EN BANC San Mateo, Rizal as a sanitary landfill site, subject

G.R. No. 129546 December 13, 2005 to whatever restrictions that the government
PROVINCE OF RIZAL, MUNICIPALITY OF SAN impact assessment might require.
MATEO, PINTONG BOCAUE MULTIPURPOSE 2. Upon signing of this Agreement, the DPWH shall
COOPERATIVE, CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RIZAL, commence the construction/development of said
INC., ROLANDO E. VILLACORTE, BERNARDO dumpsite.
HIDALGO, ANANIAS EBUENGA, VILMA T. 3. The MMC shall: a) take charge of the relocation
MONTAJES, FEDERICO MUNAR, JR., ROLANDO of the families within and around the site; b)
BEÑAS, SR., ET AL., and KILOSBAYAN, oversee the development of the areas as a sanitary
INC., Petitioners, landfill; c) coordinate/monitor the construction of
vs. infrastructure facilities by the DPWH in the said
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF site; and d) ensure that the necessary civil works
ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES, are properly undertaken to safeguard against any
LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, negative environmental impact in the area.
SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS, On 7, 8 and 10 February 1989, the Sangguniang
SECRETARY OF BUDGET & MANAGEMENT, Bayan of San Mateo wrote Gov. Elfren Cruz of the
METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and MMC, Sec. Fiorello Estuar of the DPWH, the
THE HONORABLE COURT OF Presidential Task Force on Solid Waste
APPEALS, Respondents. Management, Executive Secretary Catalino
Macaraig, and Sec. Fulgencio Factoran, Jr.,
DECISION pointing out that it had recently passed a
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Resolution banning the creation of dumpsites for
The earth belongs in usufruct to the living.1 Metro Manila garbage within its jurisdiction,
At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro asking that their side be heard, and that the
Manila and its environs, parts of the Marikina addressees "suspend and temporarily hold in
Watershed Reservation were set aside by the abeyance all and any part of your operations with
Office of the President, through Proclamation No. respect to the San Mateo Landfill Dumpsite." No
635 dated 28 August 1995, for use as a sanitary action was taken on these letters.
landfill and similar waste disposal applications. In It turns out that the land subject of the MOA of 17
fact, this site, extending to more or less 18 November 1988 and owned by the DENR was part
hectares, had already been in operation since 19 of the Marikina Watershed Reservation Area. Thus,
February 19902 for the solid wastes of Quezon on 31 May 1989, forest officers of the Forest
City, Marikina, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Pateros, Engineering and Infrastructure Unit of the
Pasig, and Taguig.3 Community Environment and Natural Resource
This is a petition filed by the Province of Rizal, the Office, (CENRO) DENR-IV, Rizal Province,
municipality of San Mateo, and various concerned submitted a Memorandum5 on the "On-going
citizens for review on certiorari of the Decision of Dumping Site Operation of the MMC inside (the)
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41330, Upper Portion of Marikina Watershed Reservation,
denying, for lack of cause of action, the petition located at Barangay Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo,
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with Rizal, and nearby localities." Said Memorandum
application for a temporary restraining order/writ reads in part:
of preliminary injunction assailing the legality and Observations:
constitutionality of Proclamation No. 635. 3.1 The subject area is arable and agricultural in
The facts are documented in painstaking detail. nature;
On 17 November 1988, the respondent Secretaries 3.2 Soil type and its topography are favorable for
of the Department of Public Works and Highways agricultural and forestry productions;
(DPWH) and the Department of Environment and ...
Natural Resources (DENR) and the Governor of the 3.5 Said Dumping Site is observed to be confined
Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC) entered within the said Watershed Reservation, bearing in
into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),4 which the northeastern part of Lungsod Silangan
provides in part: Townsite Reservation. Such illegal Dumping Site
1. The DENR agrees to immediately allow the operation inside (the) Watershed Reservation is in
utilization by the Metropolitan Manila Commission violation of P.D. 705, otherwise known as the
of its land property located at Pintong Bocaue in Revised Forestry Code, as amended. . .
Recommendations: environmentally critical project or area without
5.1 The MMC Dumping Site Inside Marikina first securing an Environmental Compliance
Watershed Reservation, particularly at Brgy. Certificate." Proclamation No. 2146, passed on 14
Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal and at Bo. December 1981, designates "all areas declared by
Pinugay, Baras/Antipolo, Rizal which are the law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife
present garbage zones must totally be stopped preserves, and sanctuaries" as "Environmentally
and discouraged without any political intervention Critical Areas."
and delay in order to save our healthy ecosystems On 09 March 1990, respondent Laguna Lake
found therein, to avoid much destruction, useless Development Authority (LLDA), through its Acting
efforts and lost (sic) of millions of public funds General Manager, sent a letter8 to the MMA, which
over the land in question; (Emphasis ours) reads in part:
On 19 June 1989, the CENRO submitted another Through this letter we would like to convey our
Investigation Report6 to the Regional Executive reservation on the choice of the sites for solid
Director which states in part that: waste disposal inside the watershed of Laguna
1. About two (2) hectares had been excavated by Lake. As you may already know, the Metropolitan
bulldozers and garbage dumping operations are Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) has
going on. scheduled the abstraction of water from the lake
2. The dumping site is without the concurrence of to serve the needs of about 1.2 million residents
the Provincial Governor, Rizal Province and of Muntinlupa, Paranaque, Las Pinas and Bacoor,
without any permit from DENR who has functional Cavite by 1992. Accordingly, the Laguna Lake
jurisdiction over the Watershed Reservation; and Development Authority (LLDA) is accelerating
3. About 1,192 families residing and cultivating its environmental management program to
areas covered by four (4) Barangays surrounding upgrade the water quality of the lake in order to
the dumping site will adversely be affected by the make it suitable as a source of domestic water
dumping operations of MMC including their supply the whole year round. The said program
sources of domestic water supply. x x x x regards dumpsites as incompatible within the
On 22 January 1990, the CENRO submitted still watershed because of the heavy pollution,
another Investigation Report7 to the Regional including the risk of diseases, generated by such
Executive Director which states that: activities which would negate the government’s
Findings show that the areas used as Dumping efforts to upgrade the water quality of the
Site of the MMC are found to be within the Marikina lake. Consequently, please consider our objection
Watershed which are part of the Integrated Social to the proposed location of the dumpsites within
Forestry Project (ISF) as per recorded inventory of the watershed. (Emphasis supplied by petitioners)
Forest Occupancy of this office. On 31 July 1990, less than six months after the
It also appears that as per record, there was no issuance of the ECC, Undersecretary Roque
permit issued to the MMC to utilize these portions suspended the ECC in a letter9 addressed to the
of land for dumping purposes. respondent Secretary of DPWH, stating in part
It is further observed that the use of the areas as that:
dumping site greatly affects the ecological Upon site investigation conducted by
balance and environmental factors in this Environmental Management Bureau staff on
community. development activities at the San Mateo Landfill
On 19 February 1990, the DENR Environmental Site, it was ascertained that ground slumping and
Management Bureau, through Undersecretary for erosion have resulted from improper development
Environment and Research Celso R. Roque, of the site. We believe that this will adversely
granted the Metro Manila Authority (MMA affect the environmental quality in the area if the
[formerly MMC]) an Environmental Compliance proper remedial measures are not instituted in the
Certificate (ECC) for the operation of a two-and-a- design of the landfill site. This is therefore
half-hectare garbage dumpsite. contradictory to statements made in the
The ECC was sought and granted to comply with Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted
the requirement of Presidential Decree No. 1586 that above occurrences will be properly mitigated.
"Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement In view of this, we are forced to suspend the
System," Section 4 of which states in part that, "No Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)
persons, partnership or corporation shall issued until appropriate modified plans are
undertake or operate any such declared
submitted and approved by this Office for ha(s) been eroded twice already and contaminated
implementation. (Emphasis ours) the nearby creeks which is the source of potable
On 21 June 1993, the Acting Mayor of San Mateo, water of the residents. The contaminated water
Enrique Rodriguez, Jr., Barangay Captain also flows to Wawa Dam and Boso-boso River
Dominador Vergara, and petitioner Rolando E. which also flows to Laguna de Bay.
Villacorte, Chairman of the Pintong Bocaue 2. The proposed Integrated Social Forestry Project
Multipurpose Cooperative (PBMC) wrote10 then be pushed through or be approved. ISF project will
President Fidel V. Ramos expressing their not only uplift the socio-economic conditions of
objections to the continued operation of the MMA the participants but will enhance the rehabilitation
dumpsite for causing "unabated pollution and of the Watershed considering that fruit bearing
degradation of the Marikina Watershed trees are vigorously growing in the area. Some
Reservation." timber producing species are also planted like
On 14 July 1993, another Investigation Mahogany and Gmelina Arboiea. There are also
Report11 submitted by the Regional Technical portions where dipterocarp residuals abound in
Director to the DENR Undersecretary for the area.
Environment and Research contained the 3. The sanitary landfill should be relocated to
following findings and recommendations: some other area, in order to avoid any conflict with
Remarks and Findings: the local government of San Mateo and the nearby
.... affected residents who have been in the area for
5. Interview with Mr. Dayrit, whose lot is now being almost 10-20 years.
endangered because soil erosion have (sic) On 16 November 1993, DENR Secretary Angel C.
caused severe siltation and sedimentation of the Alcala sent MMA Chairman Ismael A. Mathay, Jr. a
Dayrit Creek which water is greatly polluted by the letter12 stating that "after a series of investigations
dumping of soil bulldozed to the creek; by field officials" of the DENR, the agency realized
6. Also interview with Mrs. Vilma Montajes, the that the MOA entered into on 17 November 1988
multi-grade teacher of Pintong Bocaue Primary "is a very costly error because the area agreed to
School which is located only about 100 meters be a garbage dumpsite is inside the Marikina
from the landfill site. She disclosed that bad odor Watershed Reservation." He then strongly
have (sic) greatly affected the pupils who are recommended that all facilities and infrastructure
sometimes sick with respiratory illnesses. These in the garbage dumpsite in Pintong Bocaue be
odors show that MMA have (sic) not dismantled, and the garbage disposal operations
instituted/sprayed any disinfectant chemicals to be transferred to another area outside the Marikina
prevent air pollution in the area. Besides large flies Watershed Reservation to protect "the health and
(Bangaw) are swarming all over the playground of general welfare of the residents of San Mateo in
the school. The teacher also informed the particular and the residents of Metro Manila in
undersigned that plastic debris are being blown general."
whenever the wind blows in their direction. On 06 June 1995, petitioner Villacorte, Chairman
7. As per investigation report … there are now 15 of the PBMC, wrote13 President Ramos, through
hectares being used as landfill disposal sites by the Executive Secretary, informing the President of
the MMA. The MMA is intending to expand its the issues involved, that the dumpsite is located
operation within the 50 hectares. near three public elementary schools, the closest
8. Lots occupied within 50 hectares are fully of which is only fifty meters away, and that its
planted with fruit bearing trees like Mangoes, location "violates the municipal zoning ordinance
Santol, Jackfruit, Kasoy, Guyabano, Kalamansi of San Mateo and, in truth, the Housing and Land
and Citrus which are now bearing fruits and being Use Regulatory Board had denied the then MMA
harvested and marketed to nearby San Mateo chairman’s application for a locational clearance
Market and Masinag Market in Antipolo. on this ground."
.... On 21 August 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of
Recommendations: San Mateo issued a Resolution14 "expressing a
1. As previously recommended, the undersigned strong objection to the planned expansion of the
also strongly recommend(s) that the MMA be landfill operation in Pintong Bocaue and
made to relocate the landfill site because the area requesting President Ramos to disapprove the
is within the Marikina Watershed Reservation and draft Presidential Proclamation segregating 71.6
Lungsod Silangan. The leachate treatment plant Hectares from Marikina Watershed Reservation for
the landfill site in Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo, the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in
Rizal." me by law, do hereby ordain:
Despite the various objections and Section 1. General – That certain parcels of land,
recommendations raised by the government embraced by the Marikina Watershed Reservation,
agencies aforementioned, the Office of the were found needed for use in the solid waste
President, through Executive Secretary Ruben disposal program of the government in
Torres, signed and issued Proclamation No. 635 Metropolitan Manila, are hereby excluded from
on 28 August 1995, "Excluding from the Marikina that which is held in reserve and are now made
Watershed Reservation Certain Parcels of Land available for use as sanitary landfill and such other
Embraced Therein for Use as Sanitary Landfill related waste disposal applications.
Sites and Similar Waste Disposal Under the Section 2. Purpose – The areas being excluded
Administration of the Metropolitan Manila from the Marikina Watershed Reservation are
Development Authority." The pertinent portions hereby placed under the administration of the
thereof state: Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, for
WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements of the development as Sanitary Landfill, and/or for use in
growing population in Metro Manila and the the development of such other related waste
adjoining provinces and municipalities, certain disposal facilities that may be used by the cities
developed and open portions of the Marikina and municipalities of Metro Manila and the
Watershed Reservation, upon the adjoining province of Rizal and its municipalities.
recommendation of the Secretary of the Section 3. Technical Description – Specifically, the
Department of Environment and Natural areas being hereby excluded from the Marikina
Resources should now be excluded form the scope Watershed Reservation consist of two (2) parcels,
of the reservation; with an aggregate area of approximately ONE
WHEREAS, while the areas delineated as part of MILLION SIXTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
the Watershed Reservations are intended primarily TWENTY NINE (1,060,529) square meters more or
for use in projects and/or activities designed to less, as follows: x x x x
contain and preserve the underground water Section 4. Reservations – The development,
supply, other peripheral areas had been included construction, use and/or operation of any facility
within the scope of the reservation to provide for that may be established within the parcel of land
such space as may be needed for the construction herein excluded from the Marikina Watershed
of the necessary structures, other related facilities, Reservation shall be governed by existing laws,
as well as other priority projects of government as rules and regulations pertaining to environmental
may be eventually determined; control and management. When no longer needed
WHEREAS, there is now an urgent need to provide for sanitary landfill purposes or the related waste
for, and develop, the necessary facilities for the disposal activities, the parcels of land subject of
disposal of the waste generated by the population this proclamation shall revert back as part of the
of Metro Manila and the adjoining provinces and Marikina Watershed Reservation, unless otherwise
municipalities, to ensure their sanitary and /or authorized.
hygienic disposal; On 06 September 1995, Director Wilfrido S.
WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements for the Pollisco of the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau
development of the waste disposal facilities that wrote the DENR Secretary to express the bureau’s
may be used, portions of the peripheral areas of stand against the dumpsite at Pintong Bocaue,
the Marikina Watershed Reservation, after due and that "it is our view . . . that the mere presence
consideration and study, have now been identified of a garbage dumpsite inside a watershed
as suitable sites that may be used for the purpose; reservation is definitely not compatible with the
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Department of very purpose and objectives for which the
Environment and Natural Resources has reservation was established."
recommended the exclusion of these areas that On 24 November 1995, the petitioners
have been so identified from the Marikina Municipality of San Mateo and the residents of
Watershed Reservation so that they may then be Pintong Bocaue, represented by former Senator
developed for the purpose; Jovito Salonga, sent a letter to President Ramos
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the requesting him to reconsider Proclamation No.
aforecited premises, I, Fidel V. Ramos, President of 635. Receiving no reply, they sent another letter on
02 January 1996 reiterating their previous community settlements were located far from the
request. site.
On 04 March 1996, then chairman of the Metro 4.21.22 The area was hardly accessible, especially
Manila Development Authority (MMDA [formerly to any public transport. The area was being served
MMA]) Prospero I. Oreta addressed a letter to by a public utility jeep that usually made only two
Senator Salonga, stating in part that: (2) trips daily. During the rainy season, it could
…. only be reached by equipping the vehicle with tire
2. Considering the circumstances under which we chains to traverse the slippery muddy trail roads.
are pursuing the project, we are certain you will 4.21.3 There was, at least, seventy-three (73)
agree that, unless we are prepared with a better hectares available at the site.
alternative, the project simply has to be pursued in 4.3 While the site was within the Marikina
the best interest of the greater majority of the Watershed Reservation under the administration
population, particularly their health and welfare." of the DENR, the site was located at the lower
2.1 The San Mateo Sanitary Landfill services, at periphery of the buffer zone; was evaluated to be
least, 38% of the waste disposal site requirements least likely to affect the underground water supply;
of Metro Manila where an estimated 9 million and could, in fact, be excluded from the
population reside. reservation.
2.2 Metro Manila is presently estimated to be 4.31 It was determined to be far from the main
generating, at least, 15,700 cubic meters of water containment area for it to pose any
household or municipal waste, a 1.57 hectare of immediate danger of contaminating the
land area will be filled in a month’s time with a pile underground water, in case of a failure in any of the
31 meters high of garbage, or in a year, the mitigating measures that would be installed.
accumulated volume will require 18.2 hectares. 4.32 It was likewise too far from the nearest body
.... of water, the Laguna Lake, and the distance, plus
4. The sanitary landfill projects are now on their the increasing accumulation of water from other
fifth year of implementation. The amount of effort tributaries toward the lake, would serve to dilute
and money already invested in the project by the and mitigate any contamination it may emit, in
government cannot easily be disregarded, much case one happened.
more set aside in favor of the few 4.33 To resolve the recurring issue regarding its
settlers/squatters who chose to ignore the earlier being located within the Marikina Watershed
notice given to them that the area would be used Reservation, the site had been recommended by
precisely for the development of waste disposal the DENR, and approved by the President, to
sites, and are now attempting to arouse opposition already be excluded from the Marikina Watershed
to the project. reservation and placed under the administration of
4.2 There is no place within the jurisdiction of MMDA, since the site was deemed to form part of
Metro Manila, with an area big enough to the land resource reserve then commonly referred
accommodate at least 3 to 5 years of waste to as buffer zone.
disposal requirements. x x x x 5. Contrary to the impression that you had been
4.21 The present site at San Mateo was selected given, relocating the site at this point and time
because, at the time consideration was being would not be easy, if not impracticable, because
made, and up to the present, it is found to have the aside from the investments that had been made in
attributes that positively respond to the criteria locating the present site, further investments have
established: been incurred in:
4.21.1 The site was a government property and 5.1 The conduct of the technical studies for the
would not require any outlay for it to be acquired. development being implemented. Through a
4.21.2 It is far from any sizeable grant-in-aid from the World Bank, US$600,000
community/settlements that could be affected by was initially spent for the conduct of the necessary
the development that would be introduced and yet, studies on the area and the design of the landfill.
was within economic hauling distance from the This was augmented by, at least, another P1.5
areas they are designed to serve. million from the government for the studies to be
4.21.21 At the time it was originally decided to completed, or a total cost at the time (1990) of
locate the landfills at the present site, there were approximately P20 million.
not more that fifteen (15) settlers in the area and 5.2. Additionally, the government has spent
they had hardly established themselves. The approximately P33 million in improving on the
roadway to make the site accessible from the main repeatedly asserted by respondents in their
road/highway. comment, on the basis of the alleged
5.3 To achieve the necessary economies in the recommendation of the DENR Secretary dated
development of the site, the utilities had been June 26, 1995 but which assertion was denounced
planned so that their use could be maximized. by the then Secretary Angel C. Alcala himself – in
These include the access roads, the drainage a sworn statement dated September 18, 1996 and
system, the leacheate collection system, the gas again during the special hearing of the case in the
collection system, and the waste water treatment Court of Appeals on November 13, 1996 – as a
system. Their construction are designed so that forgery since his signature on the alleged
instead of having to construct independent units recommendation had been falsified, as now
for each area, the use of existing facilities can be admitted by respondents themselves in their
maximized through a system of interconnection. comment filed with the Court of Appeals, through
On the average, the government is spending P14.8 the Office of the Solicitor General.
million to develop a hectare of sanitary landfill II
area. The Court of Appeals erred and abused its
6. Despite the preparations and the investments discretion in completely ignoring the significant
that are now being made on the project, it is fact that the respondents are operating the landfill
estimated that the total available area, at an based on a spurious Environmental Compliance
accelerated rate of disposal, assuming that all Certificate.
open dump sites were to be closed, will only last III
for 39 months. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the
6.1 We are still hard pressed to achieve advanced respondents did not violate R.A. 7586 when they
development on the sites to assure against any issued and implemented Proclamation No. 635
possible crisis in garbage from again being considering that the withdrawal or
experienced in Metro Manila, aside from having to disestablishment of a protected area or the
look for the additional sites that may be used after modification of the Marikina Watershed can only
the capacities shall have been exhausted. be done by an act of Congress.
6.2 Faced with the prospects of having the 15,700 IV
cubic meters of garbage generated daily strewn all The Court of Appeals erred and abused its
over Metro Manila, we are certain you will agree discretion when it deliberately and willfully
that it would be futile to even as much as consider brushed aside the unanimous findings and
a suspension of the waste disposal operations at adverse recommendations of responsible
the sanitary landfills. government agencies and non-partisan officials
On 22 July 1996, the petitioners filed before the concerned with environmental protection in favor
Court of Appeals a civil action for certiorari, of the self-serving, gratuitous assertions found in
prohibition and mandamus with application for a the unsolicited, partisan letter of former Malabon
temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary Mayor, now Chairman Prospero Oreta of the MMDA
injunction. The hearing on the prayer for who is an interested party in this case.
preliminary injunction was held on 14 August V
1996. The Court of Appeals erred when it readily
On 13 June 1997, the court a quo rendered a swallowed respondents’ assertion that the San
Decision,15 the dispositive part of which reads: Mateo Dumpsite "is located in the ‘Buffer Zone’ of
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, prohibition the reservation" and is therefore outside of its
and mandamus with application for a temporary boundaries, and even declared in its decision that
restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction for it took "serious note" of this particular argument.
lack of cause of action, is hereby DENIED.16 VI
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari of the The Court of Appeals erred and abused its
above decision on the following grounds: discretion when it encroached on the function of
I Congress by expressing its unjustified fear of
The Court of Appeals erred and abused its mini-smokey mountains proliferating in Metro
discretion in deliberately ignoring the significant Manila and justifying its decision in favor of "an
fact that Presidential Proclamation No. 635 was integrated system of solid waste management like
based on a brazen forgery – it was supposedly the San Mateo Landfill.
issued, as stated in the proclamation itself and
On 05 January 1998, while the appeal was Presidential Committee on Flagship Programs and
pending, the petitioners filed a Motion for Projects and the MMDA entered into a MOA with
Temporary Restraining Order,17 pointing out that the Provincial Government of Rizal, the
the effects of the El Niño phenomenon would be Municipality of San Mateo, and the City of
aggravated by the relentless destruction of the Antipolo, wherein the latter agreed to further
Marikina Watershed Reservation. They noted that extend the use of the dumpsite until its permanent
respondent MMDA had, in the meantime, closure on 31 December 2000.24
continued to expand the area of the dumpsite On 11 January 2001, President Estrada directed
inside the Marikina Watershed Reservation, Department of Interior and Local Government
cutting down thousands of mature fruit trees and Secretary Alfredo Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay
forest trees, and leveling hills and mountains to to reopen the San Mateo dumpsite "in view of the
clear the dumping area. Garbage disposal emergency situation of uncollected garbage in
operations were also being conducted on a 24- Metro Manila, resulting in a critical and imminent
hour basis, with hundreds of metric tons of wastes health and sanitation epidemic."25
being dumped daily, including toxic and infectious Claiming the above events constituted a "clear and
hospital wastes, intensifying the air, ground and present danger of violence erupting in the affected
water pollution.18 areas," the petitioners filed an Urgent Petition for
The petitioners reiterated their prayer that Restraining Order26 on 19 January 2001.
respondent MMDA be temporarily enjoined from On 24 January 2001, this Court issued the
further dumping waste into the site and from Temporary Restraining Order prayed for, "effective
encroaching into the area beyond its existing immediately and until further orders."27
perimeter fence so as not to render the case moot Meanwhile, on 26 January 2001, Republic Act No.
and academic. 9003, otherwise known as "The Ecological Solid
On 28 January 1999, the petitioners filed a Motion Waste Management Act of 2000," was signed into
for Early Resolution,19 calling attention to the law by President Estrada.
continued expansion of the dumpsite by the MMDA Thus, the petitioners raised only two issues in their
that caused the people of Antipolo to stage a rally Memorandum28 of 08 February 2005: 1) whether
and barricade the Marcos Highway to stop the or not respondent MMDA agreed to the permanent
dump trucks from reaching the site for five closure of the San Mateo Landfill as of December
successive days from 16 January 1999. On the 2000, and 2) whether or not the permanent closure
second day of the barricade, all the municipal of the San Mateo landfill is mandated by Rep. Act
mayors of the province of Rizal openly declared No. 9003.
their full support for the rally, and notified the We hold that the San Mateo Landfill will remain
MMDA that they would oppose any further attempt permanently closed.
to dump garbage in their province.20 Although the petitioners may be deemed to have
As a result, MMDA officials, headed by then waived or abandoned the issues raised in their
Chairman Jejomar Binay, agreed to abandon the previous pleadings but not included in the
dumpsite after six months. Thus, the municipal memorandum,29 certain events we shall relate
mayors of Rizal, particularly the mayors of below have inclined us to address some of the
Antipolo and San Mateo, agreed to the use of the more pertinent issues raised in the petition for the
dumpsite until that period, which would end on 20 guidance of the herein respondents, and pursuant
July 1999.21 to our symbolic function to educate the bench and
On 13 July 1999, the petitioners filed an Urgent bar.30
Second Motion for Early Resolution22 in The law and the facts indicate that a mere MOA
anticipation of violence between the conflicting does not guarantee the dumpsite’s permanent
parties as the date of the scheduled closure of the closure.
dumpsite neared. The rally and barricade staged by the people of
On 19 July 1999, then President Joseph E. Antipolo on 28 January 1999, with the full support
Estrada, taking cognizance of the gravity of the of all the mayors of Rizal Province caused the
problems in the affected areas and the likelihood MMDA to agree that it would abandon the
that violence would erupt among the parties dumpsite after six months. In return, the municipal
involved, issued a Memorandum ordering the mayors allowed the use of the dumpsite until 20
closure of the dumpsite on 31 December July 1999.
2000.23 Accordingly, on 20 July 1999, the
On 20 July 1999, with much fanfare and rhetoric, Mateo site has adversely affected its environs,
the Presidential Committee on Flagship Programs and second, sources of water should always be
and Projects and the MMDA entered into a MOA protected.
with the Provincial Government of Rizal, the As to the first point, the adverse effects of the site
Municipality of San Mateo, and the City of were reported as early as 19 June 1989, when the
Antipolo, whereby the latter agreed to an extension Investigation Report of the Community
for the use of the dumpsite until 31 December Environment and Natural Resources Officer of
2000, at which time it would be permanently DENR-IV-1 stated that the sources of domestic
closed. water supply of over one thousand families would
Despite this agreement, President Estrada directed be adversely affected by the dumping
Department of Interior and Local Government operations.31 The succeeding report included the
Secretary Alfredo Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay observation that the use of the areas as dumping
to reopen the San Mateo dumpsite on 11 January site greatly affected the ecological balance and
2001, "in view of the emergency situation of environmental factors of the
uncollected garbage in Metro Manila, resulting in a community.32 Respondent LLDA in fact informed
critical and imminent health and sanitation the MMA that the heavy pollution and risk of
epidemic;" our issuance of a TRO on 24 January disease generated by dumpsites rendered the
2001 prevented the dumpsite’s reopening. location of a dumpsite within the Marikina
Were it not for the TRO, then President Estrada’s Watershed Reservation incompatible with its
instructions would have been lawfully carried out, program of upgrading the water quality of the
for as we observed in Oposa v. Factoran, the Laguna Lake. 33
freedom of contract is not absolute. Thus: The DENR suspended the site’s ECC after
….. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp., this Court investigations revealed ground slumping and
stated: "The freedom of contract, under our erosion had resulted from improper development
system of government, is not meant to be of the site.34 Another Investigation
absolute. The same is understood to be subject to Report35 submitted by the Regional Technical
reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the Director to the DENR reported respiratory illnesses
promotion of public health, moral, safety and among pupils of a primary school located
welfare. In other words, the constitutional approximately 100 meters from the site, as well as
guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of the constant presence of large flies and windblown
contract is limited by the exercise of the police debris all over the school’s playground. It further
power of the State, in the interest of public health, reiterated reports that the leachate treatment plant
safety, moral and general welfare." The reason for had been eroded twice already, contaminating the
this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New nearby creeks that were sources of potable water
York, quoted in Philippine American Life Insurance for the residents. The contaminated water was
Co. vs. Auditor General, to wit: "'Under our form of also found to flow to the Wawa Dam and Boso-
government the use of property and the making of boso River, which in turn empties into Laguna de
contracts are normally matters of private and not Bay.
of public concern. The general rule is that both This brings us to the second self-evident point.
shall be free of governmental interference. Water is life, and must be saved at all costs.
But neither property rights nor contract rights are In Collado v. Court of Appeals,36 we had occasion
absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen to reaffirm our previous discussion in Sta. Rosa
may at will use his property to the detriment of his Realty Development Corporation v. Court of
fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work Appeals,37 on the primordial importance of
them harm. Equally fundamental with the private watershed areas, thus: "The most important
right is that of the public to regulate it in the product of a watershed is water, which is one of
common interest.'" In short, the non-impairment the most important human necessities. The
clause must yield to the police power of the state. protection of watersheds ensures an adequate
(Citations omitted, emphasis supplied) supply of water for future generations and the
We thus feel there is also the added need to control of flashfloods that not only damage
reassure the residents of the Province of Rizal that property but also cause loss of lives. Protection of
this is indeed a final resolution of this controversy, watersheds is an "intergenerational" responsibility
for a brief review of the records of this case that needs to be answered now.38
indicates two self-evident facts. First, the San
Three short months before Proclamation No. 635 disposition, exploitation, development, or
was passed to avert the garbage crisis, Congress utilization."42
had enacted the National Water Crisis Act39 to The Regalian doctrine was embodied in the 1935
"adopt urgent and effective measures to address Constitution, in Section 1 of Article XIII on
the nationwide water crisis which adversely "Conservation and Utilization of Natural
affects the health and well-being of the Resources." This was reiterated in the 1973
population, food production, and industrialization Constitution under Article XIV on the "National
process. One of the issues the law sought to Economy and the Patrimony of the Nation," and
address was the "protection and conservation of reaffirmed in the 1987 Constitution in Section 2 of
watersheds."40 Article XII on "National Economy and Patrimony,"
In other words, while respondents were blandly to wit:
declaring that "the reason for the creation of the Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters,
Marikina Watershed Reservation, i.e., to protect minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils,
Marikina River as the source of water supply of the all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
City of Manila, no longer exists," the rest of the timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
country was gripped by a shortage of potable resources are owned by the State. With the
water so serious, it necessitated its own exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
legislation. resources shall not be alienated. The exploration,
Respondents’ actions in the face of such grave development and utilization of natural resources
environmental consequences defy all logic. The shall be under the full control and supervision of
petitioners rightly noted that instead of providing the State. The State may directly undertake such
solutions, they have, with unmitigated activities or it may enter into co-production, joint
callousness, worsened the problem. It is this venture, or production-sharing agreements with
readiness to wreak irrevocable damage on our Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at
natural heritage in pursuit of what is expedient that least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned
has compelled us to rule at length on this issue. by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a
We ignore the unrelenting depletion of our natural period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable
heritage at our peril. for not more than twenty-five years, and under
I. such terms and conditions as may be provided by
The Reorganization Act of the DENR Defines and law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water
Limits Its Powers over the Country’s Natural supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
Resources development of water power, beneficial use may
The respondents next point out that the Marikina be the measure and limit of the grant.43
Watershed Reservation, and thus the San Mateo Clearly, the state is, and always has been, zealous
Site, is located in the public domain. They allege in preserving as much of our natural and national
that as such, neither the Province of Rizal nor the heritage as it can, enshrining as it did the
municipality of San Mateo has the power to control obligation to preserve and protect the same within
or regulate its use since properties of this nature the text of our fundamental law.
belong to the national, and not to the local It was with this objective in mind that the
governments. respondent DENR was mandated by then
It is ironic that the respondents should pursue this President Corazon C. Aquino, under Section 4 of
line of reasoning. Executive Order No. 192, 44 otherwise known as
In Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural "The Reorganization Act of the Department of
Resources,41 we had occasion to observe that Environment and Natural Resources," to be "the
"(o)ne of the fixed and dominating objectives of primary government agency responsible for
the 1935 Constitutional Convention was the the conservation, management, development and
nationalization and conservation of the natural proper use of the country’s environment and
resources of the country. There was an natural resources, specifically forest and grazing
overwhelming sentiment in the convention in favor lands, mineral resources, including those in
of the principle of state ownership of natural reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the
resources and the adoption of the Regalian public domain. It is also responsible for the
doctrine. State ownership of natural resources licensing and regulation of all natural resources as
was seen as a necessary starting point to secure may be provided for by law in order to ensure
recognition of the state’s power to control their equitable sharing of the benefits derived
therefrom for the welfare of the present and future The above provision stresses "the necessity of
generations of Filipinos." maintaining a sound ecological balance and
We expounded on this matter in the landmark case protecting and enhancing the quality of the
of Oposa v. Factoran,45 where we held that the environment."46 (Emphasis ours.)
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is a In sum, the Administrative Code of 1987 and
fundamental legal right that carries with it the Executive Order No. 192 entrust the DENR with
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the the guardianship and safekeeping of the Marikina
environment. This right implies, among other Watershed Reservation and our other natural
things, the judicious management and treasures. However, although the DENR, an agency
conservation of the country’s resources, which of the government, owns the Marikina Reserve and
duty is reposed in the DENR under the aforequoted has jurisdiction over the same, this power is not
Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192. Moreover: absolute, but is defined by the declared policies of
Section 3 (of E. O. No. 192) makes the following the state, and is subject to the law and higher
statement of policy: authority. Section 2, Title XIV, Book IV of the
SEC. 3. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby Administrative Code of 1987, while specifically
declared the policy of the State to ensure referring to the mandate of the DENR, makes
the sustainable use, development, management, particular reference to the agency’s being subject
renewal, and conservation of the country's forest, to law and higher authority, thus:
mineral, land, off-shore areas and other natural SEC. 2. Mandate. - (1) The Department of
resources, including the protection and Environment and Natural Resources shall be
enhancement of the quality of the environment, primarily responsible for the implementation of the
and equitable access of the different segments of foregoing policy.
the population to the development and use of the (2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be
country's natural resources, not only for the in charge of carrying out the State's constitutional
present generation but for future generations as mandate to control and supervise the exploration,
well. It is also the policy of the state to recognize development, utilization, and conservation of the
and apply a true value system including social and country's natural resources.
environmental cost implications relative to their With great power comes great responsibility. It is
utilization; development and conservation of our the height of irony that the public respondents
natural resources. (Emphasis ours) have vigorously arrogated to themselves the
This policy declaration is substantially re-stated in power to control the San Mateo site, but have
Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of deftly ignored their corresponding responsibility
1987, specifically in Section 1 thereof which as guardians and protectors of this tormented
reads: piece of land.
SEC. 1. Declaration of Policy. - (1) The State shall II.
ensure, for the benefit of the Filipino people, the The Local Government Code Gives to Local
full exploration and development as well as Government Units All the Necessary Powers to
the judicious disposition, utilization, Promote the General Welfare of Their Inhabitants
management, renewal and conservation of the The circumstances under which Proclamation No.
country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, 635 was passed also violates Rep. Act No. 7160,
wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural or the Local Government Code.
resources, consistent with the necessity of Contrary to the averment of the respondents,
maintaining a sound ecological balance and Proclamation No. 635, which was passed on 28
protecting and enhancing the quality of the August 1995, is subject to the provisions of the
environment and the objective of making the Local Government Code, which was approved four
exploration, development and utilization of such years earlier, on 10 October 1991.
natural resources equitably accessible to the Section 2(c) of the said law declares that it is the
different segments of the present as well as future policy of the state " to require all national agencies
generations. and offices to conduct periodic consultations with
(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a appropriate local government units, non-
true value system that takes into account social governmental and people's organizations, and
and environmental cost implications relative to the other concerned sectors of the community before
utilization, development and conservation of our any project or program is implemented in their
natural resources. respective jurisdictions." Likewise, Section 27
requires prior consultations before a program shall Section 27 of the Code should be read in
be implemented by government authorities and conjunction with Section 26 thereof. Section 26
the prior approval of the sanggunian is obtained. reads:
During the oral arguments at the hearing for the SECTION 26. Duty of National Government
temporary restraining order, Director Uranza of the Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological
MMDA Solid Waste Management Task Force Balance. It shall be the duty of every national
declared before the Court of Appeals that they had agency or government-owned or controlled
conducted the required consultations. However, corporation authorizing or involved in the planning
he added that "(t)his is the problem, sir, the and implementation of any project or program that
officials we may have been talking with at the time may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of
this was established may no longer be incumbent non-renewable resources, loss of crop land,
and this is our difficulty now. That is what we are range-land, or forest cover, and extinction of
trying to do now, a continuing dialogue." 47 animal or plant species, to consult with the local
The ambivalent reply of Director Uranza was government units, nongovernmental
brought to the fore when, at the height of the organizations, and other sectors concerned and
protest rally and barricade along Marcos Highway explain the goals and objectives of the project or
to stop dump trucks from reaching the site, all the program, its impact upon the people and the
municipal mayors of the province of Rizal openly community in terms of environmental or
declared their full support for the rally and notified ecological balance, and the measures that will be
the MMDA that they would oppose any further undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse
attempt to dump garbage in their province. 48 effects thereof.
The municipal mayors acted within the scope of Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in
their powers, and were in fact fulfilling their Section 27 should be interpreted to mean projects
mandate, when they did this. Section 16 allows and programs whose effects are among those
every local government unit to "exercise the enumerated in Section 26 and 27, to wit, those
powers expressly granted, those necessarily that: (1) may cause pollution; (2) may bring about
implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, climatic change; (3) may cause the depletion of
appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and non-renewable resources; (4) may result in loss of
effective governance, and those which are crop land, range-land, or forest cover; (5) may
essential to the promotion of the general welfare," eradicate certain animal or plant species from the
which involve, among other things, "promot(ing) face of the planet; and (6) other projects or
health and safety, enhance(ing) the right of the programs that may call for the eviction of a
people to a balanced ecology, and preserv(ing) the particular group of people residing in the locality
comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. " where these will be implemented. Obviously, none
In Lina , Jr. v. Paño,49 we held that Section 2 (c), of these effects will be produced by the
requiring consultations with the appropriate local introduction of lotto in the province of Laguna.
government units, should apply to national (emphasis supplied)
government projects affecting the environmental We reiterated this doctrine in the recent case
or ecological balance of the particular community of Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas,50 where we
implementing the project. Rejecting the held that there was no statutory requirement for
petitioners’ contention that Sections 2(c) and 27 the sangguniang bayan of Puerto Galera to
of the Local Government Code applied mandatorily approve the construction of a mooring facility, as
in the setting up of lotto outlets around the Sections 26 and 27 are inapplicable to projects
country, we held that: which are not environmentally critical.
From a careful reading of said provisions, we find Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the
that these apply only to national programs and/or powers, duties and functions of the municipality,
projects which are to be implemented in a grants the sangguniang bayan the power to,
particular local community. Lotto is neither a among other things, "enact ordinances, approve
program nor a project of the national government, resolutions and appropriate funds for the general
but of a charitable institution, the PCSO. Though welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants
sanctioned by the national government, it is far pursuant to Section 16 of th(e) Code." These
fetched to say that lotto falls within the include:
contemplation of Sections 2 (c) and 27 of the (1) Approving ordinances and passing resolutions
Local Government Code. to protect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the communities, and prior approval of the project by
environment, such as dynamite fishing and other the appropriate sanggunian. Absent either of these
forms of destructive fishing, illegal logging and mandatory requirements, the project’s
smuggling of logs, smuggling of natural resources implementation is illegal.
products and of endangered species of flora and III.
fauna, slash and burn farming, and such other Waste Disposal Is Regulated by the Ecological
activities which result in pollution, acceleration of Solid Waste Management Act of 2000
eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of ecological The respondents would have us overlook all the
imbalance; [Section 447 (1)(vi)] abovecited laws because the San Mateo site is a
(2) Prescribing reasonable limits and restraints on very expensive - and necessary - fait
the use of property within the jurisdiction of the accompli. The respondents cite the millions of
municipality, adopting a comprehensive land use pesos and hundreds of thousands of dollars the
plan for the municipality, reclassifying land within government has already expended in its
the jurisdiction of the city, subject to the pertinent development and construction, and the lack of any
provisions of this Code, enacting integrated viable alternative sites.
zoning ordinances in consonance with the The Court of Appeals agreed, thus:
approved comprehensive land use plan, subject to During the hearing on the injunction, questions
existing laws, rules and regulations; establishing were also asked. "What will happen if the San
fire limits or zones, particularly in populous Mateo Sanitary Landfill is closed? Where will the
centers; and regulating the construction, repair or daily collections of garbage be disposed of and
modification of buildings within said fire limits or dumped?" Atty. Mendoza, one of the lawyers of the
zones in accordance with the provisions of this petitioners, answered that each city/municipality
Code; [Section 447 (2)(vi-ix)] ‘must take care of its own.’ Reflecting on that
(3) Approving ordinances which shall ensure the answer, we are troubled: will not the proliferation
efficient and effective delivery of the basic of separate open dumpsites be a more serious
services and facilities as provided for under health hazard (which ha(s) to be addressed) to the
Section 17 of this Code, and in addition to said residents of the community? What with the
services and facilities, …providing for the galloping population growth and the constricting
establishment, maintenance, protection, and available land area in Metro Manila? There could
conservation of communal forests and be a ‘mini-Smokey Mountain’ in each of the ten
watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, cities…comprising Metro Manila, placing in danger
and other similar forest development the health and safety of more people. Damage to
projects ….and, subject to existing laws, the environment could be aggravated by the
establishing and providing for the maintenance, increase in number of open dumpsites. An
repair and operation of an efficient waterworks integrated system of solid waste management, like
system to supply water for the inhabitants the San Mateo Sanitary Landfill, appears advisable
and purifying the source of the water supply; to a populous metropolis like the Greater Metro
regulating the construction, maintenance, repair Manila Area absent access to better technology.51
and use of hydrants, pumps, cisterns and We acknowledge that these are valid concerns.
reservoirs; protecting the purity and quantity of Nevertheless, the lower court should have been
the water supply of the municipality and, for this mindful of the legal truism that it is the legislature,
purpose, extending the coverage of appropriate by its very nature, which is the primary judge of the
ordinances over all territory within the drainage necessity, adequacy, wisdom, reasonableness and
area of said water supply and within one hundred expediency of any law.52
(100) meters of the reservoir, conduit, canal, Moreover, these concerns are addressed by Rep.
aqueduct, pumping station, or watershed used in Act No. 9003. Approved on 26 January 2001, "The
connection with the water service; and regulating Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000"
the consumption, use or wastage of water." was enacted pursuant to the declared policy of the
[Section 447 (5)(i) & (vii)] state "to adopt a systematic, comprehensive and
Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two ecological solid waste management system which
requisites must be met before a national project shall ensure the protection of public health and
that affects the environmental and ecological environment, and utilize environmentally sound
balance of local communities can be implemented: methods that maximize the utilization of valuable
prior consultation with the affected local resources and encourage resource conservation
and recovery."53 It requires the adherence to a METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT
Local Government Solid Waste Management Plan AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
with regard to the collection and transfer, AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF
processing, source reduction, recycling, EDUCATION, CULTURE AND
composting and final disposal of solid wastes, the SPORTS,1 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
handling and disposal of special wastes, education DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT
and public information, and the funding of solid OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS,
waste management projects. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT,
The said law mandates the formulation of a PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE
National Solid Waste Management Framework, NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME GROUP, and
which should include, among other things, the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
method and procedure for the phaseout and the GOVERNMENT, petitioners,
eventual closure within eighteen months from vs.
effectivity of the Act in case of existing open CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY,
dumps and/or sanitary landfills located within an represented and joined by DIVINA V. ILAS,
aquifer, groundwater reservoir or watershed SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL SANTOS,
area.54 Any landfills subsequently developed must JR., DINAH DELA PEÑA, PAUL DENNIS
comply with the minimum requirements laid down QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA
in Section 40, specifically that the site CALOZA, FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE SEGARRA,
selected must be consistent with the overall land FRITZIE TANGKIA, SARAH JOELLE LINTAG,
use plan of the local government unit, and that the HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS, FELIMON
site must be located in an area where the landfill’s SANTIAGUEL, and JAIME AGUSTIN R.
operation will not detrimentally affect OPOSA, respondents.
environmentally sensitive resources such as
aquifers, groundwater reservoirs or watershed DECISION
areas.55 VELASCO, JR., J.:
This writes finis to any remaining aspirations The need to address environmental pollution, as a
respondents may have of reopening the San Mateo cause of climate change, has of late gained the
Site. Having declared Proclamation No. 635 illegal, attention of the international community. Media
we see no compelling need to tackle the remaining have finally trained their sights on the ill effects of
issues raised in the petition and the parties’ pollution, the destruction of forests and other
respective memoranda. critical habitats, oil spills, and the unabated
A final word. Laws pertaining to the protection of improper disposal of garbage. And rightly so, for
the environment were not drafted in a vacuum. the magnitude of environmental destruction is
Congress passed these laws fully aware of the now on a scale few ever foresaw and the wound no
perilous state of both our economic and natural longer simply heals by itself.2 But amidst hard
wealth. It was precisely to minimize the adverse evidence and clear signs of a climate crisis that
impact humanity’s actions on all aspects of the need bold action, the voice of cynicism, naysayers,
natural world, at the same time maintaining and and procrastinators can still be heard.
ensuring an environment under which man and This case turns on government agencies and their
nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable officers who, by the nature of their respective
harmony with each other, that these legal offices or by direct statutory command, are tasked
safeguards were put in place. They should thus not to protect and preserve, at the first instance, our
be so lightly cast aside in the face of what is easy internal waters, rivers, shores, and seas polluted
and expedient. by human activities. To most of these agencies
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The and their official complement, the pollution
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. menace does not seem to carry the high national
41330, dated 13 June 1997, is REVERSED and SET priority it deserves, if their track records are to be
ASIDE. The temporary restraining order issued by the norm. Their cavalier attitude towards solving,
the Court on 24 January 2001 is hereby made if not mitigating, the environmental pollution
permanent. SO ORDERED. problem, is a sad commentary on bureaucratic
efficiency and commitment.
EN BANC At the core of the case is the Manila Bay, a place
G.R. Nos. 171947-48 December 18, 2008 with a proud historic past, once brimming with
marine life and, for so many decades in the past, a Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed
spot for different contact recreation activities, but that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay
now a dirty and slowly dying expanse mainly and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan
because of the abject official indifference of of action for the purpose.
people and institutions that could have otherwise The trial of the case started off with a hearing at
made a difference. the Manila Yacht Club followed by an ocular
This case started when, on January 29, 1999, inspection of the Manila Bay. Renato T. Cruz, the
respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay Chief of the Water Quality Management Section,
filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court Environmental Management Bureau, Department
(RTC) in Imus, Cavite against several government of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
agencies, among them the petitioners, for the testifying for petitioners, stated that water
cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the samples collected from different beaches around
Manila Bay. Raffled to Branch 20 and docketed as the Manila Bay showed that the amount of fecal
Civil Case No. 1851-99 of the RTC, the complaint coliform content ranged from 50,000 to 80,000
alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay most probable number (MPN)/ml when what DENR
had fallen way below the allowable standards set Administrative Order No. 34-90 prescribed as a
by law, specifically Presidential Decree No. (PD) safe level for bathing and other forms of contact
1152 or the Philippine Environment Code. This recreational activities, or the "SB" level, is one not
environmental aberration, the complaint stated, exceeding 200 MPN/100 ml.4
stemmed from: Rebecca de Vera, for Metropolitan Waterworks and
x x x [The] reckless, wholesale, accumulated Sewerage System (MWSS) and in behalf of other
and ongoing acts of omission or commission petitioners, testified about the MWSS’ efforts to
[of the defendants] resulting in the clear and reduce pollution along the Manila Bay through the
present danger to public health and in the Manila Second Sewerage Project. For its part, the
depletion and contamination of the marine Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) presented, as part
life of Manila Bay, [for which reason] ALL of its evidence, its memorandum circulars on the
defendants must be held jointly and/or study being conducted on ship-generated waste
solidarily liable and be collectively ordered to treatment and disposal, and its Linis Dagat (Clean
clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water the Ocean) project for the cleaning of wastes
quality to class B waters fit for swimming, accumulated or washed to shore.
skin-diving, and other forms of contact The RTC Ordered Petitioners to Clean Up and
recreation.3 Rehabilitate Manila Bay
In their individual causes of action, respondents On September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered a
alleged that the continued neglect of petitioners in Decision5 in favor of respondents. The dispositive
abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes portion reads:
a violation of, among others: WHEREFORE, finding merit in the complaint,
(1) Respondents’ constitutional right to life, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the
health, and a balanced ecology; abovenamed defendant-government
(2) The Environment Code (PD 1152); agencies, jointly and solidarily, to clean up
(3) The Pollution Control Law (PD 984); and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its
(4) The Water Code (PD 1067); waters to SB classification to make it fit for
(5) The Sanitation Code (PD 856); swimming, skin-diving and other forms of
(6) The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD contact recreation. To attain this, defendant-
825); agencies, with defendant DENR as the lead
(7) The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979); agency, are directed, within six (6) months
(8) Executive Order No. 192; from receipt hereof, to act and perform their
(9) The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law respective duties by devising a consolidated,
(Republic Act No. 6969); coordinated and concerted scheme of action
(10) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and for the rehabilitation and restoration of the
human relations; bay.
(11) The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of In particular:
Guardianship; and Defendant MWSS is directed to install,
(12) International Law operate and maintain adequate [sewerage]
treatment facilities in strategic places under No pronouncement as to damages and
its jurisdiction and increase their capacities. costs.
Defendant LWUA, to see to it that the water SO ORDERED.
districts under its wings, provide, construct The MWSS, Local Water Utilities Administration
and operate sewage facilities for the proper (LWUA), and PPA filed before the Court of Appeals
disposal of waste. (CA) individual Notices of Appeal which were
Defendant DENR, which is the lead agency in eventually consolidated and docketed as CA-G.R.
cleaning up Manila Bay, to install, operate CV No. 76528.
and maintain waste facilities to rid the bay of On the other hand, the DENR, Department of Public
toxic and hazardous substances. Works and Highways (DPWH), Metropolitan Manila
Defendant PPA, to prevent and also to treat Development Authority (MMDA), Philippine Coast
the discharge not only of ship-generated Guard (PCG), Philippine National Police (PNP)
wastes but also of other solid and liquid Maritime Group, and five other executive
wastes from docking vessels that contribute departments and agencies filed directly with this
to the pollution of the bay. Court a petition for review under Rule 45. The
Defendant MMDA, to establish, operate and Court, in a Resolution of December 9, 2002, sent
maintain an adequate and appropriate the said petition to the CA for consolidation with
sanitary landfill and/or adequate solid waste the consolidated appeals of MWSS, LWUA, and
and liquid disposal as well as other PPA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74944.
alternative garbage disposal system such as Petitioners, before the CA, were one in arguing in
re-use or recycling of wastes. the main that the pertinent provisions of the
Defendant DA, through the Bureau of Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to the
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, to cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not
revitalize the marine life in Manila Bay and cover cleaning in general. And apart from raising
restock its waters with indigenous fish and concerns about the lack of funds appropriated for
other aquatic animals. cleaning purposes, petitioners also asserted that
Defendant DBM, to provide and set aside an the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial
adequate budget solely for the purpose of act which can be compelled by mandamus.
cleaning up and rehabilitation of Manila Bay. The CA Sustained the RTC
Defendant DPWH, to remove and demolish By a Decision6 of September 28, 2005, the CA
structures and other nuisances that obstruct denied petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the
the free flow of waters to the bay. These Decision of the RTC in toto, stressing that the trial
nuisances discharge solid and liquid wastes court’s decision did not require petitioners to do
which eventually end up in Manila Bay. As tasks outside of their usual basic functions under
the construction and engineering arm of the existing laws.7
government, DPWH is ordered to actively Petitioners are now before this Court praying for
participate in removing debris, such as the allowance of their Rule 45 petition on the
carcass of sunken vessels, and other non- following ground and supporting arguments:
biodegradable garbage in the bay. THE [CA] DECIDED A QUESTION OF
Defendant DOH, to closely supervise and SUBSTANCE NOT HERETOFORE PASSED
monitor the operations of septic and sludge UPON BY THE HONORABLE COURT, I.E., IT
companies and require them to have proper AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION
facilities for the treatment and disposal of DECLARING THAT SECTION 20 OF [PD] 1152
fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic REQUIRES CONCERNED GOVERNMENT
tanks. AGENCIES TO REMOVE ALL POLLUTANTS
Defendant DECS, to inculcate in the minds SPILLED AND DISCHARGED IN THE WATER
and hearts of the people through education SUCH AS FECAL COLIFORMS.
the importance of preserving and protecting ARGUMENTS
the environment. I
Defendant Philippine Coast Guard and the [SECTIONS] 17 AND 20 OF [PD] 1152
PNP Maritime Group, to protect at all costs RELATE ONLY TO THE CLEANING OF
the Manila Bay from all forms of illegal SPECIFIC POLLUTION INCIDENTS
fishing. AND [DO] NOT COVER CLEANING IN
GENERAL
 II words, it is the MMDA’s ministerial duty to attend
THE CLEANING OR REHABILITATION to such services.
OF THE MANILA BAY IS NOT A We agree with respondents.
MINISTERIAL ACT OF PETITIONERS First off, we wish to state that petitioners’
THAT CAN BE COMPELLED BY obligation to perform their duties as defined by
MANDAMUS. law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out
The issues before us are two-fold. First, do such duties, on the other, are two different
Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the concepts. While the implementation of the
headings, Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean- MMDA’s mandated tasks may entail a decision-
up Operations, envisage a cleanup in general or are making process, the enforcement of the law or the
they limited only to the cleanup of specific very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is
pollution incidents? And second, can petitioners ministerial in nature and may be compelled by
be compelled by mandamus to clean up and mandamus. We said so in Social Justice Society v.
rehabilitate the Manila Bay? Atienza11 in which the Court directed the City of
On August 12, 2008, the Court conducted and Manila to enforce, as a matter of ministerial duty,
heard the parties on oral arguments. its Ordinance No. 8027 directing the three big local
Our Ruling oil players to cease and desist from operating their
We shall first dwell on the propriety of the issuance business in the so-called "Pandacan Terminals"
of mandamus under the premises. within six months from the effectivity of the
The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay ordinance. But to illustrate with respect to the
Can be Compelled by Mandamus instant case, the MMDA’s duty to put up an
Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and
execution of a ministerial duty.8 A ministerial duty solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other
is one that "requires neither the exercise of official alternative garbage disposal systems is
discretion nor judgment."9 It connotes an act in ministerial, its duty being a statutory imposition.
which nothing is left to the discretion of the person The MMDA’s duty in this regard is spelled out in
executing it. It is a "simple, definite duty arising Sec. 3(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7924 creating
under conditions admitted or proved to exist and the MMDA. This section defines and delineates the
imposed by law."10 Mandamus is available to scope of the MMDA’s waste disposal services to
compel action, when refused, on matters involving include:
discretion, but not to direct the exercise of Solid waste disposal and management
judgment or discretion one way or the other. which include formulation and
Petitioners maintain that the MMDA’s duty to take implementation of policies, standards,
measures and maintain adequate solid waste and programs and projects for proper and
liquid disposal systems necessarily involves policy sanitary waste disposal. It shall likewise
evaluation and the exercise of judgment on the include the establishment and operation of
part of the agency concerned. They argue that the sanitary land fill and related facilities and
MMDA, in carrying out its mandate, has to make the implementation of other alternative
decisions, including choosing where a landfill programs intended to reduce, reuse and
should be located by undertaking feasibility recycle solid waste. (Emphasis added.)
studies and cost estimates, all of which entail the The MMDA is duty-bound to comply with Sec. 41
exercise of discretion. of the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA
Respondents, on the other hand, counter that the 9003) which prescribes the minimum criteria for
statutory command is clear and that petitioners’ the establishment of sanitary landfills and Sec. 42
duty to comply with and act according to the clear which provides the minimum operating
mandate of the law does not require the exercise requirements that each site operator shall
of discretion. According to respondents, maintain in the operation of a sanitary landfill.
petitioners, the MMDA in particular, are without Complementing Sec. 41 are Secs. 36 and 37 of RA
discretion, for example, to choose which bodies of 9003,12 enjoining the MMDA and local government
water they are to clean up, or which discharge or units, among others, after the effectivity of the law
spill they are to contain. By the same token, on February 15, 2001, from using and operating
respondents maintain that petitioners are bereft of open dumps for solid waste and disallowing, five
discretion on whether or not to alleviate the years after such effectivity, the use of controlled
problem of solid and liquid waste disposal; in other dumps.
The MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste a) Prepare a National Water Quality Status
disposal, as may be noted, is set forth not only in report within twenty-four (24) months from
the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That the
in its charter as well. This duty of putting up a Department shall thereafter review or revise
proper waste disposal system cannot be and publish annually, or as the need arises,
characterized as discretionary, for, as earlier said report;
stated, discretion presupposes the power or right b) Prepare an Integrated Water Quality
given by law to public functionaries to act officially Management Framework within twelve (12)
according to their judgment or conscience.13 A months following the completion of the
discretionary duty is one that "allows a person to status report;
exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to c) Prepare a ten (10) year Water Quality
perform."14 Any suggestion that the MMDA has the Management Area Action Plan within 12
option whether or not to perform its solid waste months following the completion of the
disposal-related duties ought to be dismissed for framework for each designated water
want of legal basis. management area. Such action plan shall be
A perusal of other petitioners’ respective charters reviewed by the water quality management
or like enabling statutes and pertinent laws would area governing board every five (5) years or
yield this conclusion: these government agencies as need arises.
are enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to The DENR has prepared the status report for the
perform certain functions relating directly or period 2001 to 2005 and is in the process of
indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, completing the preparation of the Integrated Water
and preservation of the Manila Bay. They are Quality Management Framework.16 Within twelve
precluded from choosing not to perform these (12) months thereafter, it has to submit a final
duties. Consider: Water Quality Management Area Action
(1) The DENR, under Executive Order No. (EO) Plan.17 Again, like the MMDA, the DENR should be
192,15 is the primary agency responsible for the made to accomplish the tasks assigned to it under
conservation, management, development, and RA 9275.
proper use of the country’s environment and Parenthetically, during the oral arguments, the
natural resources. Sec. 19 of the Philippine Clean DENR Secretary manifested that the DENR, with
Water Act of 2004 (RA 9275), on the other hand, the assistance of and in partnership with various
designates the DENR as the primary government government agencies and non-government
agency responsible for its enforcement and organizations, has completed, as of December
implementation, more particularly over all aspects 2005, the final draft of a comprehensive action
of water quality management. On water pollution, plan with estimated budget and time frame,
the DENR, under the Act’s Sec. 19(k), exercises denominated as Operation Plan for the Manila Bay
jurisdiction "over all aspects of water pollution, Coastal Strategy, for the rehabilitation, restoration,
determine[s] its location, magnitude, extent, and rehabilitation of the Manila Bay.
severity, causes and effects and other pertinent The completion of the said action plan and even
information on pollution, and [takes] measures, the implementation of some of its phases should
using available methods and technologies, to more than ever prod the concerned agencies to
prevent and abate such pollution." fast track what are assigned them under existing
The DENR, under RA 9275, is also tasked to laws.
prepare a National Water Quality Status Report, an (2) The MWSS, under Sec. 3 of RA 6234,18 is
Integrated Water Quality Management Framework, vested with jurisdiction, supervision, and control
and a 10-year Water Quality Management Area over all waterworks and sewerage systems in the
Action Plan which is nationwide in scope covering territory comprising what is now the cities of Metro
the Manila Bay and adjoining areas. Sec. 19 of RA Manila and several towns of the provinces of Rizal
9275 provides: and Cavite, and charged with the duty:
Sec. 19 Lead Agency.––The [DENR] shall be (g) To construct, maintain, and operate such
the primary government agency responsible sanitary sewerages as may be necessary for
for the implementation and enforcement of the proper sanitation and other uses of the
this Act x x x unless otherwise provided cities and towns comprising the System; x x
herein. As such, it shall have the following x
functions, powers and responsibilities:
(3) The LWUA under PD 198 has the power of implementation of policies, standards, programs
supervision and control over local water districts. and projects for an integrated flood control,
It can prescribe the minimum standards and drainage and sewerage system."
regulations for the operations of these districts On July 9, 2002, a Memorandum of Agreement
and shall monitor and evaluate local water was entered into between the DPWH and MMDA,
standards. The LWUA can direct these districts to whereby MMDA was made the agency primarily
construct, operate, and furnish facilities and responsible for flood control in Metro Manila. For
services for the collection, treatment, and disposal the rest of the country, DPWH shall remain as the
of sewerage, waste, and storm water. Additionally, implementing agency for flood control services.
under RA 9275, the LWUA, as attached agency of The mandate of the MMDA and DPWH on flood
the DPWH, is tasked with providing sewerage and control and drainage services shall include the
sanitation facilities, inclusive of the setting up of removal of structures, constructions, and
efficient and safe collection, treatment, and encroachments built along rivers, waterways, and
sewage disposal system in the different parts of esteros (drainages) in violation of RA 7279, PD
the country.19 In relation to the instant petition, the 1067, and other pertinent laws.
LWUA is mandated to provide sewerage and (6) The PCG, in accordance with Sec. 5(p) of PD
sanitation facilities in Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, 601, or the Revised Coast Guard Law of 1974, and
Pampanga, and Bataan to prevent pollution in the Sec. 6 of PD 979,24 or the Marine Pollution Decree
Manila Bay. of 1976, shall have the primary responsibility of
(4) The Department of Agriculture (DA), pursuant enforcing laws, rules, and regulations governing
to the Administrative Code of 1987 (EO 292),20 is marine pollution within the territorial waters of the
designated as the agency tasked to promulgate Philippines. It shall promulgate its own rules and
and enforce all laws and issuances respecting the regulations in accordance with the national rules
conservation and proper utilization of agricultural and policies set by the National Pollution Control
and fishery resources. Furthermore, the DA, under Commission upon consultation with the latter for
the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA 8550), the effective implementation and enforcement of
is, in coordination with local government units PD 979. It shall, under Sec. 4 of the law, apprehend
(LGUs) and other concerned sectors, in charge of violators who:
establishing a monitoring, control, and a. discharge, dump x x x harmful substances
surveillance system to ensure that fisheries and from or out of any ship, vessel, barge, or any
aquatic resources in Philippine waters are other floating craft, or other man-made
judiciously utilized and managed on a sustainable structures at sea, by any method, means or
basis.21 Likewise under RA 9275, the DA is manner, into or upon the territorial and
charged with coordinating with the PCG and DENR inland navigable waters of the Philippines;
for the enforcement of water quality standards in b. throw, discharge or deposit, dump, or
marine waters.22 More specifically, its Bureau of cause, suffer or procure to be thrown,
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under discharged, or deposited either from or out
Sec. 22(c) of RA 9275 shall primarily be of any ship, barge, or other floating craft or
responsible for the prevention and control of water vessel of any kind, or from the shore, wharf,
pollution for the development, management, and manufacturing establishment, or mill of any
conservation of the fisheries and aquatic kind, any refuse matter of any kind or
resources. description whatever other than that flowing
(5) The DPWH, as the engineering and from streets and sewers and passing
construction arm of the national government, is therefrom in a liquid state into tributary of
tasked under EO 29223 to provide integrated any navigable water from which the same
planning, design, and construction services for, shall float or be washed into such navigable
among others, flood control and water resource water; and
development systems in accordance with national c. deposit x x x material of any kind in any
development objectives and approved government place on the bank of any navigable water or
plans and specifications. on the bank of any tributary of any navigable
In Metro Manila, however, the MMDA is authorized water, where the same shall be liable to be
by Sec. 3(d), RA 7924 to perform metro-wide washed into such navigable water, either by
services relating to "flood control and sewerage ordinary or high tides, or by storms or floods,
management which include the formulation and or otherwise, whereby navigation shall or
 may be impeded or obstructed or increase Maritime Group that have jurisdiction over said
the level of pollution of such water. vessels.
(7) When RA 6975 or the Department of the Interior (9) The MMDA, as earlier indicated, is duty-bound
and Local Government (DILG) Act of 1990 was to put up and maintain adequate sanitary landfill
signed into law on December 13, 1990, the PNP and solid waste and liquid disposal system as well
Maritime Group was tasked to "perform all police as other alternative garbage disposal systems. It
functions over the Philippine territorial waters and is primarily responsible for the implementation
rivers." Under Sec. 86, RA 6975, the police and enforcement of the provisions of RA 9003,
functions of the PCG shall be taken over by the which would necessary include its penal
PNP when the latter acquires the capability to provisions, within its area of jurisdiction.29
perform such functions. Since the PNP Maritime Among the prohibited acts under Sec. 48, Chapter
Group has not yet attained the capability to VI of RA 9003 that are frequently violated are
assume and perform the police functions of PCG dumping of waste matters in public places, such
over marine pollution, the PCG and PNP Maritime as roads, canals or esteros, open burning of solid
Group shall coordinate with regard to the waste, squatting in open dumps and landfills, open
enforcement of laws, rules, and regulations dumping, burying of biodegradable or non-
governing marine pollution within the territorial biodegradable materials in flood-prone areas,
waters of the Philippines. This was made clear in establishment or operation of open dumps as
Sec. 124, RA 8550 or the Philippine Fisheries Code enjoined in RA 9003, and operation of waste
of 1998, in which both the PCG and PNP Maritime management facilities without an environmental
Group were authorized to enforce said law and compliance certificate.
other fishery laws, rules, and regulations.25 Under Sec. 28 of the Urban Development and
(8) In accordance with Sec. 2 of EO 513, the PPA Housing Act of 1992 (RA 7279), eviction or
is mandated "to establish, develop, regulate, demolition may be allowed "when persons or
manage and operate a rationalized national port entities occupy danger areas such as esteros,
system in support of trade and national railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks,
development."26 Moreover, Sec. 6-c of EO 513 shorelines, waterways, and other public places
states that the PPA has police authority within the such as sidewalks, roads, parks and playgrounds."
ports administered by it as may be necessary to The MMDA, as lead agency, in coordination with
carry out its powers and functions and attain its the DPWH, LGUs, and concerned agencies, can
purposes and objectives, without prejudice to the dismantle and remove all structures,
exercise of the functions of the Bureau of Customs constructions, and other encroachments built in
and other law enforcement bodies within the area. breach of RA 7279 and other pertinent laws along
Such police authority shall include the following: the rivers, waterways, and esteros in Metro Manila.
xxxx With respect to rivers, waterways, and esteros in
b) To regulate the entry to, exit from, and Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna
movement within the port, of persons and that discharge wastewater directly or eventually
vehicles, as well as movement within the into the Manila Bay, the DILG shall direct the
port of watercraft.27 concerned LGUs to implement the demolition and
Lastly, as a member of the International Marine removal of such structures, constructions, and
Organization and a signatory to the International other encroachments built in violation of RA 7279
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from and other applicable laws in coordination with the
Ships, as amended by MARPOL 73/78,28 the DPWH and concerned agencies.
Philippines, through the PPA, must ensure the (10) The Department of Health (DOH), under
provision of adequate reception facilities at ports Article 76 of PD 1067 (the Water Code), is tasked
and terminals for the reception of sewage from the to promulgate rules and regulations for the
ships docking in Philippine ports. Thus, the PPA is establishment of waste disposal areas that affect
tasked to adopt such measures as are necessary the source of a water supply or a reservoir for
to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and domestic or municipal use. And under Sec. 8 of RA
liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes 9275, the DOH, in coordination with the DENR,
into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at DPWH, and other concerned agencies, shall
ports and apprehend the violators. When the formulate guidelines and standards for the
vessels are not docked at ports but within collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage and
Philippine territorial waters, it is the PCG and PNP the establishment and operation of a centralized
sewage treatment system. In areas not considered concerns about water sources and ecological
as highly urbanized cities, septage or a mix protection, water supply, public health, and quality
sewerage-septage management system shall be of life; and to provide a comprehensive
employed. management program for water pollution focusing
In accordance with Sec. 7230 of PD 856, the Code on pollution prevention.
of Sanitation of the Philippines, and Sec. 5.1.131 of Thus, the DBM shall then endeavor to provide an
Chapter XVII of its implementing rules, the DOH is adequate budget to attain the noble objectives of
also ordered to ensure the regulation and RA 9275 in line with the country’s development
monitoring of the proper disposal of wastes by objectives.
private sludge companies through the strict All told, the aforementioned enabling laws and
enforcement of the requirement to obtain an issuances are in themselves clear, categorical, and
environmental sanitation clearance of sludge complete as to what are the obligations and
collection treatment and disposal before these mandate of each agency/petitioner under the law.
companies are issued their environmental We need not belabor the issue that their tasks
sanitation permit. include the cleanup of the Manila Bay.
(11) The Department of Education (DepEd), under Now, as to the crux of the petition. Do Secs. 17 and
the Philippine Environment Code (PD 1152), is 20 of the Environment Code encompass the
mandated to integrate subjects on environmental cleanup of water pollution in general, not just
education in its school curricula at all specific pollution incidents?
levels.32 Under Sec. 118 of RA 8550, the DepEd, in Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code
collaboration with the DA, Commission on Higher Include Cleaning in General
Education, and Philippine Information Agency, The disputed sections are quoted as follows:
shall launch and pursue a nationwide educational Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality.––
campaign to promote the development, Where the quality of water has deteriorated
management, conservation, and proper use of the to a degree where its state will adversely
environment. Under the Ecological Solid Waste affect its best usage, the government
Management Act (RA 9003), on the other hand, it agencies concerned shall take such
is directed to strengthen the integration of measures as may be necessary to upgrade
environmental concerns in school curricula at all the quality of such water to meet the
levels, with an emphasis on waste management prescribed water quality standards.
principles.33 Section 20. Clean-up Operations.––It shall
(12) The Department of Budget and Management be the responsibility of the polluter to
(DBM) is tasked under Sec. 2, Title XVII of the contain, remove and clean-up water
Administrative Code of 1987 to ensure the pollution incidents at his own expense. In
efficient and sound utilization of government case of his failure to do so, the government
funds and revenues so as to effectively achieve the agencies concerned shall undertake
country’s development objectives.34 containment, removal and clean-up
One of the country’s development objectives is operations and expenses incurred in said
enshrined in RA 9275 or the Philippine Clean Water operations shall be charged against the
Act of 2004. This law stresses that the State shall persons and/or entities responsible for such
pursue a policy of economic growth in a manner pollution.
consistent with the protection, preservation, and When the Clean Water Act (RA 9275) took effect,
revival of the quality of our fresh, brackish, and its Sec. 16 on the subject, o, amended the
marine waters. It also provides that it is the policy counterpart provision (Sec. 20) of the Environment
of the government, among others, to streamline Code (PD 1152). Sec. 17 of PD 1152 continues,
processes and procedures in the prevention, however, to be operational.
control, and abatement of pollution mechanisms The amendatory Sec. 16 of RA 9275 reads:
for the protection of water resources; to promote SEC. 16. Cleanup Operations.––
environmental strategies and use of appropriate Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections
economic instruments and of control mechanisms 15 and 26 hereof, any person who causes
for the protection of water resources; to formulate pollution in or pollutes water bodies in
a holistic national program of water quality excess of the applicable and prevailing
management that recognizes that issues related to standards shall be responsible to contain,
this management cannot be separated from remove and clean up any pollution incident
 at his own expense to the extent that the other hazardous substances, as mentioned in Sec.
same water bodies have been rendered unfit 62(h).
for utilization and beneficial use: Provided, As a counterpoint, respondents argue that
That in the event emergency cleanup petitioners erroneously read Sec. 62(g) as
operations are necessary and the polluter delimiting the application of Sec. 20 to the
fails to immediately undertake the same, the containment, removal, and cleanup operations for
[DENR] in coordination with other accidental spills only. Contrary to petitioners’
government agencies concerned, shall posture, respondents assert that Sec. 62(g), in
undertake containment, removal and fact, even expanded the coverage of Sec. 20.
cleanup operations. Expenses incurred in Respondents explain that without its Sec. 62(g),
said operations shall be reimbursed by the PD 1152 may have indeed covered only pollution
persons found to have caused such pollution accumulating from the day-to-day operations of
under proper administrative determination x businesses around the Manila Bay and other
x x. Reimbursements of the cost incurred sources of pollution that slowly accumulated in
shall be made to the Water Quality the bay. Respondents, however, emphasize that
Management Fund or to such other funds Sec. 62(g), far from being a delimiting provision, in
where said disbursements were sourced. fact even enlarged the operational scope of Sec.
As may be noted, the amendment to Sec. 20 of the 20, by including accidental spills as among the
Environment Code is more apparent than real water pollution incidents contemplated in Sec. 17
since the amendment, insofar as it is relevant to in relation to Sec. 20 of PD 1152.
this case, merely consists in the designation of the To respondents, petitioners’ parochial view on
DENR as lead agency in the cleanup operations. environmental issues, coupled with their narrow
Petitioners contend at every turn that Secs. 17 and reading of their respective mandated roles, has
20 of the Environment Code concern themselves contributed to the worsening water quality of the
only with the matter of cleaning up in specific Manila Bay. Assuming, respondents assert, that
pollution incidents, as opposed to cleanup in petitioners are correct in saying that the cleanup
general. They aver that the twin provisions would coverage of Sec. 20 of PD 1152 is constricted by
have to be read alongside the succeeding Sec. the definition of the phrase "cleanup operations"
62(g) and (h), which defines the terms "cleanup embodied in Sec. 62(g), Sec. 17 is not hobbled by
operations" and "accidental spills," as follows: such limiting definition. As pointed out, the
g. Clean-up Operations [refer] to activities phrases "cleanup operations" and "accidental
conducted in removing the pollutants spills" do not appear in said Sec. 17, not even in
discharged or spilled in water to restore it to the chapter where said section is found.
pre-spill condition. Respondents are correct. For one thing, said Sec.
h. Accidental Spills [refer] to spills of oil or 17 does not in any way state that the government
other hazardous substances in water that agencies concerned ought to confine themselves
result from accidents such as collisions and to the containment, removal, and cleaning
groundings. operations when a specific pollution incident
Petitioners proffer the argument that Secs. 17 and occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to
20 of PD 1152 merely direct the government act even in the absence of a specific pollution
agencies concerned to undertake containment, incident, as long as water quality "has deteriorated
removal, and cleaning operations of a specific to a degree where its state will adversely affect its
polluted portion or portions of the body of water best usage." This section, to stress, commands
concerned. They maintain that the application of concerned government agencies, when
said Sec. 20 is limited only to "water pollution appropriate, "to take such measures as may be
incidents," which are situations that presuppose necessary to meet the prescribed water quality
the occurrence of specific, isolated pollution standards." In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade
events requiring the corresponding containment, the quality of water is not conditional on the
removal, and cleaning operations. Pushing the occurrence of any pollution incident.
point further, they argue that the aforequoted Sec. For another, a perusal of Sec. 20 of the
62(g) requires "cleanup operations" to restore the Environment Code, as couched, indicates that it is
body of water to pre-spill condition, which means properly applicable to a specific situation in which
that there must have been a specific incident of the pollution is caused by polluters who fail to
either intentional or accidental spillage of oil or clean up the mess they left behind. In such
instance, the concerned government agencies has been few and far between. Hence, practically
shall undertake the cleanup work for the polluters’ nobody has been required to contain, remove, or
account. Petitioners’ assertion, that they have to clean up a given water pollution incident. In this
perform cleanup operations in the Manila Bay only kind of setting, it behooves the Government to step
when there is a water pollution incident and the in and undertake cleanup operations. Thus, Sec.
erring polluters do not undertake the containment, 16 of RA 9275, previously Sec. 20 of PD 1152,
removal, and cleanup operations, is quite off mark. covers for all intents and purposes a general
As earlier discussed, the complementary Sec. 17 cleanup situation.
of the Environment Code comes into play and the The cleanup and/or restoration of the Manila Bay
specific duties of the agencies to clean up come in is only an aspect and the initial stage of the long-
even if there are no pollution incidents staring at term solution. The preservation of the water
them. Petitioners, thus, cannot plausibly invoke quality of the bay after the rehabilitation process
and hide behind Sec. 20 of PD 1152 or Sec. 16 of is as important as the cleaning phase. It is
RA 9275 on the pretext that their cleanup mandate imperative then that the wastes and contaminants
depends on the happening of a specific pollution found in the rivers, inland bays, and other bodies
incident. In this regard, what the CA said with of water be stopped from reaching the Manila Bay.
respect to the impasse over Secs. 17 and 20 of PD Otherwise, any cleanup effort would just be a futile,
1152 is at once valid as it is practical. The cosmetic exercise, for, in no time at all, the Manila
appellate court wrote: "PD 1152 aims to introduce Bay water quality would again deteriorate below
a comprehensive program of environmental the ideal minimum standards set by PD 1152, RA
protection and management. This is better served 9275, and other relevant laws. It thus behooves
by making Secs. 17 & 20 of general application the Court to put the heads of the petitioner-
rather than limiting them to specific pollution department-agencies and the bureaus and offices
incidents."35 under them on continuing notice about, and to
Granting arguendo that petitioners’ position thus enjoin them to perform, their mandates and duties
described vis-à-vis the implementation of Sec. 20 towards cleaning up the Manila Bay and preserving
is correct, they seem to have overlooked the fact the quality of its water to the ideal level. Under
that the pollution of the Manila Bay is of such what other judicial discipline describes as
magnitude and scope that it is well-nigh "continuing mandamus,"36 the Court may, under
impossible to draw the line between a specific and extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with
a general pollution incident. And such the end in view of ensuring that its decision would
impossibility extends to pinpointing with not be set to naught by administrative inaction or
reasonable certainty who the polluters are. We indifference. In India, the doctrine of continuing
note that Sec. 20 of PD 1152 mentions "water mandamus was used to enforce directives of the
pollution incidents" which may be caused by court to clean up the length of the Ganges River
polluters in the waters of the Manila Bay itself or from industrial and municipal pollution.37
by polluters in adjoining lands and in water bodies The Court can take judicial notice of the presence
or waterways that empty into the bay. Sec. 16 of of shanties and other unauthorized structures
RA 9275, on the other hand, specifically adverts to which do not have septic tanks along the Pasig-
"any person who causes pollution in or pollutes Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the National Capital
water bodies," which may refer to an individual or Region (NCR) (Parañaque-Zapote, Las Piñas)
an establishment that pollutes the land mass near Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros
the Manila Bay or the waterways, such that the Rivers, the Meycuayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan)
contaminants eventually end up in the bay. In this Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus
situation, the water pollution incidents are so (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other minor
numerous and involve nameless and faceless rivers and connecting waterways, river banks, and
polluters that they can validly be categorized as esteros which discharge their waters, with all the
beyond the specific pollution incident level. accompanying filth, dirt, and garbage, into the
Not to be ignored of course is the reality that the major rivers and eventually the Manila Bay. If there
government agencies concerned are so is one factor responsible for the pollution of the
undermanned that it would be almost impossible major river systems and the Manila Bay, these
to apprehend the numerous polluters of the Manila unauthorized structures would be on top of the list.
Bay. It may perhaps not be amiss to say that the And if the issue of illegal or unauthorized
apprehension, if any, of the Manila Bay polluters structures is not seriously addressed with
sustained resolve, then practically all efforts to flow along the surface and seep into the
cleanse these important bodies of water would be earth and poison the surface and
for naught. The DENR Secretary said as much.38 groundwater that are used for drinking,
Giving urgent dimension to the necessity of aquatic life, and the environment.
removing these illegal structures is Art. 51 of PD 2. The high level of fecal coliform confirms
1067 or the Water Code,39 which prohibits the the presence of a large amount of human
building of structures within a given length along waste in the dump sites and surrounding
banks of rivers and other waterways. Art. 51 reads: areas, which is presumably generated by
The banks of rivers and streams and the households that lack alternatives to
shores of the seas and lakes throughout sanitation. To say that Manila Bay needs
their entire length and within a zone of three rehabilitation is an understatement.
(3) meters in urban areas, twenty (20) 3. Most of the deadly leachate, lead and
meters in agricultural areas and forty (40) other dangerous contaminants and possibly
meters in forest areas, along their margins, strains of pathogens seeps untreated into
are subject to the easement of public use in ground water and runs into the Marikina and
the interest of recreation, navigation, Pasig River systems and Manila Bay.40
floatage, fishing and salvage. No person Given the above perspective, sufficient sanitary
shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer landfills should now more than ever be established
than what is necessary for recreation, as prescribed by the Ecological Solid Waste
navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage or to Management Act (RA 9003). Particular note
build structures of any kind. (Emphasis should be taken of the blatant violations by some
added.) LGUs and possibly the MMDA of Sec. 37,
Judicial notice may likewise be taken of factories reproduced below:
and other industrial establishments standing Sec. 37. Prohibition against the Use of Open
along or near the banks of the Pasig River, other Dumps for Solid Waste.––No open dumps
major rivers, and connecting waterways. But while shall be established and operated, nor any
they may not be treated as unauthorized practice or disposal of solid waste by any
constructions, some of these establishments person, including LGUs which [constitute]
undoubtedly contribute to the pollution of the the use of open dumps for solid waste, be
Pasig River and waterways. The DILG and the allowed after the effectivity of this Act:
concerned LGUs, have, accordingly, the duty to see Provided, further that no controlled dumps
to it that non-complying industrial establishments shall be allowed (5) years following the
set up, within a reasonable period, the necessary effectivity of this Act. (Emphasis added.)
waste water treatment facilities and infrastructure RA 9003 took effect on February 15, 2001 and the
to prevent their industrial discharge, including adverted grace period of five (5) years which
their sewage waters, from flowing into the Pasig ended on February 21, 2006 has come and gone,
River, other major rivers, and connecting but no single sanitary landfill which strictly
waterways. After such period, non-complying complies with the prescribed standards under RA
establishments shall be shut down or asked to 9003 has yet been set up.
transfer their operations. In addition, there are rampant and repeated
At this juncture, and if only to dramatize the violations of Sec. 48 of RA 9003, like littering,
urgency of the need for petitioners-agencies to dumping of waste matters in roads,
comply with their statutory tasks, we cite the Asian canals, esteros, and other public places, operation
Development Bank-commissioned study on the of open dumps, open burning of solid waste, and
garbage problem in Metro Manila, the results of the like. Some sludge companies which do not
which are embodied in the The Garbage Book. As have proper disposal facilities simply discharge
there reported, the garbage crisis in the sludge into the Metro Manila sewerage system
metropolitan area is as alarming as it is shocking. that ends up in the Manila Bay. Equally unabated
Some highlights of the report: are violations of Sec. 27 of RA 9275, which enjoins
1. As early as 2003, three land-filled the pollution of water bodies, groundwater
dumpsites in Metro Manila - the Payatas, pollution, disposal of infectious wastes from
Catmon and Rodriquez dumpsites - generate vessels, and unauthorized transport or dumping
an alarming quantity of lead and leachate or into sea waters of sewage or solid waste and of
liquid run-off. Leachate are toxic liquids that Secs. 4 and 102 of RA 8550 which proscribes the
introduction by human or machine of substances So it was that in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. the Court
to the aquatic environment including stated that the right to a balanced and healthful
"dumping/disposal of waste and other marine ecology need not even be written in the
litters, discharge of petroleum or residual products Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and
of petroleum of carbonaceous political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to
materials/substances [and other] radioactive, exist from the inception of mankind and it is an
noxious or harmful liquid, gaseous or solid issue of transcendental importance with
substances, from any water, land or air transport intergenerational implications.41 Even assuming
or other human-made structure." the absence of a categorical legal provision
In the light of the ongoing environmental specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the
degradation, the Court wishes to emphasize the bay, they and the men and women representing
extreme necessity for all concerned executive them cannot escape their obligation to future
departments and agencies to immediately act and generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the
discharge their respective official duties and Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as
obligations. Indeed, time is of the essence; hence, possible. Anything less would be a betrayal of the
there is a need to set timetables for the trust reposed in them.
performance and completion of the tasks, some of WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
them as defined for them by law and the nature of September 28, 2005 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R.
their respective offices and mandates. CV No. 76528 and SP No. 74944 and the
The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea September 13, 2002 Decision of the RTC in Civil
resource, playground, and as a historical landmark Case No. 1851-99 are AFFIRMED but
cannot be over-emphasized. It is not yet too late in with MODIFICATIONS in view of subsequent
the day to restore the Manila Bay to its former developments or supervening events in the case.
splendor and bring back the plants and sea life that The fallo of the RTC Decision shall now read:
once thrived in its blue waters. But the tasks WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
ahead, daunting as they may be, could only be ordering the abovenamed defendant-
accomplished if those mandated, with the help and government agencies to clean up,
cooperation of all civic-minded individuals, would rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and
put their minds to these tasks and take restore and maintain its waters to SB level
responsibility. This means that the State, through (Class B sea waters per Water Classification
petitioners, has to take the lead in the preservation Tables under DENR Administrative Order No.
and protection of the Manila Bay. 34 [1990]) to make them fit for swimming,
The era of delays, procrastination, and ad skin-diving, and other forms of contact
hoc measures is over. Petitioners must transcend recreation.
their limitations, real or imaginary, and buckle In particular:
down to work before the problem at hand becomes (1) Pursuant to Sec. 4 of EO 192, assigning the
unmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that DENR as the primary agency responsible for the
different government agencies and conservation, management, development, and
instrumentalities cannot shirk from their proper use of the country’s environment and
mandates; they must perform their basic functions natural resources, and Sec. 19 of RA 9275,
in cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila Bay. designating the DENR as the primary government
We are disturbed by petitioners’ hiding behind two agency responsible for its enforcement and
untenable claims: (1) that there ought to be a implementation, the DENR is directed to fully
specific pollution incident before they are required implement its Operational Plan for the Manila Bay
to act; and (2) that the cleanup of the bay is a Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation, restoration,
discretionary duty. and conservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest
RA 9003 is a sweeping piece of legislation enacted possible time. It is ordered to call regular
to radically transform and improve waste coordination meetings with concerned
management. It implements Sec. 16, Art. II of the government departments and agencies to ensure
1987 Constitution, which explicitly provides that the successful implementation of the aforesaid
the State shall protect and advance the right of the plan of action in accordance with its indicated
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in completion schedules.
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. (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 other, shall apprehend violators of PD 979, RA
exercising the President’s power of general 8550, and other existing laws and regulations
supervision and its duty to promulgate guidelines designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila
in establishing waste management programs Bay.
under Sec. 43 of the Philippine Environment Code (7) Pursuant to Secs. 2 and 6-c of EO 51346 and
(PD 1152), shall direct all LGUs in Metro Manila, the International Convention for the Prevention of
Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Pollution from Ships, the PPA is ordered to
Bataan to inspect all factories, commercial immediately adopt such measures to prevent the
establishments, and private homes along the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes
banks of the major river systems in their respective and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila
areas of jurisdiction, such as but not limited to the Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and
Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR apprehend the violators.
(Parañaque-Zapote, Las Piñas) Rivers, the (8) The MMDA, as the lead agency and
Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the implementor of programs and projects for flood
Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, control projects and drainage services in Metro
the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, Manila, in coordination with the DPWH, DILG,
the Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, Housing and
waterways that eventually discharge water into the Urban Development Coordinating Council
Manila Bay; and the lands abutting the bay, to (HUDCC), and other agencies, shall dismantle and
determine whether they have wastewater remove all structures, constructions, and other
treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as encroachments established or built in violation of
prescribed by existing laws, ordinances, and rules RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the
and regulations. If none be found, these LGUs shall Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR
be ordered to require non-complying (Parañaque-Zapote, Las Piñas) Rivers, the
establishments and homes to set up said facilities Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and
or septic tanks within a reasonable time to prevent connecting waterways and esteros in Metro
industrial wastes, sewage water, and human Manila. The DPWH, as the principal implementor of
wastes from flowing into these rivers, programs and projects for flood control services in
waterways, esteros, and the Manila Bay, under the rest of the country more particularly in
pain of closure or imposition of fines and other Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna,
sanctions. in coordination with the DILG, affected LGUs, PNP
(3) As mandated by Sec. 8 of RA 9275,43 the MWSS Maritime Group, HUDCC, and other concerned
is directed to provide, install, operate, and government agencies, shall remove and demolish
maintain the necessary adequate waste water all structures, constructions, and other
treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and
Cavite where needed at the earliest possible time. other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-
(4) Pursuant to RA 9275,44 the LWUA, through the Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay
local water districts and in coordination with the (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna
DENR, is ordered to provide, install, operate, and De Bay, and other rivers, connecting waterways,
maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and and esteros that discharge wastewater into the
the efficient and safe collection, treatment, and Manila Bay.
disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna, In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish,
Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan where operate, and maintain a sanitary landfill, as
needed at the earliest possible time. prescribed by RA 9003, within a period of one (1)
(5) Pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 8550,45 the DA, year from finality of this Decision. On matters
through the BFAR, is ordered to improve and within its territorial jurisdiction and in connection
restore the marine life of the Manila Bay. It is also with the discharge of its duties on the
directed to assist the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, maintenance of sanitary landfills and like
Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan in undertakings, it is also ordered to cause the
developing, using recognized methods, the apprehension and filing of the appropriate criminal
fisheries and aquatic resources in the Manila Bay. cases against violators of the respective penal
(6) The PCG, pursuant to Secs. 4 and 6 of PD 979, provisions of RA 9003,47 Sec. 27 of RA 9275 (the
and the PNP Maritime Group, in accordance with Clean Water Act), and other existing laws on
Sec. 124 of RA 8550, in coordination with each 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.