MMDA VS CONCERNED CITIZENS OF MANILA BAY

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 Manila Bay constitutes a violation of, among others:

(1) Respondents’ constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced ecology;

(2) The Environment Code (PD 1152);

(3) The Pollution Control Law (PD 984);

(4) The Water Code (PD 1067);

(5) The Sanitation Code (PD 856);

(6) The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825);

(7) The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979);

 (8) Executive Order No. 192;

(9) The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No. 6969);

(10) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations;

(11) The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship; and

(12) International Law

Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila
Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.

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

By a Decision6 of September 28, 2005, the CA denied petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the
Decision of the RTC in toto, stressing that the trial court’s decision did not require petitioners to do
tasks outside of their usual basic functions under existing laws. 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 COURT’S
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

[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 MMDA’s 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 MMDA’s 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 MMDA’s mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process,
the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in
nature and may be compelled by mandamus. We said so in Social Justice Society v. Atienza11 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 MMDA’s 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 MMDA’s 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 MMDA’s 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 MMDA’s 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 country’s 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 Act’s 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 29223 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 Manila Bay 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. 7230 of PD 856, the Code of Sanitation of the Philippines, and Sec.
5.1.131 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 country’s development objectives. 34

One of the country’s 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 country’s 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, o, 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 Manila Bay 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-à-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 Bay itself 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) (Parañaque-Zapote, Las Piñas) 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 Manila Bay, 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 country’s 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 President’s 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 (Parañaque-Zapote, Las Piñas) 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 (Parañaque-Zapote, Las Piñas) 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 country’s 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.