Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, et al. v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

TOPICS: Environmental laws governing various government agencies; Writ of Continuing Mandamus

FACTS:

Respondents Concern Citizens of Manila Bay filed a complaint against several government agencies 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. 

The RTC ordered petitioners to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and the CA sustained the RTC Decision. 

The petitioners argued that, under Section 20 of PD 1152, they have to perform cleanup operations in the Manila Bay only when there is a water pollution incident and the erring polluters do not undertake the containment, removal, and cleanup operations and that the cleaning or rehabilitation of Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which is subject to a mandamus. 

ISSUE:

I. WON the Section 20 of PD 1152 relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents 

II. WON the cleaning or rehabilitation of Manila Bay is a ministerial act that cannot be compelled by mandamus. 

RULING:

I.

No, Section 20 of PD 1152 should be read in complementary with Section 17 of PD 1152 which covers cleaning in general and not to specific pollution incidents only. 

Sec. 20 of the Environment Code, as couched, indicates that it is properly applicable to a specific situation in which the pollution is caused by polluters who fail to clean up the mess they left behind. In such instance, the concerned government agencies shall undertake the cleanup work for the polluters' account. However, the Petitioners cannot invoke and hide behind Section 20.

Section 17 of of PD 1152 or the Environment Code does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Section 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a specific pollution incident, as long as water quality "has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage". This section, to stress, commands concerned government agencies, when appropriate, "to take such measures as may be necessary to meet the prescribed water quality standards". In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.

II.

Yes, the cleaning or rehabilitation of Manila Bay is a ministerial act that can compelled by a mandamus. 

A writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty. The enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature. 

In this case, the Court ruled that the petitioners' obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDA's mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus.

Therefore, cleaning or rehabilitation of Manila Bay is a ministerial act of the government agencies which is subject to a mandamus.

--------------------- 

DISCUSSIONS:

Under what other judicial discipline describes as "continuing mandamus," the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference. In India, the doctrine of continuing mandamus was used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the length of the Ganges River from industrial and municipal pollution.

Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. In the case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed to the men and women representing the future generations of Filipinos.

[1] Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA)

RA 7924 or the law creating the MMDA

• Section 3 - provides for the waste disposal services of MMDA. 

RA 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act)

• Section 41 - prescribes the minimum criteria for the establishment of sanitary landfills
• Section 42 - provides the minimum operating requirements that each site operator shall maintain in the operation of a sanitary landfill.
• Section 36 and 37 - enjoining MMDA and LGUs, among others, from using and operating open dumps for solid waste and disallowing, 5 years after effectivity of RA 9003, the use of controlled dumps. 
• Section 48, Chapter VI - (prohibited acts - dumping of waste matters in public places, such as roads, canals or esteros, open burning of solid waste, squatting in open dumps and landfills, open dumping, burying of biodegradable or nonbiodegradable materials in flood-prone areas, establishment or operation of open dumps, and operation of waste management facilities without an environmental compliance certificate.

PD 1152 (Philippine Environmental Code) outlines MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal. 

RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992)

• Section 28 - the MMDA, as lead agency, in coordination with the DPWH, LGUs, and concerned agencies, may cause the eviction or demolition of persons or entities who occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks and playgrounds.

[2] Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

EO 192 - DENR is the primary agency responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the country's environment and natural resources

RA 9275 (Clean Water Act of 2004)

Section 19 - designates the DENR as the primary government agency responsible for the enforcement and implementation, more particularly over all aspects of water quality management. It also confers the DENR a jurisdiction over all aspects of water pollution and to determine its location, magnitude, extent, severity, causes and effects and other pertinent information on pollution, and [takes] measures, using available methods and technologies, to prevent and abate such pollution. It also instructed DENR to prepare a National Water Quality Status Report, an Integrated Water Quality Management Framework, and a 10-year Water Quality Management Area Action Plan which is nationwide in scope covering the Manila Bay and adjoining areas

[3] Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA)

PD 198 (Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973)- grants LWUA the power of supervision and control over local water districts. It can prescribe the minimum standards and regulations for the operations of these districts and shall monitor and evaluate local water standards. The LWUA can direct these districts to construct, operate, and furnish facilities and services for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewerage, waste, and storm water.

RA 9275 (Clean Water Act of 2004)- the LWUA, as attached agency of DPWH, is tasked with providing sewerage and sanitation facilities, inclusive of the setting up of efficient and safe collection, treatment, and sewage disposal system in the different parts of the county.   

[4] Department of Agriculture (DA)

EO 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) - DA is tasked to promulgate and enforce all laws and issuances respecting the conservation and proper utilization of agricultural and fishery resources. 

RA 8550 (Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998) - DA, in coordination with LGUs and other concerned sectors, is in charge of establishing a monitoring, control, and surveillance system to ensure that fisheries and aquatic resources in Philippine waters are judiciously utilized and managed on a sustainable basis. 

RA 9275 (Clean Water Act of 2004)

• Sectin 22 [c] - The BFAR shall be responsible for the prevention and control of water pollution for the development, management, and conservation of the fisheries and aquatic resources. 

[5] Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)

EO 292 (Administrative Code of 1987)- DPWH is tasked to provide integrated planning, design, and construction services for, among others, flood control and water resource development systems in accordance with national development objectives and approved government plans and specifications.

[6] Philippine Coast Guard (PCG)

PD 601 (Revised Cost Guard Law of 1974)

• Section 5  and Section 6 - PCG shall have the primary responsibility of enforcing laws, rules, and regulations governing marine pollution within the territorial waters of the Philippines. 

[7] Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)

RA 6975 (DILG Act of 1990) - PNP Maritime Group was tasked to perform all police functions over the Philippine territorial waters and rivers. 

• Section 86 - the police functions of the PCG shall be taken over by the PNP when the latter acquires the capability to perform such functions.

RA 8550 (Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998)

• Sec. 124 - both the PCG and PNP Maritime Group were authorized to enforce said law and other fishery laws, rules, and regulations.

[8] Philippine Port Authority (PPA)

EO 513  

• Section 2 - PPA is mandated "to establish, develop, regulate, manage and operate a rationalized national port system in support of trade and national development."
• Sec. 6-c - PPA has the police authority within the ports administered by it to carry out its powers and functions, without prejudice to the functions of the Bureau of Customs. It has the power to regulate the entry to, exit from, and movement within the port, of persons and vehicles, as well as movement within the port or watercraft

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

[9] Department of Health (DOH)

PD 1067 (Water Code)

• Article 76 - DOH is tasked to promulgate rules and regulations for the establishment of waste disposal areas that affect the source of a water supply or a reservoir for domestic or municipal use.
• Article 51 - (though not the task of DOH, but under the same law) - it is prohibited to build structures within a given length along banks of rivers and other waterways: The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3) meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their margins, are subject to the easement of public use in the interest of recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage or to build structures of any kind . 

RA 9275 (Clean Water Act of 2004)

• Section 8 - DOH, in coordination with the DENR, DPWH, and other concerned agencies, shall formulate guidelines and standards for the collection treatment, and disposal of sewage and the establishment and operation of a centralized sewage treatment system.

PD 856 (Code of Sanitation of the Philippines)

• Section 72 and Section 5.1.1 of Chapter XVII - the DOH is ordered to ensure the regulation and monitoring of the proper disposal of wastes by private sludge companies through the strict enforcement of the requirement to obtain an environmental sanitation clearance of sludge collection treatment and disposal before these companies are issued their environmental sanitation permit.

[10] Department of Education (DepEd)

PD 1152 (Philippine Environmental Code) - DepEd is mandated to integrate subjects on environmental education in its school curricula at all levels.

RA 8550 (Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998)

• Section 118 - the DepEd, in collaboration with the DA, CHED, and PIA, shall launch and pursue a nationwide educational campaign to promote the development, management, conservation, and proper use of the environment.

[11] Department of Budget and Management (DBM)

EO 292 (Administrative Code of 1987)

• Section 2 - DBM should ensure the efficient and sound utilization of government funds and revenues so as to effectively achieve the country's development objectives.

RA 9275 (Clean Water Act of 2004) - the State shall pursue a policy of economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection, preservation, and revival of the quality of our fresh, brackish, and marine waters. It also provides that it is the policy of the government, among others, to streamline processes and procedures in the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution mechanisms for the protection of water resources; to promote environmental strategies and use of appropriate economic instruments and of control mechanisms for the protection of water resources; to formulate a holistic national program of water quality management that recognizes that issues related to this management cannot be separated from concerns about water sources and ecological protection, water supply, public health, and quality of life; and to provide a comprehensive management program for water pollution focusing on pollution prevention.

Daza v. Singson

TOPICS: Political Question and Justiciable Question; Proportional representation from the political parties to the Commission on Appointments 

FACTS:

Petitioner Daza was a representative of the Liberal Party in the Commission on Appointments. When the 24 members of the Liberal Party resigned and joined the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), the members of LDP increased to 159, while the Liberal Party was left with 17 members. 

In effect, the HoR revised its representation in the Commission on Appointment by withdrawing the seat occupied by Daza and gave it to Luis Singson from the newly-formed LDP. 

Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the 12 members of the HoR in the Commission on Appointment shall be elected on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties. 

Daza argued that the reorganization of the House representation in the Commission on Appointment is not based on a permanent political realignment as the LDP is not a duly registered political party and has not yet attained political stability. 

Singson also argued that the question raised was political in nature, that is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Further, Singson argued that the transfer of the 24 members to the LDP was permanent. 

ISSUE:

I. WON the issue is a political question.

II. WON the Constitution contemplates that the members from the Commission on Appointments should come from a political party that has “aged” enough

III. WON the HoR can change its representation in the Commission on Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its membership. 

RULING:

I.

No, the issue involves a justiciable question.  

Under the law, a justiciable question is one that involves the legality and not the wisdom of an act complained of. 

In this case, the question involves the manner of filling the Commission on Appointment as prescribed by the Constitution. Assuming arguendo that it was a political question, it is still within the power of review of the Court under the expanded jurisdiction in Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.

Therefore, the SC acquires jurisdiction over the case. 

II.

No. The requirement that a political party should pass the test of time to prove its permanence is not acceptable.

The Liberal Party, a faction from the Nacionalista Party, was created in 1945 to support Manuel Roxas’s bid for the Presidency. It was 4 months old then but no question was raised as to its representation in the Commission on Appointments and in the Electoral Tribunal. It was the majority party in both chambers of the Congress.

In this case, the LDP has been in existence for more than 1 year. 

Therefore, the Constitution does not contemplate that a political party should pass the test of time to prove its permanence as basis for its representation in the Commission on Appointment. 

III.

Yes, the HoR has the authority to change its representation in the Commission on Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its membership.

It is understood that such changes must be [1] permanent and do not include the temporary alliances or factional divisions not involving severance of political loyalties or [2] formal disaffiliation and [3] permanent shifts of allegiance from one political party to another. 

The Court would have preferred not to intervene on the matter, leaving it to be settled by the HoR or the Commission on Appointment as the bodies directly involved. 

Therefore, Respondent Singson has been validly elected as a member of the Commission on Appointments and entitled to assume his seat pursuant to Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution. 

------------------------- 

DISCUSSIONS:

Political Question is a question of policy or those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government. 

The parties invoked the case of Cunanan v. Tan, which provides the following:

In the 1961 election of the HoR, 72 seats were won by the Nacionalista Party; 29 by the Liberal Party; and 1 by an independent. The representation in the Commission on Appointments are as follows: 8 from Nacionalista and 4 from the Liberal Party. 

Subsequently, 25 members of the Nacionalista Party joined with the Liberal Party under an Allied Majority and installed a new Speaker and reorganized the House. As a result, 3 from the Nacionalista Party in the Commission on Appointments were replaced by 3 of their colleagues who joined the Allied Majority.

Carlos Cunanan, the Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration was rejected by the Commission on Appointments and instead, designated Jorge Tan, Jr. Cunanan then contended that the rejection of his appointment was void because the Commission on Appointments itself was invalidly constituted.

The Court ruled the reorganization of the Commission on Appointments was invalid because it was not based on the proportional representation of the political parties in the HoR. The Allied Majority does not suffice to authorize the reorganization of the Commission on Appointments. It was a merely temporary combination as the Nacionalista Party defectors had not disaffiliated from their party. Officially, they were still members of the Nacionalista Party. 

Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs

TOPIC: If a non-governmental function or proprietary act is undertaken as an incident to its governmental function, there is no waiver thereby of the sovereign immunity from suit extended to such government entity.

FACTS:

Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc., filed a suit against the Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of Customs to recover the value of the undelivered case of rotary drill parts amounting to over 18K. 

The lower court dismissed the complaint as neither the Customs Arrastre Service nor the Bureau of Customs is suable. 

The Plaintiff argued that not all government entities are immune from suit especially when government entities are discharging proprietary functions such as engaging in arrastre service.  

ISSUE:

WON the Customs Arrastre Service of the Bureau of Customs is immune from suit.

RULING:

Yes. 

If a proprietary function is undertaken as an incident to its governmental function, there is no waiver thereby of the sovereign immunity from suit extended to such government entity. 

In this case, the Bureau of Customs is part of the Department of Finance. Its primary function is governmental, that is, assessing and collecting lawful revenues from imported articles and all other tariff and customs duties, fees, charges, fines and penalties. The arrastre function may be deemed proprietary, but it is a necessary incident of the primary and governmental function of the Bureau of Customs. Hence, engaging in the arraste service does not necessarily render said Bureau liable to suit.

Therefore, the Bureau of Customs, acting as part of the machinery of the national government in the operation of the arrastre service, pursuant to express legislative mandate and as a necessary incident of its prime governmental function, is immune from suit, there being no statute to the contrary.

------------------------ 

DISCUSSION:

Why is arrastre service deemed as an incident to the governmental function of the Bureau of Customs?

For practical reasons said revenues and customs duties can not be assessed and collected by simply receiving the importer's or ship agent's or consignee's declaration of merchandise being imported and imposing the duty provided in the Tariff law. Customs authorities and officers must see to it that the declaration tallies with the merchandise actually landed. And this checking up requires that the landed merchandise be hauled from the ship's side to a suitable place in the customs premises to enable said customs officers to make it, that is, it requires arrastre operation.

What should be done by the Plaintiff?

Plaintiff should have filed its present claim with the General Auditing Office, it being for money, under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 327, which state the conditions under which money claims against the Government may be filed.

Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands

TOPIC: An act permitting a suit against the state gives rise to no liability unless it is clearly expressed in the act. 

FACTS:

Plaintiff Meritt figured out a collision against the ambulance of the General Hospital which made him severely injured. He was awarded the amount of P14,741. 

The plaintiff requested to increase the amount of damages as he was wholly incapacitated for six months. It was an error to restrict the damages to a shorter period during which he was confined in the hospital.

Under Act. No. 2457, it was acknowledged that the claim has been filed against the Government of the Philippine Islands by Mr. E. Merritt, of Manila, for damages resulting from a collision between his motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital. 

ISSUE:

WON the act also concedes the states liability to the plaintiff.

RULING:

No.

An act permitting a suit against the state gives rise to no liability. The state is not liable for the torts committed by its officers or agents whom it employs, except when expressly made so by legislative enactment. 

Act. No. 2457 does not operate to extend the Government's liability to any cause not previously recognized. In reference to Article 1903 of the Civil Code, the responsibility of the state is limited only to acts through a special agent. The chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Hospital was not such an agent.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot hold the state liable absence of an express legislative enactment appropriating sufficient funds therefor. [The matter rests solely with the legislature and not with the courts].

Republic v. Feliciano

TOPICS: Waiver of state immunity can only be made by an act of the legislative body; Waiver of immunity should be strictly construed against the state. 

FACTS:

Feliciano filed a complaint against the Republic for the recovery of ownership and possession of a parcels of land which were reserved for settlement purposes under the administration of the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) per Proclamation No. 90.

The intervenors filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Republic cannot be sued without its consent 

ISSUE:

WON the government has waived its immunity from suit.  

RULING:

No.

Waiver of state immunity can only be made by an act of the legislative body. Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly, but must be construed in strictissimi juris.

In this case, Proclamation No. 90 can not be construed as a waiver of the immunity of the State from suit. A Proclamation is not a legislative act. Hence, the state has not given its consent to be sued. 

Therefore, there was no consent given by the state for it be liable. [the complaint was dismissed as the possessory information under the Spanish Mortgage Law he presented cannot establish proof of ownership or exclusion of the land in the NARRA].