
system. In areas not considered as highly urbanized cities, septage or a mix
sewerage-septage management system shall be employed.

In accordance with Sec. 72[30] of PD 856, the Code of Sanitation of

the Philippines, and Sec. 5.1.1[31] of Chapter XVII of its implementing rules, the
DOH is also ordered to ensure the regulation and monitoring of the proper disposal
of wastes by private sludge companies through the strict enforcement of the
requirement to obtain an environmental sanitation clearance of sludge collection
treatment and disposal before these companies are issued their environmental
sanitation permit.
 (11) The Department of Education (DepEd), under the Philippine
Environment Code (PD 1152), is mandated to integrate subjects on environmental
education in its school curricula at all levels.[32] Under Sec. 118 of RA 8550, the
DepEd, in collaboration with the DA, Commission on Higher Education, and
Philippine Information Agency, shall launch and pursue a nationwide educational
campaign to promote the development, management, conservation, and proper use
of the environment. Under the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA
9003), on the other hand, it is directed to strengthen the integration of
environmental concerns in school curricula at all levels, with an emphasis on waste
management principles.[33]
(12) The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is tasked under Sec. 2,
Title XVII of the Administrative Code of 1987 to ensure the efficient and sound
utilization of government funds and revenues so as to effectively achieve the
countrys development objectives.[34]

One of the countrys development objectives is enshrined in RA 9275 or the

Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004. This law stresses that the State shall pursue a
policy of economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection,
preservation, and revival of the quality of our fresh, brackish, and marine waters. It
also provides that it is the policy of the government, among others, to streamline
processes and procedures in the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution
mechanisms for the protection of water resources; to promote environmental
strategies and use of appropriate economic instruments and of control mechanisms
for the protection of water resources; to formulate a holistic national program of
water quality management that recognizes that issues related to this management
cannot be separated from concerns about water sources and ecological protection,
water supply, public health, and quality of life; and to provide a comprehensive
management program for water pollution focusing on pollution prevention.

Thus, the DBM shall then endeavor to provide an adequate budget to attain the
noble objectives of RA 9275 in line with the countrys development objectives.

All told, the aforementioned enabling laws and issuances are in themselves
clear, categorical, and complete as to what are the obligations and mandate of each
agency/petitioner under the law. We need not belabor the issue that their tasks
include the cleanup of the Manila Bay.
 Now, as to the crux of the petition. Do Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment
Code encompass the cleanup of water pollution in general, not just specific
pollution incidents?

Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code

Include Cleaning in General

The disputed sections are quoted as follows:

Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality.Where the quality of water has deteriorated to a degree
where its state will adversely affect its best usage, the government agencies concerned shall take
such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribed
water quality standards.

Section 20. Clean-up Operations.It shall be the responsibility of the polluter to contain, remove
and clean-up water pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the
government agencies concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean-up operations
and expenses incurred in said operations shall be charged against the persons and/or entities
responsible for such pollution.

When the Clean Water Act (RA 9275) took effect, its Sec. 16 on the
subject, Cleanup Operations, amended the counterpart provision (Sec. 20) of the
Environment Code (PD 1152). Sec. 17 of PD 1152 continues, however, to be
operational.

The amendatory Sec. 16 of RA 9275 reads:

SEC. 16. Cleanup Operations.Notwithstanding the provisions of

Sections 15 and 26 hereof, any person who causes pollution in or
pollutes water bodies in excess of the applicable and prevailing standards
shall be responsible to contain, remove and clean up any pollution
incident at his own expense to the extent that the same water bodies have
been rendered unfit for utilization and beneficial use: Provided, That in
the event emergency cleanup operations are necessary and the polluter
fails to immediately undertake the same, the [DENR] in coordination
with other government agencies concerned, shall undertake containment,
removal and cleanup operations. Expenses incurred in said operations
shall be reimbursed by the persons found to have caused such pollution
under proper administrative determination x x x. Reimbursements of the
 cost incurred shall be made to the Water Quality Management Fund or to
such other funds where said disbursements were sourced.

As may be noted, the amendment to Sec. 20 of the Environment Code is more

apparent than real since the amendment, insofar as it is relevant to this case, merely
consists in the designation of the DENR as lead agency in the cleanup operations.

Petitioners contend at every turn that Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment

Code concern themselves only with the matter of cleaning up in specific pollution
incidents, as opposed to cleanup in general. They aver that the twin provisions
would have to be read alongside the succeeding Sec. 62(g) and (h), which defines
the terms cleanup operations and accidental spills, as follows:
g. Clean-up Operations [refer] to activities conducted in removing the pollutants discharged or
spilled in water to restore it to pre-spill condition.

h. Accidental Spills [refer] to spills of oil or other hazardous substances in water that result
from accidents such as collisions and groundings.

Petitioners proffer the argument that Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 merely

direct the government agencies concerned to undertake containment, removal, and
cleaning operations of a specific polluted portion or portions of the body of water
concerned. They maintain that the application of said Sec. 20 is limited only to
water pollution incidents, which are situations that presuppose the occurrence of
specific, isolated pollution events requiring the corresponding containment,
removal, and cleaning operations. Pushing the point further, they argue that the
aforequoted Sec. 62(g) requires cleanup operations to restore the body of water to
pre-spill condition, which means that there must have been a specific incident of
either intentional or accidental spillage of oil or other hazardous substances, as
mentioned in Sec. 62(h).

As a counterpoint, respondents argue that petitioners erroneously read Sec. 62(g)

as delimiting the application of Sec. 20 to the containment, removal, and cleanup
operations for accidental spills only. Contrary to petitioners posture, respondents
assert that Sec. 62(g), in fact, even expanded the coverage of Sec. 20. Respondents
explain that without its Sec. 62(g), PD 1152 may have indeed covered only
pollution accumulating from the day-to-day operations of businesses around
the Manila Bay and other sources of pollution that slowly accumulated in the bay.
Respondents, however, emphasize that Sec. 62(g), far from being a delimiting
provision, in fact even enlarged the operational scope of Sec. 20, by including
accidental spills as among the water pollution incidents contemplated in Sec. 17 in
relation to Sec. 20 of PD 1152.

To respondents, petitioners parochial view on environmental issues, coupled

with their narrow reading of their respective mandated roles, has contributed to the
worsening water quality of the Manila Bay. Assuming, respondents assert, that
petitioners are correct in saying that the cleanup coverage of Sec. 20 of PD 1152 is
constricted by the definition of the phrase cleanup operations embodied in Sec.
62(g), Sec. 17 is not hobbled by such limiting definition. As pointed out, the
phrases cleanup operations and accidental spills do not appear in said Sec. 17, not
even in the chapter where said section is found.

Respondents are correct. For one thing, said Sec. 17 does not in any way
state that the government agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the
containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident
occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a
specific pollution incident, as long as water quality has deteriorated to a degree
where its state will adversely affect its best usage. This section, to stress,
commands concerned government agencies, when appropriate, to take such
measures as may be necessary to meet the prescribed water quality standards. In
fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the
occurrence of any pollution incident.

For another, a perusal of Sec. 20 of the Environment Code, as couched,

indicates that it is properly applicable to a specific situation in which the pollution
is caused by polluters who fail to clean up the mess they left behind. In such
instance, the concerned government agencies shall undertake the cleanup work for
the polluters account. Petitioners assertion, that they have to perform cleanup
operations in the ManilaBay only when there is a water pollution incident and the
erring polluters do not undertake the containment, removal, and cleanup
operations, is quite off mark. As earlier discussed, the complementary Sec. 17 of
the Environment Code comes into play and the specific duties of the agencies to
clean up come in even if there are no pollution incidents staring at
them. Petitioners, thus, cannot plausibly invoke and hide behind Sec. 20 of PD
1152 or Sec. 16 of RA 9275 on the pretext that their cleanup mandate depends on
the happening of a specific pollution incident.In this regard, what the CA said with
respect to the impasse over Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 is at once valid as it is
practical. The appellate court wrote: PD 1152 aims to introduce a comprehensive
program of environmental protection and management. This is better served by
making Secs. 17 & 20 of general application rather than limiting them to specific
pollution incidents.[35]

Granting arguendo that petitioners position thus described vis--vis the

implementation of Sec. 20 is correct, they seem to have overlooked the fact that the
pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude and scope that it is well-nigh
impossible to draw the line between a specific and a general pollution incident.
And such impossibility extends to pinpointing with reasonable certainty who the
polluters are. We note that Sec. 20 of PD 1152 mentions water pollution incidents
which may be caused by polluters in the waters of the Manila Bayitself or by
polluters in adjoining lands and in water bodies or waterways that empty into the
bay. Sec. 16 of RA 9275, on the other hand, specifically adverts to any person who
causes pollution in or pollutes water bodies, which may refer to an individual or an
establishment that pollutes the land mass near the Manila Bay or the waterways,
such that the contaminants eventually end up in the bay. In this situation, the water
pollution incidents are so numerous and involve nameless and faceless polluters
that they can validly be categorized as beyond the specific pollution incident level.
Not to be ignored of course is the reality that the government agencies
concerned are so undermanned that it would be almost impossible to apprehend the
numerous polluters of the Manila Bay. It may perhaps not be amiss to say that the
apprehension, if any, of the Manila Bay polluters has been few and far between.
Hence, practically nobody has been required to contain, remove, or clean up a
given water pollution incident. In this kind of setting, it behooves the Government
to step in and undertake cleanup operations. Thus, Sec. 16 of RA 9275, previously
Sec. 20 of PD 1152, covers for all intents and purposes a general cleanup situation.

The cleanup and/or restoration of the Manila Bay is only an aspect and the initial
stage of the long-term solution. The preservation of the water quality of the bay
after the rehabilitation process is as important as the cleaning phase. It is
imperative then that the wastes and contaminants found in the rivers, inland bays,
and other bodies of water be stopped from reaching the Manila Bay. Otherwise,
any cleanup effort would just be a futile, cosmetic exercise, for, in no time at all,
the Manila Bay water quality would again deteriorate below the ideal minimum
standards set by PD 1152, RA 9275, and other relevant laws. It thus behooves the
Court to put the heads of the petitioner-department-agencies and the bureaus and
offices under them on continuing notice about, and to enjoin them to perform, their
mandates and duties towards cleaning up the Manila Bay and preserving the
quality of its water to the ideal level. Under what other judicial discipline describes
as continuing mandamus,[36] the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances,
issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set
to naught by administrative inaction or indifference. In India, the doctrine of
continuing mandamus was used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the
length of the Ganges River from industrial and municipal pollution.[37]
The Court can take judicial notice of the presence of shanties and other
unauthorized structures which do not have septic tanks along the Pasig-Marikina-
San Juan Rivers, the National Capital Region (NCR) (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias)
Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycuayan-Marilao-
Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the
Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and connecting waterways, river banks,
and esteros which discharge their waters, with all the accompanying filth, dirt, and
garbage, into the major rivers and eventually the Manila Bay. If there is one factor
responsible for the pollution of the major river systems and the Manila Bay, these
unauthorized structures would be on top of the list. And if the issue of illegal or
unauthorized structures is not seriously addressed with sustained resolve, then
practically all efforts to cleanse these important bodies of water would be for
naught. The DENR Secretary said as much.[38]

Giving urgent dimension to the necessity of removing these illegal structures is

Art. 51 of PD 1067 or the Water Code,[39] which prohibits the building of structures
within a given length along banks of rivers and other waterways. Art. 51 reads:

The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and
lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3)
meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas and
forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their margins, are subject to the
easement of public use in the interest of recreation, navigation,
 floatage, fishing and salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay in
this zone longer than what is necessary for recreation, navigation,
floatage, fishing or salvage or to build structures of any
kind. (Emphasis added.)

Judicial notice may likewise be taken of factories and other industrial

establishments standing along or near the banks of the Pasig River, other major
rivers, and connecting waterways. But while they may not be treated as
unauthorized constructions, some of these establishments undoubtedly contribute
to the pollution of the Pasig River and waterways. The DILG and the concerned
LGUs, have, accordingly, the duty to see to it that non-complying industrial
establishments set up, within a reasonable period, the necessary waste water
treatment facilities and infrastructure to prevent their industrial discharge,
including their sewage waters, from flowing into the Pasig River, other major
rivers, and connecting waterways. After such period, non-complying
establishments shall be shut down or asked to transfer their operations.

At this juncture, and if only to dramatize the urgency of the need for petitioners-
agencies to comply with their statutory tasks, we cite the Asian Development
Bank-commissioned study on the garbage problem in Metro Manila, the results of
which are embodied in the The Garbage Book. As there reported, the garbage crisis
in the metropolitan area is as alarming as it is shocking. Some highlights of the
report:

1. As early as 2003, three land-filled dumpsites in Metro Manila -

the Payatas, Catmon and Rodriquez dumpsites - generate an alarming
quantity of lead and leachate or liquid run-off. Leachate are toxic liquids
that flow along the surface and seep into the earth and poison the surface
and groundwater that are used for drinking, aquatic life, and the
environment.

2. The high level of fecal coliform confirms the presence of a

large amount of human waste in the dump sites and surrounding areas,
which is presumably generated by households that lack alternatives to
sanitation. To say that Manila Bay needs rehabilitation is an
understatement.
 3. Most of the deadly leachate, lead and other dangerous
contaminants and possibly strains of pathogens seeps untreated into
ground water and runs into the Marikina and Pasig River systems
and Manila Bay.[40]

Given the above perspective, sufficient sanitary landfills should now more
than ever be established as prescribed by the Ecological Solid Waste Management
Act (RA 9003). Particular note should be taken of the blatant violations by some
LGUs and possibly the MMDA of Sec. 37, reproduced below:
Sec. 37. Prohibition against the Use of Open Dumps for Solid
Waste.No open dumps shall be established and operated, nor any practice
or disposal of solid waste by any person, including LGUs which
[constitute] the use of open dumps for solid waste, be allowed after the
effectivity of this Act: Provided, further that no controlled dumps shall
be allowed (5) years following the effectivity of this Act. (Emphasis
added.)

RA 9003 took effect on February 15, 2001 and the adverted grace period of
five (5) years which ended on February 21, 2006 has come and gone, but no single
sanitary landfill which strictly complies with the prescribed standards under RA
9003 has yet been set up.

In addition, there are rampant and repeated violations of Sec. 48 of RA 9003,

like littering, dumping of waste matters in roads, canals, esteros, and other public
places, operation of open dumps, open burning of solid waste, and the like. Some
sludge companies which do not have proper disposal facilities simply discharge
sludge into the Metro Manila sewerage system that ends up in
the Manila Bay. Equally unabated are violations of Sec. 27 of RA 9275, which
enjoins the pollution of water bodies, groundwater pollution, disposal of infectious
wastes from vessels, and unauthorized transport or dumping into sea waters of
sewage or solid waste and of Secs. 4 and 102 of RA 8550 which proscribes the
introduction by human or machine of substances to the aquatic environment
including dumping/disposal of waste and other marine litters, discharge of
petroleum or residual products of petroleum of carbonaceous materials/substances
[and other] radioactive, noxious or harmful liquid, gaseous or solid substances,
from any water, land or air transport or other human-made structure.
 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.

The era of delays, procrastination, and ad hoc measures is over. Petitioners

must transcend their limitations, real or imaginary, and buckle down to work
before the problem at hand becomes unmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that
different government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk from their
mandates; they must perform their basic functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating
the Manila Bay. We are disturbed by petitioners hiding behind two untenable
claims: (1) that there ought to be a specific pollution incident before they are
required to act; and (2) that the cleanup of the bay is a discretionary duty.

RA 9003 is a sweeping piece of legislation enacted to radically transform

and improve waste management. It implements Sec. 16, Art. II of the 1987
Constitution, which explicitly provides that the State shall protect and advance the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
and harmony of nature.

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.[41] 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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 28, 2005 Decision of the
CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 76528 and SP No. 74944 and the September 13, 2002
Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 1851-99 are AFFIRMED but
with MODIFICATIONS in view of subsequent developments or supervening
events in the case. The fallo of the RTC Decision shall now read:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the abovenamed
defendant-government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate, and
preserve ManilaBay, and restore and maintain its waters to SB level
(Class B sea waters per Water Classification Tables under DENR
Administrative Order No. 34 [1990]) to make them fit for swimming,
skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation.

In particular:

(1) Pursuant to Sec. 4 of EO 192, assigning the DENR as the primary agency
responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the
countrys environment and natural resources, and Sec. 19 of RA 9275, designating
the DENR as the primary government agency responsible for its enforcement and
implementation, the DENR is directed to fully implement its Operational Plan for
the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation, restoration, and
conservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest possible time. It is ordered to call
regular coordination meetings with concerned government departments and
agencies to ensure the successful implementation of the aforesaid plan of action in
accordance with its indicated completion schedules.

(2) Pursuant to Title XII (Local Government) of the Administrative Code of 1987
and Sec. 25 of the Local Government Code of 1991,[42] the DILG, in exercising the
Presidents power of general supervision and its duty to promulgate guidelines in
establishing waste management programs under Sec. 43 of the Philippine
Environment Code (PD 1152), shall direct all LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal,
Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all factories,
commercial establishments, and private homes along the banks of the major river
systems in their respective areas of jurisdiction, such as but not limited to the
Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the
Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando
(Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna
De Bay, and other minor rivers and waterways that eventually discharge water into
the Manila Bay; and the lands abutting the bay, to determine whether they have
wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed by existing
laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations. If none be found, these LGUs shall be
ordered to require non-complying establishments and homes to set up said facilities
or septic tanks within a reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes, sewage water,
and human wastes from flowing into these rivers, waterways, esteros, and the
Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of fines and other sanctions.

(3) As mandated by Sec. 8 of RA 9275,[43] the MWSS is directed to provide, install,

operate, and maintain the necessary adequate waste water treatment facilities in
Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite where needed at the earliest possible time.

(4) Pursuant to RA 9275,[44] the LWUA, through the local water districts and
in coordination with the DENR, is ordered to provide, install, operate, and
maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection,
treatment, and disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan,
Pampanga, and Bataan where needed at the earliest possible time.
(5) Pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 8550,[45] the DA, through the BFAR, is ordered to
improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay. It is also directed to assist
the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan
in developing, using recognized methods, the fisheries and aquatic resources in
the Manila Bay.

(6) The PCG, pursuant to Secs. 4 and 6 of PD 979, and the PNP Maritime Group,
in accordance with Sec. 124 of RA 8550, in coordination with each other, shall
apprehend violators of PD 979, RA 8550, and other existing laws and regulations
designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.
 (7) Pursuant to Secs. 2 and 6-c of EO 513 [46] and the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the PPA is ordered to
immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid
and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters from
vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators.

(8) The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs and
projects for flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila, in
coordination with the DPWH, DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group,
Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), and other
agencies, shall dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and other
encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable
laws along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las
Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting
waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH, as the principal implementor
of programs and projects for flood control services in the rest of the country more
particularly in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, in coordination
with the DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, HUDCC, and other
concerned government agencies, shall remove and demolish all structures,
constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other
applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the
Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other
rivers, connecting waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater into the
Manila Bay.

In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish, operate, and maintain a sanitary

landfill, as prescribed by RA 9003, within a period of one (1) year from finality of
this Decision. On matters within its territorial jurisdiction and in connection with
the discharge of its duties on the maintenance of sanitary landfills and like
undertakings, it is also ordered to cause the apprehension and filing of the
appropriate criminal cases against violators of the respective penal provisions of
RA 9003,[47] Sec. 27 of RA 9275 (the Clean Water Act), and other existing laws on
pollution.
(9) The DOH shall, as directed by Art. 76 of PD 1067 and Sec. 8 of RA 9275,
within one (1) year from finality of this Decision, determine if all licensed septic
and sludge companies have the proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of
fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks. The DOH shall give the
companies, if found to be non-complying, a reasonable time within which to set up
the necessary facilities under pain of cancellation of its environmental sanitation
clearance.

(10) Pursuant to Sec. 53 of PD 1152,[48] Sec. 118 of RA 8550, and Sec. 56 of RA

9003,[49] the DepEd shall integrate lessons on pollution prevention, waste
management, environmental protection, and like subjects in the school curricula of
all levels to inculcate in the minds and hearts of students and, through them, their
parents and friends, the importance of their duty toward achieving and maintaining
a balanced and healthful ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entire Philippine
archipelago.

(11) The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequate budget in the General
Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover the expenses relating to
the cleanup, restoration, and preservation of the water quality of the Manila Bay, in
line with the countrys development objective to attain economic growth in a
manner consistent with the protection, preservation, and revival of our marine
waters.
(12) The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA,
DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG, and also of MWSS, LWUA,
and PPA, in line with the principle of continuing mandamus, shall, from finality of
this Decision, each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the
activities undertaken in accordance with this Decision.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.