METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY
FACTS:
Respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a
complaint before the RTC in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies,
among them the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of
the Manila Bay.
The complaint alleged that the water quality of the
Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law,
specifically PD.. 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code.
The RTC Ordered
Petitioners to Clean Up and Rehabilitate Manila Bay.
The DENR, DPWH, Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority (MMDA), Philippine Coast Guard , PNP Maritime Group, and five other
executive departments and agencies filed directly with this Court a petition
for review under Rule 45.
Petitioners, before the CA, were one in arguing in the
main that the pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate
only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning
in general. And apart from raising concerns about the lack of funds
appropriated for cleaning purposes, petitioners also asserted that the cleaning
of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.
The CA sustained the ruling of RTC and denied
petitioners appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto, stressing that
the trial courts decision did not require petitioners to do tasks outside of
their usual basic functions under existing laws.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners can be compelled by
mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay.
RULING:
Yes. The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can
be Compelled by Mandamus.
Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the
execution of a ministerial duty. A ministerial duty is one that requires
neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment. It connotes an act in
which nothing is left to the discretion of the person executing it. It is a
simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist and
imposed by law. Mandamus is available to
compel action, when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct
the exercise of judgment or discretion one way or the other.
First off, we wish to state that petitioners
obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand, and how they
are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two different concepts. While
the implementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks may entail a decision-making
process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law
exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus.
The MMDA’s duty in the
area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted, is set forth not only in the
Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter as well. This duty
of putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be characterized as
discretionary, for, as earlier stated, discretion presupposes the power or
right given by law to public functionaries to act officially according to their
judgment or conscience.
A discretionary duty is
one that allows a person to exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to
perform. Any suggestion that the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform
its solid waste disposal-related duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal
basis.
A perusal of other
petitioners respective charters or like enabling statutes and pertinent laws
would yield this conclusion: these government agencies are enjoined, as a
matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions relating directly
or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of
the Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these duties.
No comments:
Post a Comment