SC to pursue its decision on Manila Bay cleanup
Published Jan 20, 2019 07:16 pm
By Rey Panaligan
The Supreme Court (SC) is set to convene its committee to monitor the implementation of its 2008 decision that directed practically all government agencies, including those in law enforcement, to speed up the cleanup, restoration, and preservation of Manila Bay.
Migratory birds wander in Manila Bay (RIO LEONELLE DELUVIO / MANILA BULLETIN)
Court Administrator and Spokesman Jose Midas P. Marquez said Sunday the convening of the committee would in line with President Duterte’s approval of a seven-year plan to cleanup Manila Bay.
Efforts to rehabilitate Manila Bay will cost the government about P47 billion, which may be sourced out from the road user’s tax upon abolition of the Road Board.
The SC had created an advisory committee to monitor and verify the compliance by government agencies in the Manila Bay cleanup.
The committee is headed by the now retired Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. with Marquez as vice chairman. The other members of the committee at the time of its creation were former Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary Dr. Elisea Gozun, former DENR undersecretary and Dean of the Ateneo School of Government Antonio G.M. La Vina, and former director of the UP Marine Science Institute Dr. Gil Jacinto as members.
Marquez said a new committee chairman may have to be appointed with Velasco’s retirement last August.
Then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno had ordered an inventory of all environment cases pending in the 117 trial courts designated as “green courts” to determine what other judicial measures are needed for their speedy resolution.
Among the laws involving the environment are the Revised Forestry Code (Presidential Decree No. 705), Marine Pollution (PD 979), Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act (Republic Act No. 6969), People’s Small-Scale Mining Act (RA 7076), National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (RA 7586), Philippine Mining Act (RA 7942), Indigenous People’s Rights Act (RA 8371), Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550); Clean Air Act (RA 8749), Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003), National Caves and Cave Resources Management Act (RA 9072), Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act (RA 9147), Chainsaw Act (RA 9175), and Clean Water Act (RA 9275).
"The SC committee on the Manila Bay Cleanup should convene soon in accordance with the earlier Resolution to strengthen the resolve to clean Manila Bay," Marquez said.
"The seven-year rehabilitation plan is good news to the Court because it appears complementary to the continuing mandamus it issued in 2008. The Manila Bay cleanup must really be a concerted effort by all concerned agencies in the three branches of government," he said.
The December 2008 decision on the Manila Bay cleanup was written by Justice Velasco.
The SC emphasized that “in the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the court wishes to emphasize the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments and agencies to immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and obligations.”
It pointed out that “time is of the essence.” “Hence, there is a need to set timetables for the performance and completion of the tasks, some of them as defined for them by law and the nature of their respective offices and mandates,” it stressed.
Directed to undertake immediate action on the Manila Bay problem are the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), DENR, Department of Education (DepEd), Department of Health (DoH), Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Department of Budget and Management ((DBM), the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), the Philippine National Police Maritime Group, Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA).
Led by MMDA, the agencies filed a petition with the SC challenging the 2005 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that sustained the 2002 trial court ruling granting the case filed by the Concerned Residents of Manila Bay in Imus, Cavite.
The residents told the trial court that the government agencies have been negligent in their respective obligations as mandated by Sections 15 and 20 of Presidential Decree No. 1152 of the Philippine Environment Code.
Section 17 of PD 1152 states that “where the quality of water has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage, the government agencies concerned shall take such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribed water quality standards.”
On the other hand, Section 20 of the decree, states that “… it shall be the responsibility of the polluter to contain, remove and clean up water pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the government agencies concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean up operations and expenses incurred in said operations shall be charged against the persons and/or entities responsible for the pollution.”
The CA, in affirming the trial court’s ruling, said: “The decision rendered by the trial court does not require defendants-appellants to do task outside their usual functions. They are merely directed to come up with consolidated and coordinated efforts, each performing its basic functions, in rehabilitating and cleaning-up the waters of Manila Bay .”
In 1993, the SC – in a decision written by retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. – granted the class suit filed by 44 children, through their parents, to stop the deforestation in the country for their generation as well as those generations yet unborn.
The children wanted the DENR to cancel all timber licenses agreement and the desist from issuing new ones as they invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
In granting the right of the children to sue, the SC ruled that “children had the legal standing to file the case based on the concept of ‘intergenerational responsibility,’ as their right to a healthy environment carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations.”
The SC’s ruling on the case of the children became a global landmark decision that has been invoked in several countries.
In the Manila Bay case, the SC ordered full coordination among several government agencies to restore the bay as “a place with a proud historic past, once brimming with marine life and, for so many decades in the in the past, a spot for different contact recreation activities.”
“The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource, playground, and as a historical landmark cannot be over-emphasized. It is not yet too late in the day to restore the Manila Bay to its former splendor and bring back the plants and sea life that once thrived in its blue waters,” the SC said.
But it said “the tasks ahead, daunting as they may be, could only be accomplished if those mandated, with the help and cooperation of all civic-minded individuals, would put their minds to these tasks and take responsibility. This means that the State, through petitioners, has to take the lead in the preservation and protection of the Manila Bay.”
The decision spelled out the participation and coordination of these various government agencies, namely:
1. The DENR to fully implement its “Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy” for the rehabilitation, restoration, and conservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest possible time and to call regular coordination meetings with concerned government departments and agencies to ensure the successful implementation of the aforesaid plan of action in accordance with its indicated completion schedules.
2. The DILG to direct all local government units (LGUs) in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all factories, commercial establishments, and private homes along the banks of the major river systems in their respective areas of jurisdiction, such as but not limited to the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and waterways that eventually discharge water into the Manila Bay; and the lands abutting the bay, to determine whether they have wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed by existing laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations. If none be found, these LGUs shall be ordered to require non-complying establishments and homes to set up said facilities or septic tanks within a reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes, sewage water, and human wastes from flowing into these rivers, waterways, esteros, and the Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of fines and other sanctions.
3. The MWSS to provide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary adequate waste water treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite where needed at the earliest possible time.
4. The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), through the local water districts and in coordination with the DENR, is ordered to provide, install, operate, and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan were needed at the earliest possible time.
5. The DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resource (BFAR), improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay and to assist the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan in developing, using recognized methods, the fisheries and aquatic resources in the Manila Bay.
6. The PCG and the PNP Maritime Group to coordinate in apprehending violators of PD 979, RA 8550, and other existing laws and regulations designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.
7. The PPA to immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators.
8. The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs and projects for flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila, to dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Parañaque-Zapote, Las Piñas) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. Also to establish, operate, and maintain a sanitary landfill within a period of one year from finality of this Decision. It is also ordered to cause the apprehension and filing of the appropriate criminal cases against violators of the respective penal provisions of Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003), sec. 27 of RA 9275 (the Clean Water Act), and other existing laws on pollution.
9. The DPWH, as the principal implementor of programs and projects for flood control services in the rest of the country more particularly in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, to remove and demolish all structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other rivers, connecting waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay;
10. The DoH, within one year from finality of this Decision, to 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 was further directed to 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.
11. The DepED to 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.
12. The DBM to 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.
13. And 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”, from finality of this Decision, to each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken in accordance with this Decision.
The SC said: “It thus behooves the Court to put the heads of the petitioner-department-agencies and the bureaus and offices under them on continuing notice about, and to enjoin them to perform, their mandates and duties towards cleaning up the Manila Bay and preserving the quality of its water to the ideal level. Under what other judicial discipline describes as ‘continuing mandamus: 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.”
Migratory birds wander in Manila Bay (RIO LEONELLE DELUVIO / MANILA BULLETIN)
Court Administrator and Spokesman Jose Midas P. Marquez said Sunday the convening of the committee would in line with President Duterte’s approval of a seven-year plan to cleanup Manila Bay.
Efforts to rehabilitate Manila Bay will cost the government about P47 billion, which may be sourced out from the road user’s tax upon abolition of the Road Board.
The SC had created an advisory committee to monitor and verify the compliance by government agencies in the Manila Bay cleanup.
The committee is headed by the now retired Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. with Marquez as vice chairman. The other members of the committee at the time of its creation were former Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary Dr. Elisea Gozun, former DENR undersecretary and Dean of the Ateneo School of Government Antonio G.M. La Vina, and former director of the UP Marine Science Institute Dr. Gil Jacinto as members.
Marquez said a new committee chairman may have to be appointed with Velasco’s retirement last August.
Then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno had ordered an inventory of all environment cases pending in the 117 trial courts designated as “green courts” to determine what other judicial measures are needed for their speedy resolution.
Among the laws involving the environment are the Revised Forestry Code (Presidential Decree No. 705), Marine Pollution (PD 979), Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act (Republic Act No. 6969), People’s Small-Scale Mining Act (RA 7076), National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (RA 7586), Philippine Mining Act (RA 7942), Indigenous People’s Rights Act (RA 8371), Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550); Clean Air Act (RA 8749), Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003), National Caves and Cave Resources Management Act (RA 9072), Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act (RA 9147), Chainsaw Act (RA 9175), and Clean Water Act (RA 9275).
"The SC committee on the Manila Bay Cleanup should convene soon in accordance with the earlier Resolution to strengthen the resolve to clean Manila Bay," Marquez said.
"The seven-year rehabilitation plan is good news to the Court because it appears complementary to the continuing mandamus it issued in 2008. The Manila Bay cleanup must really be a concerted effort by all concerned agencies in the three branches of government," he said.
The December 2008 decision on the Manila Bay cleanup was written by Justice Velasco.
The SC emphasized that “in the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the court wishes to emphasize the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments and agencies to immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and obligations.”
It pointed out that “time is of the essence.” “Hence, there is a need to set timetables for the performance and completion of the tasks, some of them as defined for them by law and the nature of their respective offices and mandates,” it stressed.
Directed to undertake immediate action on the Manila Bay problem are the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), DENR, Department of Education (DepEd), Department of Health (DoH), Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Department of Budget and Management ((DBM), the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), the Philippine National Police Maritime Group, Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA).
Led by MMDA, the agencies filed a petition with the SC challenging the 2005 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that sustained the 2002 trial court ruling granting the case filed by the Concerned Residents of Manila Bay in Imus, Cavite.
The residents told the trial court that the government agencies have been negligent in their respective obligations as mandated by Sections 15 and 20 of Presidential Decree No. 1152 of the Philippine Environment Code.
Section 17 of PD 1152 states that “where the quality of water has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage, the government agencies concerned shall take such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribed water quality standards.”
On the other hand, Section 20 of the decree, states that “… it shall be the responsibility of the polluter to contain, remove and clean up water pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the government agencies concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean up operations and expenses incurred in said operations shall be charged against the persons and/or entities responsible for the pollution.”
The CA, in affirming the trial court’s ruling, said: “The decision rendered by the trial court does not require defendants-appellants to do task outside their usual functions. They are merely directed to come up with consolidated and coordinated efforts, each performing its basic functions, in rehabilitating and cleaning-up the waters of Manila Bay .”
In 1993, the SC – in a decision written by retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. – granted the class suit filed by 44 children, through their parents, to stop the deforestation in the country for their generation as well as those generations yet unborn.
The children wanted the DENR to cancel all timber licenses agreement and the desist from issuing new ones as they invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
In granting the right of the children to sue, the SC ruled that “children had the legal standing to file the case based on the concept of ‘intergenerational responsibility,’ as their right to a healthy environment carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations.”
The SC’s ruling on the case of the children became a global landmark decision that has been invoked in several countries.
In the Manila Bay case, the SC ordered full coordination among several government agencies to restore the bay as “a place with a proud historic past, once brimming with marine life and, for so many decades in the in the past, a spot for different contact recreation activities.”
“The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource, playground, and as a historical landmark cannot be over-emphasized. It is not yet too late in the day to restore the Manila Bay to its former splendor and bring back the plants and sea life that once thrived in its blue waters,” the SC said.
But it said “the tasks ahead, daunting as they may be, could only be accomplished if those mandated, with the help and cooperation of all civic-minded individuals, would put their minds to these tasks and take responsibility. This means that the State, through petitioners, has to take the lead in the preservation and protection of the Manila Bay.”
The decision spelled out the participation and coordination of these various government agencies, namely:
1. The DENR to fully implement its “Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy” for the rehabilitation, restoration, and conservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest possible time and to call regular coordination meetings with concerned government departments and agencies to ensure the successful implementation of the aforesaid plan of action in accordance with its indicated completion schedules.
2. The DILG to direct all local government units (LGUs) in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all factories, commercial establishments, and private homes along the banks of the major river systems in their respective areas of jurisdiction, such as but not limited to the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and waterways that eventually discharge water into the Manila Bay; and the lands abutting the bay, to determine whether they have wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed by existing laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations. If none be found, these LGUs shall be ordered to require non-complying establishments and homes to set up said facilities or septic tanks within a reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes, sewage water, and human wastes from flowing into these rivers, waterways, esteros, and the Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of fines and other sanctions.
3. The MWSS to provide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary adequate waste water treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite where needed at the earliest possible time.
4. The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), through the local water districts and in coordination with the DENR, is ordered to provide, install, operate, and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan were needed at the earliest possible time.
5. The DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resource (BFAR), improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay and to assist the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan in developing, using recognized methods, the fisheries and aquatic resources in the Manila Bay.
6. The PCG and the PNP Maritime Group to coordinate in apprehending violators of PD 979, RA 8550, and other existing laws and regulations designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.
7. The PPA to immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators.
8. The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs and projects for flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila, to dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Parañaque-Zapote, Las Piñas) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. Also to establish, operate, and maintain a sanitary landfill within a period of one year from finality of this Decision. It is also ordered to cause the apprehension and filing of the appropriate criminal cases against violators of the respective penal provisions of Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003), sec. 27 of RA 9275 (the Clean Water Act), and other existing laws on pollution.
9. The DPWH, as the principal implementor of programs and projects for flood control services in the rest of the country more particularly in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, to remove and demolish all structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other rivers, connecting waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay;
10. The DoH, within one year from finality of this Decision, to 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 was further directed to 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.
11. The DepED to 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.
12. The DBM to 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.
13. And 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”, from finality of this Decision, to each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken in accordance with this Decision.
The SC said: “It thus behooves the Court to put the heads of the petitioner-department-agencies and the bureaus and offices under them on continuing notice about, and to enjoin them to perform, their mandates and duties towards cleaning up the Manila Bay and preserving the quality of its water to the ideal level. Under what other judicial discipline describes as ‘continuing mandamus: 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.”