SCRA FULL MMDA vs. Concerned

7/9/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 643

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e71da662c4cc568ec000a0094004f00ee/p/AMF518/?username=Guest 1/62

G.R. Nos. 17194748. February 15, 2011.*

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT ANDNATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OFEDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS,1 DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS,DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT,PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE NATIONALPOLICE MARITIME GROUP, and DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,petitioners, vs. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILABAY, represented and joined by DIVINA V. ILAS,SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL SANTOS, JR.,DINAH DELA PEÑA, PAUL DENNIS QUINTERO, MA.VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA CALOZA, FATIMAQUITAIN, VENICE SEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA,SARAH JOELLE LINTAG, HANNIBAL AUGUSTUSBOBIS, FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, and JAIME AGUSTINR. OPOSA, respondents.

_______________

* EN BANC.1 Now the Department of Education (DepEd).

91

, FEBRUARY 15, 2011 91Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. Concerned

Residents of Manila Bay

Courts; Separation of Powers; Mandamus; The issuance ofsubsequent resolutions by the Court setting time frames be set forthe executive agencies to perform their assigned tasks pursuant toearlier decision of the Court is simply an exercise of judicial power

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e71da662c4cc568ec000a0094004f00ee/p/AMF518/?username=Jeric#body_ftn2




under Art. VIII of the Constitution, because the execution of theDecision is but an integral part of the adjudicative function of theCourt, not an encroachment by the Court over executive powersand functions.—The case is now in the execution phase of thefinal and executory December 18, 2008 Decision. The Manila BayAdvisory Committee was created to receive and evaluate thequarterly progressive reports on the activities undertaken by theagencies in accordance with said decision and to monitor theexecution phase. In the absence of specific completion periods, theCommittee recommended that time frames be set for the agenciesto perform their assigned tasks. This may be viewed as anencroachment over the powers and functions of the ExecutiveBranch headed by the President of the Philippines. This view ismisplaced. The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the Court issimply an exercise of judicial power under Art. VIII of theConstitution, because the execution of the Decision is but anintegral part of the adjudicative function of the Court. None of theagencies ever questioned the power of the Court to implement theDecember 18, 2008 Decision nor has any of them raised thealleged encroachment by the Court over executive functions.While additional activities are required of the agencies likesubmission of plans of action, data or status reports, thesedirectives are but part and parcel of the execution stage of a finaldecision under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Same; Same; Same; With the final and executory judgment inMetropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), the writ ofcontinuing mandamus issued in MMDA means that untilpetitioneragencies have shown full compliance with the Court’sorders, the Court exercises continuing jurisdiction over them untilfull execution of the judgment.—The submission of periodicreports is sanctioned by Secs. 7 and 8, Rule 8 of the Rules ofProcedure for Environmental cases: Sec. 7. Judgment.––Ifwarranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ ofcontinuing mandamus requiring respondent to perform an act orseries of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied and to grantsuch other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from thewrongful or illegal acts of the respondent. The court shallrequire the respondent to submit periodic reportsdetailing

92

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. Concerned




the progress and execution of the judgment, and the courtmay, by itself or through a commissioner or theappropriate government agency, evaluate and monitorcompliance. The petitioner may submit its comments orobservations on the execution of the judgment. Sec. 8. Return ofthe writ.—The periodic reports submitted by the respondentdetailing compliance with the judgment shall be contained inpartial returns of the writ. Upon full satisfaction of the judgment,a final return of the writ shall be made to the court by therespondent. If the court finds that the judgment has been fullyimplemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in thecourt docket. (Emphasis supplied.) With the final and executoryjudgment in MMDA, the writ of continuing mandamus issued inMMDA means that until petitioneragencies have shown fullcompliance with the Court’s orders, the Court exercisescontinuing jurisdiction over them until full execution of thejudgment.

CARPIO, J., Dissenting Opinion:

Courts; Separation of Powers; The Court’s Resolutionconstitutes an intrusion of the Judiciary into the exclusive domainof the Executive—in the guise of implementing the 18 December2008 Decision through the Resolution, the Court is in effectsupervising and directing the different government agencies andLocal Government Units (LGUs) concerned.—What is the purposeof requiring these agencies to submit to the Court their plans ofaction and status reports? Are these plans to be approved ordisapproved by the Court? The Court does not have thecompetence or even the jurisdiction to evaluate these plans whichinvolves technical matters best left to the expertise of theconcerned agencies. The Resolution also requires that theconcerned agencies shall “submit [to the Court] theirquarterly reports electronically x x x.” Thus, the directive forthe concerned agencies to submit to the Court their quarterlyreports is a continuing obligation which extends even beyond theyear 2011. The Court is now arrogating unto itself twoconstitutional powers exclusively vested in the President. First,the Constitution provides that “executive power shall bevested in the President.” This means that neither the Judiciarynor the Legislature can exercise executive power for executivepower is the exclusive domain of the President. Second, theConstitution provides that the President shall “have control ofall the executive departments, bureaus, and offices.”



Neither the Judiciary nor the Legislature can exercise

93

, FEBRUARY 15, 2011 93

Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. ConcernedResidents of Manila Bay

control or even supervision over executive departments, bureaus,and offices. Clearly, the Resolution constitutes an intrusion of theJudiciary into the exclusive domain of the Executive. In the guiseof implementing the 18 December 2008 Decision through theResolution, the Court is in effect supervising and directing thedifferent government agencies and LGUs concerned.

Same; Same; In this case, the directives in the Resolution areadministrative in nature and circumvent the constitutionalprovision which prohibits Supreme Court members fromperforming quasijudicial or administrative functions.—Likewise,in this case, the directives in the Resolution are administrative innature and circumvent the constitutional provision whichprohibits Supreme Court members from performing quasijudicialor administrative functions. Section 12, Article VIII of the 1987Constitution provides: SEC. 12. The members of the SupremeCourt and of other courts established by law shall not bedesignated to any agency performing quasijudicial oradministrative functions. Thus, in the case of In Re: Designationof Judge Manzano as Member of the Ilocos Norte ProvincialCommittee on Justice, 166 SCRA 246 (1988), the Courtinvalidated the designation of a judge as member of the IlocosNorte Provincial Committee on Justice, which was tasked toreceive complaints and to make recommendations for the speedydisposition of cases of detainees. The Court held that thecommittee performs administrative functions which areprohibited under Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution. Asearly as the 1932 case of Manila Electric Co. v. PasayTransportation Co., this Court has already emphasized that theSupreme Court should only exercise judicial power and should notassume any duty which does not pertain to the administering ofjudicial functions.

Same; Same; The Court is in effect ordering Local GovernmentUnits (LGUs) officials how to do their job and even gives adeadline for their compliance—again, this is a usurpation of thepower of the President to supervise LGUs under the Constitution



and existing laws.—The Resolution orders some LGU officials toinspect the establishments and houses along major river banksand to “take appropriate action to ensure compliance bynoncomplying factories, commercial establishments andprivate homes with said law, rules and regulationsrequiring the construction or installment of wastewatertreatment facilities or hygienic

94



septic tanks.” The LGU officials are also directed to “submit tothe DILG on or before December 31, 2011 their respectivecompliance reports which shall contain the names and addressesor offices of the owners of all the noncomplying factories,commercial establishments and private homes.” Furthermore, theResolution mandates that on or before 30 June 2011, the DILGand the mayors of all cities in Metro Manila should “considerproviding land for the wastewater facilities of the MetropolitanWaterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) or its concessionaires(Maynilad and Manila Water Inc.) within their respectivejurisdictions.” The Court is in effect ordering these LGUofficials how to do their job and even gives a deadline fortheir compliance. Again, this is a usurpation of the power of thePresident to supervise LGUs under the Constitution and existinglaws.

Same; Same; The Court’s Resolution constitutes judicialoverreach by usurping and performing executive functions.—TheResolution constitutes judicial overreach by usurping andperforming executive functions. The Court must refrain fromoverstepping its boundaries by taking over the functions of anequal branch of the government—the Executive. The Court shouldabstain from exercising any function which is not strictly judicialin character and is not clearly conferred on it by the Constitution.Indeed, as stated by Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Noblejas v.Teehankee, 23 SCRA 405 (1968), “the Supreme Court of thePhilippines and its members should not and can not be requiredto exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume anyduty not pertaining to or connected with the administration ofjudicial functions.” The directives in the Resolution constitute ajudicial encroachment of an executive function which clearly



violates the system of separation of powers that inheres in ourdemocratic republican government. The principle of separation ofpowers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branchesof government is part of the basic structure of the PhilippineConstitution.

SERENO, J., Dissenting Opinion:

Courts; Separation of Powers; I find these directives in theMajority Resolution patently irreconcilable with basicconstitutional doctrines and with the legislative mechanismsalready in place, such as the Administrative Code and the LocalGovernment Code, which

95

, FEBRUARY 15, 2011 95


explicitly grant control and supervision over these agencies to thePresident alone, and to no one else.—On 18 December 2008, theCourt promulgated its decision in MMDA v. Concerned Residentsof Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 17194748, denying the petition of thegovernment agencies, defendants in Civil Case No. 185199. Itheld that the Court of Appeals, subject to some modifications, wascorrect in affirming the 13 September 2002 Decision of theRegional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 185199. It ordered “theabovenamed defendantgovernment agencies to clean up,rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and maintainits waters to SB level (Class B sea waters per Water ClassificationTables under DENR Administrative Order No. 34 [1990]) to makethem fit for swimming, skindiving, and other forms of contactrecreation.” The Court further issued each of the aforementionedagencies specific orders to comply with their statutory mandate.Pursuant to the judgment above, the Court established its ownManila Bay Advisory Committee. Upon the recommendations ofthe said Committee, the present Resolution was issued. Itencompasses several of the specific instructions laid out by thecourt in the original case, but also goes further by requiringreports and updates from the said government agencies, andsetting deadlines for the submission thereof. I find thesedirectives in the Majority Resolution patently irreconcilable withbasic constitutional doctrines and with the legislativemechanisms already in place, such as the Administrative Code



and the Local Government Code, which explicitly grant controland supervision over these agencies to the President alone, and tono one else. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from theMajority Resolution.

Same; Same; The act of the Court giving very specificinstructions to the petitioner agencies to report the progress andstatus of their operations directly to the latter, as well in requiringthem to apprise it of any noncompliance with the standards setforth by different laws as to environment protection, is tantamountto making these agencies accountable to the Court instead of thePresident.—To herein petitioner agencies impleaded below, thisCourt has given very specific instructions to report the progressand status of their operations directly to the latter. The Court alsorequired the agencies to apprise it of any noncompliance with thestandards set forth by different laws as to environmentprotection. This move is tantamount to making these agenciesaccountable to the Court instead of the President. The veryoccupation streamlined especially for the

96



technical and practical expertise of the Executive Branch is beingusurped without regard for the delineations of power in theConstitution. In fact, the issuance of the Resolution itself is indirect contravention of the President’s exclusive power to issueadministrative orders, as shown thus: Administrative Orders.—Acts of the President which relate to particular aspect ofgovernmental operations in pursuance of his duties asadministrative head shall be promulgated in administrativeorders.

Same; Same; Environmental Law; No matter how urgent andlaudatory the cause of environment protection has become, itcannot but yield to the higher mandate of separation of powers andthe mechanisms laid out by the people through the Constitution.—The implementation of the policy laid out by the legislature—inthe Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004, the Toxic and HazardousWaste Act or Republic Act 6969, the Environment Code, and otherlaws geared towards environment protection—is under thecompetence of the President. Achieved thereby is a uniform



standard of administrative efficiency. And since it is throughadministrative orders promulgated by the President that specificoperational aspects for these policies are laid out, the Resolutionof this Court overlaps with the President’s administrative power.No matter how urgent and laudatory the cause of environmentprotection has become, it cannot but yield to the higher mandateof separation of powers and the mechanisms laid out by the peoplethrough the Constitution.

Same; Same; Same; Expediency is never a reason to abandonlegitimacy.—Nor is there merit in the contention that thesedirectives will speed up the rehabilitation of Manila Bay betterthan if said rehabilitation were left to the appropriate agencies.Expediency is never a reason to abandon legitimacy. “TheSeparation of Powers often impairs efficiency, in terms of dispatchand the immediate functioning of government. It is the longtermstaying power of government that is enhanced by the mutualaccommodation required by the separation of powers.”

Same; Same; In its revised Resolution, the Court is nowsetting deadlines for the implementation of policy formulationswhich require decisionmaking by the agencies—it has confused anorder enjoining a duty, with an order outlining specific technicalrules on how to perform such a duty.—In its revised Resolution,the Court is

97

, FEBRUARY 15, 2011 97


now setting deadlines for the implementation of policyformulations which require decisionmaking by theagencies. It has confused an order enjoining a duty, with anorder outlining specific technical rules on how to perform such aduty. Assuming without conceding that mandamus were availingunder Rule 65, the Court can only require a particular action, butit cannot provide for the means to accomplish such action. It is atthis point where the demarcation of the general act of “cleaningup the Manila Bay” has become blurred, so much so that theCourt now engages in the slippery slope of overseeing technicaldetails.

Same; Same; Judicial Review; Mandamus; It is an oftrepeated rule that the Court has no power to issue advisory



opinions, much less “directives” requiring progress reports from theparties respecting the execution of its decisions—the requirementsof “actual case or controversy” and “justiciability” have long beenestablished in order to limit the exercise of judicial review;Needless to say, the “continuing mandamus” in this case runscounter to principles of “actual case or controversy” and otherrequisites for judicial review.—It is an oftrepeated rule that theCourt has no power to issue advisory opinions, much less“directives” requiring progress reports from the parties respectingthe execution of its decisions. The requirements of “actual case orcontroversy” and “justiciability” have long been established inorder to limit the exercise of judicial review. While its dedicationto the implementation of the fallo in G.R. 17194748 is admirable,the Court’s power cannot spill over to actual encroachment uponboth the “control” and police powers of the State under the guiseof a “continuing mandamus.” In G.R. 17194748, the Court said:“Under what other judicial discipline describes as ‘continuingmandamus,’ the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances,issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decisionwould not be set to naught by administrative inaction orindifference.” Needless to say, the “continuing mandamus” in thiscase runs counter to principles of “actual case or controversy” andother requisites for judicial review. In fact, the Supreme Court isin danger of acting as a “superadministrator”—the scenariopresently unfolding in India where the supposed remedyoriginated.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Legal Research; In fact, evenJustice J. S. Verma, who penned the majority opinion in VineetNarain in which ‘continuing mandamus’ first made itsappearance, subse

98



quently pronounced that “judicial activism should be neitherjudicial ad hocism nor judicial tyranny”; The Court must try tomaintain a healthy balance between the departments, precisely asthe Constitution mandates, by delineating its “deft strokes andbold lines,” ever so conscious of the requirements of actual case andcontroversy—while, admittedly, there are certain flaws in theoperation and implementation of the laws, the judiciary cannot



take the initiative to compensate for such perceived inaction.—Thus, while it was originally intended to assert public rights inthe face of government inaction and neglect, the remedy is nowfacing serious criticism as it has spiraled out of control. In fact,even Justice J. S. Verma, who penned the majority opinion inVineet Narain in which ‘continuing mandamus’ first made itsappearance, subsequently pronounced that “judicial activismshould be neither judicial ad hocism nor judicial tyranny.” JusticeB.N. Srikrishna observed that judges now seem to want to engagethemselves with boundless enthusiasm in complex socioeconomicissues raising myriads of facts and ideological issues that cannotbe managed by “judicially manageable standards.” Even FormerChief Justice A. S. Anand, a known defender of judicial activism,has warned against the tendency towards “judicial adventurism,”reiterating the principle that “the role of the judge is that of areferee. I can blow my judicial whistle when the ball goes out ofplay; but when the game restarts I must neither take part in itnor tell the players how to play.” Unless our own Supreme Courtlearns to curb its excesses and apply to this case the standards forjudicial review it has developed over the years and applied to coequal branches, the scenario in India could very well play out inthe Philippines. The Court must try to maintain a healthybalance between the departments, precisely as the Constitutionmandates, by delineating its “deft strokes and bold lines,” ever soconscious of the requirements of actual case and controversy.While, admittedly, there are certain flaws in the operation andimplementation of the laws, the judiciary cannot take theinitiative to compensate for such perceived inaction.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Unfortunately, the Court fails todistinguish between a pronouncement on violation of rights on onehand, and nonperformance of duties visàvis operationalinstructions, on the other, and, it also dabbles in an interpretationof constitutional rights in a manner that is dangerously preemptive of legally available remedies.—The Court stated inTolentino v. Secretary of Fi

99

, FEBRUARY 15, 2011 99


nance, 435 SCRA 630 (1994): Disregard of the essential limitsimposed by the case and controversy requirement can in the long



run only result in undermining our authority as a court of law.For, as judges, what we are called upon to render is judgmentaccording to law, not according to what may appear to be theopinion of the day… Hence, “over nothing but cases andcontroversies can courts exercise jurisdiction, and it is to makethe exercise of that jurisdiction effective that they are allowed topass upon constitutional questions.” Admirable though thesentiments of the Court may be, it must act within jurisdictionallimits. These limits are founded upon the traditional requirementof a cause of action: “the act or omission by which a party violatesa right of another.” In constitutional cases, for every writ orremedy, there must be a clear pronouncement of thecorresponding right which has been infringed. Only then canthere surface that “clear concreteness provided when a questionemerges precisely framed and necessary for decision from a clashof adversary argument exploring every aspect of a multifacetedsituation embracing conflicting and demanding interests.”Unfortunately, the Court fails to distinguish between apronouncement on violation of rights on one hand, and nonperformance of duties visàvis operational instructions, on theother. Moreover, it also dabbles in an interpretation ofconstitutional rights in a manner that is dangerously preemptiveof legally available remedies.

Same; Same; Same; Same; In cases of executive nonimplementation of statutes, the courts cannot justify the use of“continuing mandamus,” as it would by its very definition overlapwith the monitoring power under congressional oversight.—Macalintal v. Comelec, 405 SCRA 614 (2003), further discussesthat legislative supervision under the oversight power connotes acontinuing and informed awareness on the part of Congressregarding executive operations in a given administrative area.Because the power to legislate includes the power to ensure thatthe laws are enforced, this monitoring power has been granted bythe Constitution to the legislature. In cases of executive nonimplementation of statutes, the courts cannot justify the use of“continuing mandamus,” as it would by its very definition overlapwith the monitoring power under congressional oversight. TheResolution does not only encroach upon the general supervisoryfunction of the Executive, it also diminished and arrogated untoitself the power of congressional oversight.

100





Same; Same; Same; Same; Environmental Law; This Courtcannot nobly defend the environmental rights of generations ofFilipinos enshrined in the Constitution while in the same breatheroding the foundations of that very instrument from which itdraws its power.—This Court cannot nobly defend theenvironmental rights of generations of Filipinos enshrined in theConstitution while in the same breath eroding the foundations ofthat very instrument from which it draws its power. While theremedy of “continuing mandamus” has evolved out of a ThirdWorld jurisdiction similar to ours, we cannot overstep theboundaries laid down by the rule of law. Otherwise, this Courtwould rush recklessly beyond the delimitations precisely put inplace to safeguard excesses of power. The tribunal, considered bymany citizens as the last guardian of fundamental rights, wouldthen resemble nothing more than an idol with feet of clay: strongin appearance, but weak in foundation. …The Court becomes aconscience by acting to remind us of limitation on power, evenjudicial power, and the interrelation of good purposes with goodmeans. Morality is not an end dissociated from means. There is amorality of morality, which respects the limitation of office and thefallibility of the human mind…selflimitation is the first mark ofthe master. That, too is part of the role of the conscience.

ORDER OF EXECUTION of the Final and ExecutoryDecember 18, 2003 Decision of the Supreme Court.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court. Emmanuel A. De Castro and Rochelle T. Macapili for

MMDA. The Solicitor General for petitioners. Lissa Belle M. Villanueva for petitioner Philippine

Coast Guard. Antonio A. Oposa, Jr., Karl Arian Castillo, Rogelio A.

Vinluan, Rico Agcaoili and Fortun, Narvasa and Salazarfor respondents.

Rowena Candice M. Ruiz and Ryan S. Lita for theSecretary of Department of Budget and Management.

101

, FEBRUARY 15, 2011 101




Nollora & Associates Law Offices for movant

Samahang Mandaragat Bagong Pagasa, Inc. andKalipunan ng Mangingisda ng Tambo, Inc.

Jobert I. Pahilga for intervenors Sentro Para sa Tunayna Repormang Agraryo (SENTRA).

St. Thomas More Law Center; Sentro ng AlternatibongLingap Panligal (SALIGAN); Michael Vincent S. Gaddi,Gloria D. Santos, Jr., Alaya M. De Leon, Bienvenido A.Salinas, Jr., and Ritche I. Esponilla for movants.

R E S O L U T I O N

VELASCO, JR., J.:On December 18, 2008, this Court rendered a Decision

in G.R. Nos. 17194748 ordering petitioners to clean up,rehabilitate and preserve Manila Bay in their differentcapacities. The fallo reads:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 28,2005 Decision of the CA in CAG.R. CV No. 76528 and SP No.74944 and the September 13, 2002 Decision of the RTC in CivilCase No. 185199 are AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATIONS inview of subsequent developments or supervening events in thecase. The fallo of the RTC Decision shall now read:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering theabovenamed defendantgovernment agencies to clean up,rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and maintainits waters to SB level (Class B sea waters per Water ClassificationTables under DENR Administrative Order No. 34 [1990]) to makethem fit for swimming, skindiving, and other forms of contactrecreation.

In particular:(1) Pursuant to Sec. 4 of EO 192, assigning the DENR as the

primary agency responsible for the conservation, management,development, and proper use of the country’s environment andnatural resources, and Sec. 19 of RA 9275, designating the DENRas the primary government agency responsible for its enforcementand implementation, the DENR is directed to fully implement itsOpera

102



102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDMetropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. Concerned


tional Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy for therehabilitation, restoration, and conservation of the Manila Bay atthe earliest possible time. It is ordered to call regular coordinationmeetings with concerned government departments and agenciesto ensure the successful implementation of the aforesaid plan ofaction in accordance with its indicated completion schedules.

(2) Pursuant to Title XII (Local Government) of theAdministrative Code of 1987 and Sec. 25 of the Local GovernmentCode of 1991, the DILG, in exercising the President’s power ofgeneral supervision and its duty to promulgate guidelines inestablishing waste management programs under Sec. 43 of thePhilippine Environment Code (PD 1152), shall direct all LGUs inMetro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, andBataan to inspect all factories, commercial establishments, andprivate homes along the banks of the major river systems in theirrespective areas of jurisdiction, such as but not limited to thePasigMarikinaSan Juan Rivers, the NCR (ParañaqueZapote,Las Piñas) Rivers, the NavotasMalabonTullahanTenejerosRivers, the MeycauayanMarilaoObando (Bulacan) Rivers, theTalisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna DeBay, and other minor rivers and waterways that eventuallydischarge water into the Manila Bay; and the lands abutting thebay, to determine whether they have wastewater treatmentfacilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed by existing laws,ordinances, and rules and regulations. If none be found, theseLGUs shall be ordered to require noncomplying establishmentsand homes to set up said facilities or septic tanks within areasonable time to prevent industrial wastes, sewage water, andhuman wastes from flowing into these rivers, waterways, esteros,and the Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of finesand other sanctions.

(3) As mandated by Sec. 8 of RA 9275, the MWSS is directedto provide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary adequatewaste water treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, andCavite where needed at the earliest possible time.

(4) Pursuant to RA 9275, the LWUA, through the local waterdistricts and in coordination with the DENR, is ordered toprovide, install, operate, and maintain sewerage and sanitationfacilities and the efficient and safe collection, treatment, anddisposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan,Pampanga, and Bataan where needed at the earliest possible



time.

103



(5) Pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 8550, the DA, through the

BFAR, is ordered to improve and restore the marine life of theManila Bay. It is also directed to assist the LGUs in MetroManila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataanin developing, using recognized methods, the fisheries and aquaticresources in the Manila Bay.

(6) The PCG, pursuant to Secs. 4 and 6 of PD 979, and thePNP Maritime Group, in accordance with Sec. 124 of RA 8550, incoordination with each other, shall apprehend violators of PD 979,RA 8550, and other existing laws and regulations designed toprevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.

(7) Pursuant to Secs. 2 and 6c of EO 513 and theInternational Convention for the Prevention of Pollution fromShips, the PPA is ordered to immediately adopt such measures toprevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes andother shipgenerated wastes into the Manila Bay waters fromvessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators.

(8) The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor ofprograms and projects for flood control projects and drainageservices in Metro Manila, in coordination with the DPWH, DILG,affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, Housing and UrbanDevelopment Coordinating Council (HUDCC), and other agencies,shall dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, andother encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279,and other applicable laws along the PasigMarikinaSan JuanRivers, the NCR (ParañaqueZapote, Las Piñas) Rivers, theNavotasMalabonTullahanTenejeros Rivers, and connectingwaterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH, as theprincipal implementor of programs and projects for flood controlservices in the rest of the country more particularly in Bulacan,Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, in coordination with theDILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, HUDCC, and otherconcerned government agencies, shall remove and demolish allstructures, constructions, and other encroachments built inbreach of RA 7279 and other applicable laws along theMeycauayanMarilaoObando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay



(Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, andother rivers, connecting waterways, and esteros that dischargewastewater into the Manila Bay.

In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish, operate, andmaintain a sanitary landfill, as prescribed by RA 9003, within a

104



period of one (1) year from finality of this Decision. On matterswithin its territorial jurisdiction and in connection with thedischarge of its duties on the maintenance of sanitary landfillsand like undertakings, it is also ordered to cause theapprehension and filing of the appropriate criminal cases againstviolators of the respective penal provisions of RA 9003, Sec. 27 ofRA 9275 (the Clean Water Act), and other existing laws onpollution.

(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 theproper facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge andsewage coming from septic tanks. The DOH shall give thecompanies, if found to be noncomplying, a reasonable time withinwhich to set up the necessary facilities under pain of cancellationof its environmental sanitation clearance.

(10) Pursuant to Sec. 53 of PD 1152, Sec. 118 of RA 8550, andSec. 56 of RA 9003, the DepEd shall integrate lessons on pollutionprevention, waste management, environmental protection, andlike subjects in the school curricula of all levels to inculcate in theminds and hearts of students and, through them, their parentsand friends, the importance of their duty toward achieving andmaintaining a balanced and healthful ecosystem in the ManilaBay and the entire Philippine archipelago.

(11) The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequatebudget in the General Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeedingyears to cover the expenses relating to the cleanup, restoration,and preservation of the water quality of the Manila Bay, in linewith the country’s development objective to attain economicgrowth in a manner consistent with the protection, preservation,and revival of our marine waters.

(12) The heads of petitionersagencies MMDA, DENR,DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group,



DILG, and also of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in line with theprinciple of “continuing mandamus,” shall, from finality of thisDecision, each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive reportof the activities undertaken in accordance with this Decision.

SO ORDERED.”

105



The government agencies did not file any motion forreconsideration and the Decision became final in January2009.

The case is now in the execution phase of the final andexecutory December 18, 2008 Decision. The Manila BayAdvisory Committee was created to receive and evaluatethe quarterly progressive reports on the activitiesundertaken by the agencies in accordance with saiddecision and to monitor the execution phase.

In the absence of specific completion periods, theCommittee recommended that time frames be set for theagencies to perform their assigned tasks. This may beviewed as an encroachment over the powers and functionsof the Executive Branch headed by the President of thePhilippines.

This view is misplaced.The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the Court is

simply an exercise of judicial power under Art. VIII of theConstitution, because the execution of the Decision is butan integral part of the adjudicative function of the Court.None of the agencies ever questioned the power of theCourt to implement the December 18, 2008 Decision norhas any of them raised the alleged encroachment by theCourt over executive functions.

While additional activities are required of the agencieslike submission of plans of action, data or status reports,these directives are but part and parcel of the executionstage of a final decision under Rule 39 of the Rules ofCourt. Section 47 of Rule 39 reads:

“Section 47. Effect of judgments or final orders.––The effect ofa judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines,having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may



be as follows: x x x x(c) In any other litigation between the same parties of their

successors in interest, that only is deemed to have beenadjudged in a former judgment or final order whichappears

106



upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which wasactually and necessarily included therein or necessarythereto.” (Emphasis supplied.)

It is clear that the final judgment includes not only whatappears upon its face to have been so adjudged but alsothose matters “actually and necessarily included therein ornecessary thereto.” Certainly, any activity that is needed tofully implement a final judgment is necessarilyencompassed by said judgment.

Moreover, the submission of periodic reports issanctioned by Secs. 7 and 8, Rule 8 of the Rules ofProcedure for Environmental cases:

“Sec. 7. Judgment.––If warranted, the court shall grant theprivilege of the writ of continuing mandamus requiringrespondent to perform an act or series of acts until the judgmentis fully satisfied and to grant such other reliefs as may bewarranted resulting from the wrongful or illegal acts of therespondent. The court shall require the respondent tosubmit periodic reports detailing the progress andexecution of the judgment, and the court may, by itself orthrough a commissioner or the appropriate governmentagency, evaluate and monitor compliance. The petitionermay submit its comments or observations on the execution of thejudgment.

Sec. 8. Return of the writ.—The periodic reports submitted bythe respondent detailing compliance with the judgment shall becontained in partial returns of the writ. Upon full satisfaction ofthe judgment, a final return of the writ shall be made to the courtby the respondent. If the court finds that the judgment has beenfully implemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be enteredin the court docket.” (Emphasis supplied.)



With the final and executory judgment in MMDA, thewrit of continuing mandamus issued in MMDA means thatuntil petitioneragencies have shown full compliance withthe Court’s orders, the Court exercises continuingjurisdiction over them until full execution of the judgment.

107



There being no encroachment over executive functions to

speak of, We shall now proceed to the recommendation ofthe Manila Bay Advisory Committee.

Several problems were encountered by the Manila BayAdvisory Committee.2 An evaluation of the quarterlyprogressive reports has shown that (1) there arevoluminous quarterly progressive reports that are beingsubmitted; (2) petitioneragencies do not have a uniformmanner of reporting their cleanup, rehabilitation andpreservation activities; (3) as yet no definite deadlines havebeen set by petitioner DENR as to petitioneragencies’timeframe for their respective duties; (4) as of June 2010there has been a change in leadership in both the nationaland local levels; and (5) some agencies have encountereddifficulties in complying with the Court’s directives.

In order to implement the aforequoted Decision, certaindirectives have to be issued by the Court to address thesaid concerns.

_______________

2 On February 10, 2009, the Court En Banc approved a resolutioncreating an Advisory Committee “that will verify the reports of thegovernment agencies tasked to clean up the Manila Bay.” It is composed oftwo members of the Court and three technical experts:

Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.Chairperson and ponente of MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of ManilaHon. Jose Midas P. MarquezCourt AdministratorViceChairpersonMembers/Technical Experts:




Dr. Gil S. JacintoFormer Director, UP Marine Science InstituteDr. Elisea G. GozunChair of Earth Day Network and Former DENR SecretaryDr. Antonio G.M. La ViñaFormer DENR UndersecretaryDean of the Ateneo School of Government

108



Acting on the recommendation of the Manila Bay

Advisory Committee, the Court hereby resolves to ORDERthe following:

(1) The Department of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR), as lead agency in the Philippine CleanWater Act of 2004, shall submit to the Court on or beforeJune 30, 2011 the updated Operational Plan for the ManilaBay Coastal Strategy.

The DENR is ordered to submit summarized data on theoverall quality of Manila Bay waters for all four quarters of2010 on or before June 30, 2011.

The DENR is further ordered to submit the names andaddresses of persons and companies in Metro Manila,Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataanthat generate toxic and hazardous waste on or beforeSeptember 30, 2011.

(2) On or before June 30, 2011, the Department of theInterior and Local Government (DILG) shall order theMayors of all cities in Metro Manila; the Governors ofRizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan;and the Mayors of all the cities and towns in said provincesto inspect all factories, commercial establishments andprivate homes along the banks of the major riversystems––such as but not limited to the PasigMarikinaSan Juan Rivers, the National Capital Region (ParanaqueZapote, Las Pinas) Rivers, the NavotasMalabonTullahanTenejeros Rivers, the MeycauayanMarilaoObando(Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus(Cavite) River, and the Laguna De Bay––and other minorrivers and waterways within their jurisdiction that



eventually discharge water into the Manila Bay and thelands abutting it, to determine if they have wastewatertreatment facilities and/or hygienic septic tanks, asprescribed by existing laws, ordinances, rules andregulations. Said local government unit (LGU) officials aregiven up to September 30, 2011 to finish the inspection ofsaid establishments and houses.

109



In case of noncompliance, the LGU officials shall take

appropriate action to ensure compliance by noncomplyingfactories, commercial establishments and private homeswith said law, rules and regulations requiring theconstruction or installment of wastewater treatmentfacilities or hygienic septic tanks.

The aforementioned governors and mayors shall submitto the DILG on or before December 31, 2011 theirrespective compliance reports which will contain the namesand addresses or offices of the owners of all the noncomplying factories, commercial establishments andprivate homes, copy furnished the concernedenvironmental agency, be it the local DENR office or theLaguna Lake Development Authority.

The DILG is required to submit a fiveyear plan ofaction that will contain measures intended to ensurecompliance of all noncomplying factories, commercialestablishments, and private homes.

On or before June 30, 2011, the DILG and the mayors ofall cities in Metro Manila shall consider providing land forthe wastewater facilities of the Metropolitan Waterworksand Sewerage System (MWSS) or its concessionaires(Maynilad and Manila Water, Inc.) within their respectivejurisdictions.

(3) The MWSS shall submit to the Court on or beforeJune 30, 2011 the list of areas in Metro Manila, Rizal andCavite that do not have the necessary wastewatertreatment facilities. Within the same period, theconcessionaires of the MWSS shall submit their plans andprojects for the construction of wastewater treatment



facilities in all the aforesaid areas and the completionperiod for said facilities, which shall not go beyond 2037.

On or before June 30, 2011, the MWSS is furtherrequired to have its two concessionaires submit a report onthe amount collected as sewerage fees in their respectiveareas of operation as of December 31, 2010.

110



(4) The Local Water Utilities Administration is ordered

to submit on or before September 30, 2011 its plan toprovide, install, operate and maintain sewerage andsanitation facilities in said cities and towns and thecompletion period for said works, which shall be fullyimplemented by December 31, 2020.

(5) The Department of Agriculture (DA), through theBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, shall submit tothe Court on or before June 30, 2011 a report on areas inManila Bay where marine life has to be restored orimproved and the assistance it has extended to the LGUsin Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan,Pampanga and Bataan in developing the fisheries andaquatic resources in Manila Bay. The report shall containmonitoring data on the marine life in said areas. Withinthe same period, it shall submit its fiveyear plan to restoreand improve the marine life in Manila Bay, its futureactivities to assist the aforementioned LGUs for thatpurpose, and the completion period for said undertakings.

The DA shall submit to the Court on or beforeSeptember 30, 2011 the baseline data as of September 30,2010 on the pollution loading into the Manila Bay systemfrom agricultural and livestock sources.

(6) The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shallincorporate in its quarterly reports the list of violators ithas apprehended and the status of their cases. The PPA isfurther ordered to include in its report the names, makeand capacity of the ships that dock in PPA ports. The PPAshall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 themeasures it intends to undertake to implement itscompliance with paragraph 7 of the dispositive portion of



the MMDA Decision and the completion dates of suchmeasures.

The PPA should include in its report the activities of itsconcessionaire that collects and disposes of the solid andliquid wastes and other shipgenerated wastes, which shallstate the names, make and capacity of the ships serviced byit since

111



August 2003 up to the present date, the dates the shipsdocked at PPA ports, the number of days the ship was atsea with the corresponding number of passengers and crewper trip, the volume of solid, liquid and other wastescollected from said ships, the treatment undertaken andthe disposal site for said wastes.

(7) The Philippine National Police (PNP) MaritimeGroup shall submit on or before June 30, 2011 its fiveyearplan of action on the measures and activities it intends toundertake to apprehend the violators of Republic Act No.(RA) 8550 or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 andother pertinent laws, ordinances and regulations to preventmarine pollution in Manila Bay and to ensure thesuccessful prosecution of violators.

The Philippine Coast Guard shall likewise submit on orbefore June 30, 2011 its fiveyear plan of action on themeasures and activities they intend to undertake toapprehend the violators of Presidential Decree No. 979 orthe Marine Pollution Decree of 1976 and RA 9993 or thePhilippine Coast Guard Law of 2009 and other pertinentlaws and regulations to prevent marine pollution in ManilaBay and to ensure the successful prosecution of violators.

(8) The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority(MMDA) shall submit to the Court on or before June 30,2011 the names and addresses of the informal settlers inMetro Manila who, as of December 31, 2010, own andoccupy houses, structures, constructions and otherencroachments established or built along the PasigMarikinaSan Juan Rivers, the NCR (ParañaqueZapote,Las Piñas) Rivers, the NavotasMalabonTullahanTenejeros Rivers, and connecting waterways and esteros, in



violation of RA 7279 and other applicable laws. On orbefore June 30, 2011, the MMDA shall submit its plan forthe removal of said informal settlers and the demolition ofthe aforesaid houses, structures, constructions andencroachments, as well as the completion dates for said ac

112



tivities, which shall be fully implemented not later thanDecember 31, 2015.

The MMDA is ordered to submit a status report, withinthirty (30) days from receipt of this Resolution, on theestablishment of a sanitary landfill facility for MetroManila in compliance with the standards under RA 9003 orthe Ecological Solid Waste Management Act.

On or before June 30, 2011, the MMDA shall submit areport of the location of open and controlled dumps inMetro Manila whose operations are illegal after February21, 2006,3 pursuant to Secs. 36 and 37 of RA 9003, and itsplan for the closure of these open and controlled dumps tobe accomplished not later than December 31, 2012. Also, onor before June 30, 2011, the DENR Secretary, asChairperson of the National Solid Waste ManagementCommission (NSWMC), shall submit a report on thelocation of all open and controlled dumps in Rizal, Cavite,Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan.

On or before June 30, 2011, the DENR Secretary, in hiscapacity as NSWMC Chairperson, shall submit a report onwhether or not the following landfills strictly comply withSecs. 41 and 42 of RA 9003 on the establishment andoperation of sanitary landfills, to wit:

National Capital Region 1. Navotas SLF (PhilEco), Brgy. Tanza (New Site), Navotas City

_______________

3 Our Decision in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v.Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 17194748, December 18,2008, 574 SCRA 661, 690, states: “RA 9003 took effect on February 15,2001 and the adverted grace period of five (5) years [in Sec. 37 of




RA 9003] which ended on February 21, 2006 has come and gone, butno single sanitary landfill which strictly complies with the prescribedstandards under RA 9003 has yet been set up.” (Emphasis supplied.)

113



2. Payatas Controlled Dumpsite, Barangay Payatas, Quezon CityRegion III

3. Sitio Coral, Brgy. Matictic, Norzagaray, Bulacan 4. Sitio Tiakad, Brgy. San Mateo, Norzagaray, Bulacan 5. Brgy. Minuyan, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan 6. Brgy. Mapalad, Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija 7. Subzone Kalangitan, Clark Capas, Tarlac Special Economic

ZoneRegion IVA

8. Kalayaan (Longos), Laguna 9. Brgy. Sto. Nino, San Pablo City, Laguna10. Brgy. San Antonio (Pilotage SLF), San Pedro, Laguna11. Morong, Rizal12. Sitio Lukutan, Brgy. San Isidro, Rodriguez (Montalban), Rizal

(ISWIMS)13. Brgy. Pintong Bukawe, San Mateo, Rizal (SMSLFDC)

On or before June 30, 2011, the MMDA and theseventeen (17) LGUs in Metro Manila are ordered to jointlysubmit a report on the average amount of garbage collectedmonthly per district in all the cities in Metro Manila fromJanuary 2009 up to December 31, 2010 visàvis theaverage amount of garbage disposed monthly in landfillsand dumpsites. In its quarterly report for the last quarterof 2010 and thereafter, MMDA shall report on theapprehensions for violations of the penal provisions of RA9003, RA 9275 and other laws on pollution for the saidperiod.

On or before June 30, 2011, the DPWH and the LGUs inRizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataanshall submit the names and addresses of the informalsettlers in their respective areas who, as of September 30,2010, own or occupy houses, structures, constructions, andother encroachments built along the MeycauayanMarilaoObando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the



Imus

114



(Cavite) River, the Laguna de Bay, and other rivers,connecting waterways and esteros that dischargewastewater into the Manila Bay, in breach of RA 7279 andother applicable laws. On or before June 30, 2011, theDPWH and the aforesaid LGUs shall jointly submit theirplan for the removal of said informal settlers and thedemolition of the aforesaid structures, constructions andencroachments, as well as the completion dates for suchactivities which shall be implemented not later thanDecember 31, 2012.

(9) The Department of Health (DOH) shall submit tothe Court on or before June 30, 2011 the names andaddresses of the owners of septic and sludge companiesincluding those that do not have the proper facilities for thetreatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage comingfrom septic tanks.

The DOH shall implement rules and regulations onEnvironmental Sanitation Clearances and shall requirecompanies to procure a license to operate from the DOH.

The DOH and DENREnvironmental ManagementBureau shall develop a toxic and hazardous wastemanagement system by June 30, 2011 which willimplement segregation of hospital/toxic/hazardous wastesand prevent mixing with municipal solid waste.

On or before June 30, 2011, the DOH shall submit aplan of action to ensure that the said companies haveproper disposal facilities and the completion dates ofcompliance.

(10) The Department of Education (DepEd) shallsubmit to the Court on or before May 31, 2011 a report onthe specific subjects on pollution prevention, wastemanagement, environmental protection, environmentallaws and the like that it has integrated into the schoolcurricula in all levels for the school year 20112012.

On or before June 30, 2011, the DepEd shall also submitits plan of action to ensure compliance of all the schoolsunder its supervision with respect to the integration of the



aforemen

115



tioned subjects in the school curricula which shall be fullyimplemented by June 30, 2012.

(11) All the agencies are required to submit theirquarterly reports electronically using the forms below. Theagencies may add other key performance indicators thatthey have identified.

SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J.), Nachura, LeonardoDe Castro, Peralta,Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez andMendoza, JJ., concur.

Carpio, J., See Dissenting Opinion.CarpioMorales and Brion, JJ., We join the Dissent of

J. Carpio.Sereno, J., See Dissenting Opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

CARPIO, J.:The Resolution contains the proposed directives of the

Manila Bay Advisory Committee to the concerned agencies1

and local government units (LGUs) for the implementationof the 18 December 2008 Decision of the Court in this case.

Among the directives stated in the Resolution is for theaffected agencies to submit to the Court their plans ofaction and status reports, thus:

_______________

1 Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), MetropolitanWaterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), Local Water UtilitiesAdministration (LWUA), Department of Agriculture (DA), PhilippinePorts Authority (PPA), Philippine National Police (PNP), MetropolitanManila Development Authority (MMDA), Department of Health (DOH),Department of Education (DepEd), and Department of Budget andManagement (DBM).




116



The Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR), as lead agency in the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004,shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the updatedOperational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy(OPMBCS);2

The DILG is required to submit a fiveyear plan ofaction that will contain measures intended to ensurecompliance of all noncomplying factories, commercialestablishments, and private homes;3

The MWSS shall submit to the Court on or before June 30,2011 the list of areas in Metro Manila, Rizal and Cavite that donot have the necessary wastewater treatment facilities. Withinthe same period, the concessionaires of the MWSS shallsubmit their plans and projects for the construction ofwastewater treatment facilities in all the aforesaid areasand the completion period for said facilities, which shallnot go beyond 2020;4

The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) shall submitto the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the list of cities and townsin Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan that do nothave sewerage and sanitation facilities. LWUA is furtherordered to submit on or before September 30, 2011 its planto provide, install, operate and maintain sewerage andsanitation facilities in said cities and towns and thecompletion period for said works which shall be fullyimplemented by December 31, 2020;5

The Department of Agriculture (DA), through the Bureau ofFisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), shall submit to theCourt on or before June 30, 2011 a report on areas in Manila Baywhere marine life has to be restored or improved and theassistance it has extended to the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal,Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan in developingthe fisheries and aquatic resources in Manila Bay. The reportshall contain monitoring data on the marine life in said areas.Within the same period, it shall submit its fiveyear plan torestore and improve the marine



_______________

2 Resolution, p. 4.3 Resolution, p. 6.4 Resolution, p. 6.5 Resolution, pp. 67.

117



life in Manila Bay, its future activities to assist theaforementioned LGUs for that purpose, and thecompletion period for said undertakings;6

The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall incorporate in itsquarterly reports the list of violators it has apprehended and thestatus of their cases. The PPA is further ordered to include in itsreport the names, make and capacity of the ships that dock inPPA ports. The PPA shall submit to the Court on or beforeJune 30, 2011 the measures it intends to undertake toimplement its compliance with paragraph 7 of thedispositive portion of the MMDA Decision and thecompletion dates of such measures;7

The Philippine National Police (PNP) – Maritime Group shallsubmit on or before June 30, 2011 its fiveyear plan ofaction on the measures and activities they intend toundertake to apprehend the violators of RA 8550 or thePhilippine Fisheries Code of 1998 and other pertinent laws,ordinances and regulations to prevent marine pollution in ManilaBay and to ensure the successful prosecution of violators;8

The Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) shall likewise submit onor before June 30, 2011 its fiveyear plan of action on themeasures and activities they intend to undertake toapprehend the violators of Presidential Decree (PD) 979 or theMarine Pollution Decree of 1976 and RA 9993 or the PhilippineCoast Guard Law of 2009 and other pertinent laws andregulations to prevent marine pollution in Manila Bay and toensure the successful prosecution of violators;9

The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA)shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 thenames and addresses of the informal settlers in MetroManila who own and occupy houses, structures,constructions and other encroachments established orbuilt in violation of RA 7279 and other applicable laws







along the PasigMarikinaSan Juan Rivers, the NCR (ParañaqueZapote, Las Piñas) Rivers, the

_______________

6 Resolution, p. 7.7 Resolution, p. 7.8 Resolution, p. 8.9 Resolution, p. 8.

118



NavotasMalabonTullahanTenejeros Rivers, and connectingwaterways and esteros as of December 31, 2010. On or before thesame date, the MMDA shall submit its plan for the removalof said informal settlers and the demolition of theaforesaid houses, structures, constructions andencroachments, as well as the completion dates for saidactivities which shall be fully implemented not later thanDecember 31, 2015;10

[T]he DPWH and the aforesaid LGUs shall jointly submit itsplan for the removal of said informal settlers and thedemolition of the aforesaid structures, constructions andencroachments, as well as the completion dates for suchactivities which shall be implemented not later thanDecember 31, 2012;11

[T]he DOH shall submit a plan of action to ensure thatthe said companies have proper disposal facilities and thecompletion dates of compliance;12

On or before June 30, 2011, the DepEd shall also submit itsplan of action to ensure compliance of all the schoolsunder its supervision with respect to the integration of theaforementioned subjects in the school curricula whichshall be fully implemented by June 30, 2012;13 (Emphasissupplied)

What is the purpose of requiring these agencies tosubmit to the Court their plans of action and statusreports? Are these plans to be approved or disapproved bythe Court? The Court does not have the competence or eventhe jurisdiction to evaluate these plans which involvestechnical matters14 best left to the expertise of the







concerned agencies.

_______________

10 Resolution, p. 8.11 Resolution, p. 10.12 Resolution, p. 11.13 Resolution, p. 11.14 For instance, the Resolution orders the PPA to “include in its report

the activities of the concessionaire that collects and disposes of the solidand liquid wastes and other shipgenerated wastes, which shall state thenames, make and capacity of the ships serviced by it since August 2003 upto the present date, the dates the ships

119



The Resolution also requires that the concerned agenciesshall “submit [to the Court] their quarterly reportselectronically x x x.”15 Thus, the directive for theconcerned agencies to submit to the Court their quarterlyreports is a continuing obligation which extends evenbeyond the year 2011.16

The Court is now arrogating unto itself twoconstitutional powers exclusively vested in the President.First, the Constitution provides that “executive powershall be vested in the President.”17 This means thatneither the Judiciary nor the Legislature can exerciseexecutive power for executive power is the exclusivedomain of the President. Second, the Constitution providesthat the President shall “have control of all theexecutive departments, bureaus, and offices.”18

Neither the Judiciary nor the Legislature can exercisecontrol or even supervision over executive departments,bureaus, and offices.

Clearly, the Resolution constitutes an intrusion of theJudiciary into the exclusive domain of the Executive. In theguise of implementing the 18 December 2008 Decisionthrough the Resolution, the Court is in effect supervisingand directing the different government agencies and LGUsconcerned.








_______________

docked at PPA ports, the number of days the ship was at sea with thecorresponding number of passengers and crew per trip, the volume ofsolid, liquid and shipgenerated wastes collected from said ships, thetreatment undertaken and the disposal site for said wastes;” Resolution,pp. 78.

15 Resolution, p. 11.16 For example, the Resolution directs that “[i]n its quarterly report

for the last quarter of 2010 and thereafter, MMDA shall report on theapprehensions for violations of the penal provisions of RA 9003, RA 9275and other laws on pollution for the said period; Resolution, p. 10.(Emphasis supplied.)

17 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 1.18 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 17.

120



In Noblejas v. Teehankee,19 it was held that the Court

cannot be required to exercise administrative functionssuch as supervision over executive officials. The issue inthat case was whether the Commissioner of LandRegistration may only be investigated by the SupremeCourt, in view of the conferment upon him by law (RepublicAct No. 1151) of the rank and privileges of a Judge of theCourt of First Instance. The Court, answering in thenegative, stated:

“To adopt petitioner’s theory, therefore, would mean placingupon the Supreme Court the duty of investigating anddisciplining all these officials whose functions are plainlyexecutive and the consequent curtailment by mere implicationfrom the Legislative grant, of the President’s power to disciplineand remove administrative officials who are presidentialappointees, and which the Constitution expressly place under thePresident’s supervision and control.

x x xBut the more fundamental objection to the stand of petitioner

Noblejas is that, if the Legislature had really intended to includein the general grant of “privileges” or “rank and privileges of







Judges of the Court of First Instance” the right to be investigatedby the Supreme Court, and to be suspended or removed only uponrecommendation of that Court, then such grant of privilegewould be unconstitutional, since it would violate thefundamental doctrine of separation of powers, by chargingthis court with the administrative function of supervisorycontrol over executive officials, and simultaneouslyreducing pro tanto the control of the Chief Executive oversuch officials.”20 (Boldfacing supplied)

Likewise, in this case, the directives in the Resolutionare administrative in nature and circumvent theconstitutional provision which prohibits Supreme Courtmembers from performing quasijudicial or administrativefunctions. Section 12, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitutionprovides:

_______________

19 131 Phil. 931; 23 SCRA 405 (1968).20 Id., at pp. 934935; pp. 408409.

121



“SEC. 12. The members of the Supreme Court and of othercourts established by law shall not be designated to any agencyperforming quasijudicial or administrative functions.”

Thus, in the case of In Re: Designation of Judge Manzanoas Member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee onJustice,21 the Court invalidated the designation of a judgeas member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee onJustice, which was tasked to receive complaints and tomake recommendations for the speedy disposition of casesof detainees. The Court held that the committee performsadministrative functions22 which are prohibited underSection 12, Article VIII of the Constitution.

As early as the 1932 case of Manila Electric Co. v. PasayTransportation Co.,23 this Court has already emphasizedthat the Supreme Court should only exercise judicial power





and should not assume any duty which does not pertain tothe administering of judicial functions. In that case, apetition was filed requesting the members of the SupremeCourt, sitting as a board of arbitrators, to fix the terms andthe compensation to be paid to Manila Electric Companyfor the use of right of way. The Court held that it would beimproper and illegal for the members of the SupremeCourt, sitting as a board of arbitrators, whose decision of amajority shall be final, to act on the petition of ManilaElectric Company. The Court explained:

“We run counter to this dilemma. Either the members of theSupreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, exercise judicial

_______________

21248 Phil. 487; 166 SCRA 246 (1988).22 Administrative functions are “those which involve the regulation and control

over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and thepromulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of thelegislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organiclaw of its existence.” Id., at p. 491; p. 251.

23 57 Phil. 600 (1932).

122



functions, or as members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a boardof arbitrators, exercise administrative or quasi judicial functions.The first case would appear not to fall within the jurisdictiongranted the Supreme Court. Even conceding that it does, it wouldpresuppose the right to bring the matter in dispute before thecourts, for any other construction would tend to oust the courts ofjurisdiction and render the award a nullity. But if this be theproper construction, we would then have the anomaly of adecision by the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a boardof arbitrators, taken therefrom to the courts and eventuallycoming before the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Courtwould review the decision of its members acting as arbitrators. Orin the second case, if the functions performed by the members ofthe Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, beconsidered as administrative or quasi judicial in nature, thatwould result in the performance of duties which the members of






the Supreme Court could not lawfully take it upon themselves toperform. The present petition also furnishes an apt illustration ofanother anomaly, for we find the Supreme Court as a court askedto determine if the members of the court may be constituted aboard of arbitrators, which is not a court at all.

The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands represents one ofthe three divisions of power in our government. It is judicialpower and judicial power only which is exercised by the SupremeCourt. Just as the Supreme Court, as the guardian ofconstitutional rights, should not sanction usurpations by anyother department of the government, so should it as strictlyconfine its own sphere of influence to the powers expressly or byimplication conferred on it by the Organic Act. The SupremeCourt and its members should not and cannot be required toexercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any dutynot pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicialfunctions.”24

Furthermore, the Resolution orders some LGU officialsto inspect the establishments and houses along major riverbanks and to “take appropriate action to ensurecompliance by noncomplying factories, commercialestablishments and private homes with said law,rules and

_______________

24 Id., at pp. 604605.

123



regulations requiring the construction orinstallment of wastewater treatment facilities orhygienic septic tanks.”25 The LGU officials are alsodirected to “submit to the DILG on or before December 31,2011 their respective compliance reports which shallcontain the names and addresses or offices of the owners ofall the noncomplying factories, commercial establishmentsand private homes.”26 Furthermore, the Resolutionmandates that on or before 30 June 2011, the DILG andthe mayors of all cities in Metro Manila should “consider




providing land for the wastewater facilities of theMetropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS)or its concessionaires (Maynilad and Manila Water Inc.)within their respective jurisdictions.”27 The Court is ineffect ordering these LGU officials how to do theirjob and even gives a deadline for their compliance.Again, this is a usurpation of the power of the President tosupervise LGUs under the Constitution and existing laws.

Section 4, Article X of the 1987 Constitution providesthat: “The President of the Philippines shall exercisegeneral supervision over local governments x x x.”28

Under the Local Government Code of 1991,29 the Presidentexercises general supervision over LGUs, thus:

“SECTION 25. National Supervision over Local GovernmentUnits.—(a) Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy,the President shall exercise general supervision over localgovernment units to ensure that their acts are within thescope of their prescribed powers and functions.

The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly overprovinces, highly urbanized cities and independent componentcities; through the province with respect to component cities and

_______________

25 Resolution, p. 5.26 Resolution, p. 6.27 Resolution, p. 6.28 Emphasis supplied.29 Republic Act No. 7160.

124



municipalities; and through the city and municipality withrespect to barangays.” (Emphasis supplied)

The Resolution constitutes judicial overreach byusurping and performing executive functions. TheCourt must refrain from overstepping its boundaries bytaking over the functions of an equal branch of thegovernment – the Executive. The Court should abstainfrom exercising any function which is not strictly judicial in








character and is not clearly conferred on it by theConstitution.30 Indeed, as stated by Justice J.B.L. Reyes inNoblejas v. Teehankee,31 “the Supreme Court of thePhilippines and its members should not and can not berequired to exercise any power or to perform any trust or toassume any duty not pertaining to or connected with theadministration of judicial functions.”32

The directives in the Resolution constitute a judicialencroachment of an executive function which clearlyviolates the system of separation of powers that inheres inour democratic republican government. The principle ofseparation of powers between the Executive, Legislative,and Judicial branches of government is part of the basicstructure of the Philippine Constitution. Thus, the 1987Constitution provides that: (a) the legislative power shallbe vested in the Congress of the Philippines;33 (b) theexecutive power shall be vested in the President of thePhilippines;34 and (c) the judicial power shall be vested inone Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may beestablished.35

_______________

30 Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co., supra note 23.31 Supra note 19.32 Id., at p. 936, citing Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co.,

57 Phil. 600, 605 (1932).33 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 1.34 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 1.35 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 1.

125



Since the Supreme Court is only granted judicial power,it should not attempt to assume or be compelled to performnonjudicial functions.36 Judicial power is defined underSection 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution as thatwhich “includes the duty of the courts of justice to settleactual controversies involving rights which are legallydemandable and enforceable, and to determine whether ornot there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting









to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch orinstrumentality of the government.” The Resolutioncontains directives which are outside the ambit of theCourt’s judicial functions.

The principle of separation of powers is explained by theCourt in the leading case of Angara v. ElectoralCommission:37

“The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in oursystem of government. It obtains not through express provisionbut by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of thegovernment has exclusive cognizance of matters within itsjurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does notfollow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separateand distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutelyunrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution hasprovided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to securecoordination in the workings of the various departments of thegovernment. x x x And the judiciary in turn, with the SupremeCourt as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other departmentin its exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence todeclare executive and legislative acts void if violative of theConstitution.”38

Even the ponente is passionate about according respectto the system of separation of powers between the threeequal branches of the government. In his dissentingopinion in the

_______________

36 J. Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines:A Commentary 828 (1996).

37 63 Phil. 139 (1936).38 Id., at pp. 156157.

126



2008 case of Province of North Cotabato v. Government ofthe Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on AncestralDomain (GRP),39 Justice Velasco emphatically stated:






Separation of Powers to be Guarded

“Over and above the foregoing considerations, however, is thematter of separation of powers which would likely be disturbedshould the Court meander into alien territory of the executive anddictate how the final shape of the peace agreement with the MILFshould look like. The system of separation of powerscontemplates the division of the functions of governmentinto its three (3) branches: the legislative which isempowered to make laws; the executive which is requiredto carry out the law; and the judiciary which is chargedwith interpreting the law. Consequent to actualdelineation of power, each branch of government isentitled to be left alone to discharge its duties as it sees fit.Being one such branch, the judiciary, as Justice Laurelasserted in Planas v. Gil, “will neither direct nor restrainexecutive [or legislative action].” Expressed in anotherperspective, the system of separated powers is designed torestrain one branch from inappropriate interference inthe business, or intruding upon the central prerogatives,of another branch; it is a blend of courtesy and caution, “aselfexecuting safeguard against the encroachment oraggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other.”x x x

Under our constitutional set up, there cannot be any seriousdispute that the maintenance of the peace, insuring domestictranquility and the suppression of violence are the domain andresponsibility of the executive. Now then, if it be important torestrict the great departments of government to theexercise of their appointed powers, it follows, as a logicalcorollary, equally important, that one branch should beleft completely independent of the others, independent notin the sense that the three shall not cooperate in thecommon end of carrying into

_______________

39 G.R. Nos. 183591, 183752, 183893, 183951 & 183962, 14 October 2008, 568SCRA 402.

127






effect the purposes of the constitution, but in the sensethat the acts of each shall never be controlled by orsubjected to the influence of either of the branches.”40

(Emphasis supplied)

Indeed, adherence to the principle of separation ofpowers which is enshrined in our Constitution is essentialto prevent tyranny by prohibiting the concentration of thesovereign powers of state in one body.41 Considering thatexecutive power is exclusively vested in the President ofthe Philippines, the Judiciary should neither underminesuch exercise of executive power by the President norarrogate executive power unto itself. The Judiciary mustconfine itself to the exercise of judicial functions and notencroach upon the functions of the other branches of thegovernment.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote against the approval of theResolution.

_______________

40 Dissenting Opinion, id., at pp. 669670. (Citations omitted) 41 S. Carlota, The Three Most Important Features of the Philippine

Legal System that Others Should Understand, in IALS ConferenceLearning from Each Other: Enriching the Law School Curriculum in anInterrelated World 177 <www.ialsnet.org/meeting/enriching/carlota.pdf>(visited 5 November 2010).

128



DISSENTING OPINION

SERENO, J.:

“The judicial whistle needs to be blown for a purpose andwith caution. It needs to be remembered that the Courtcannot run the government. The Court has the duty ofimplementing constitutional safeguards that protect individual rights but they cannot push back the limits of theConstitution to accommodate the challenged violation.”1





These are the words of Justice Anand of the SupremeCourt of India, from which court the idea of a continuingmandatory injunction for environmental cases was drawnby the Philippine Supreme Court. These words expressalarm that the Indian judiciary has already taken on therole of running the government in environmental cases. Asimilar situation would result in the Philippines were themajority Resolution to be adopted. Despite having the bestof intentions to ensure compliance by petitioners with theircorresponding statutory mandates in an urgent manner,this Court has unfortunately encroached upon prerogativessolely to be exercised by the President and by Congress.

On 18 December 2008, the Court promulgated itsdecision in MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay,G.R. Nos. 17194748, denying the petition of thegovernment agencies, defendants in Civil Case No. 185199. It held that the Court of Appeals, subject to somemodifications, was correct in affirming the 13 September2002 Decision of the Regional Trial

_______________

1 Justice Dr. A.S. Anand, Supreme Court of India,“Judicial Review –Judicial Activism – Need for Caution,” in Soli Sorabjee’s Law and Justice:An Anthology, Universal Law Publishing Company, (2003), at 377. Also inJustice A.S. Anand, Millenium Law Lecture Series, Thursday, October 21,1999, Kochi, Kerala, available athttp://airwebworld.com/articles/index.php. (visited 17 November 2010)

129



Court in Civil Case No. 185199. It ordered “theabovenamed defendantgovernment agencies to clean up,rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore andmaintain its waters to SB level (Class B sea waters perWater Classification Tables under DENR AdministrativeOrder No. 34 [1990]) to make them fit for swimming, skindiving, and other forms of contact recreation.”

The Court further issued each of the aforementionedagencies specific orders to comply with their statutorymandate.2




_______________

2 “In particular: (1) Pursuant to Sec. 4 of EO 192, assigning the DENRas the primary agency responsible for the conservation, management,development, and proper use of the country’s environment and naturalresources, and Sec. 19 of RA 9275, designating the DENR as the primarygovernment agency responsible for its enforcement and implementation,the DENR is directed to fully implement its Operational Plan for theManila Bay Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation, restoration, andconservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest possible time. It is orderedto call regular coordination meetings with concerned governmentdepartments and agencies to ensure the successful implementation of theaforesaid plan of action in accordance with its indicated completionschedules.

(2) Pursuant to Title XII (Local Government) of the AdministrativeCode of 1987 and Sec. 25 of the Local Government Code of 1991, theDILG, in exercising the President’s power of general supervision and itsduty to promulgate guidelines in establishing waste managementprograms under Sec. 43 of the Philippine Environment Code (PD 1152),shall direct all LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan,Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all factories, commercialestablishments, and private homes along the banks of the major riversystems in their respective areas of jurisdiction, such as but not limited tothe PasigMarikinaSan Juan Rivers, the NCR (ParañaqueZapote, LasPiñas) Rivers, the NavotasMalabonTullahanTenejeros Rivers, theMeycauayanMarilaoObando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan)River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other minorrivers and waterways that eventually discharge water into the ManilaBay; and the lands abutting the bay, to determine whether they havewastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed byexisting laws, ordinances,

130



Pursuant to the judgment above, the Court establishedits own Manila Bay Advisory Committee. Upon therecommenda

_______________

and rules and regulations. If none be found, these LGUs shall be ordered




to require noncomplying establishments and homes to set up saidfacilities or septic tanks within a reasonable time to prevent industrialwastes, sewage water, and human wastes from flowing into these rivers,waterways, esteros, and the Manila Bay, under pain of closure orimposition of fines and other sanctions.

(3) As mandated by Sec. 8 of RA 9275, the MWSS is directed toprovide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary adequate wastewater treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite whereneeded at the earliest possible time.

(4) Pursuant to RA 9275, the LWUA, through the local waterdistricts and in coordination with the DENR, is ordered to provide, install,operate, and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and the efficientand safe collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the provinces ofLaguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan where needed at theearliest possible time.

(5) Pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 8550, the DA, through the BFAR, isordered to improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay. It is alsodirected to assist the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna,Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan in developing, using recognized methods,the fisheries and aquatic resources in the Manila Bay.

(6) The PCG, pursuant to Secs. 4 and 6 of PD 979, and the PNPMaritime Group, in accordance with Sec. 124 of RA 8550, in coordinationwith each other, shall apprehend violators of PD 979, RA 8550, and otherexisting laws and regulations designed to prevent marine pollution in theManila Bay.

(7) Pursuant to Secs. 2 and 6c of EO 513 and the InternationalConvention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the PPA is orderedto immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge anddumping of solid and liquid wastes and other shipgenerated wastes intothe Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend theviolators.

(8) The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs andprojects for flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila,in coordination with the DPWH, DILG, affected LGUs, PNP MaritimeGroup, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC),and other agencies, shall dismantle

131



tions of the said Committee, the present Resolution was



issued. It encompasses several of the specific instructionslaid

_______________

and remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachmentsestablished or built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable lawsalong the PasigMarikinaSan Juan Rivers, the NCR (ParañaqueZapote,Las Piñas) Rivers, the NavotasMalabonTullahanTenejeros Rivers, andconnecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH, as theprincipal implementor of programs and projects for flood control servicesin the rest of the country more particularly in Bulacan, Bataan,Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, in coordination with the DILG, affectedLGUs, PNP Maritime Group, HUDCC, and other concerned governmentagencies, shall remove and demolish all structures, constructions, andother encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other applicable lawsalong the MeycauayanMarilaoObando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay(Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and otherrivers, connecting waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater intothe Manila Bay.

In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish, operate, and maintain asanitary landfill, as prescribed by RA 9003, within a period of one (1) yearfrom finality of this Decision. On matters within its territorial jurisdictionand in connection with the discharge of its duties on the maintenance ofsanitary landfills and like undertakings, it is also ordered to cause theapprehension and filing of the appropriate criminal cases against violatorsof the respective penal provisions of RA 9003, Sec. 27 of RA 9275 (theClean Water Act), and other existing laws on pollution.

(9) The DOH shall, as directed by Art. 76 of PD 1067 and Sec. 8 of RA9275, within one (1) year from finality of this Decision, determine if alllicensed septic and sludge companies have the proper facilities for thetreatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septictanks. The DOH shall give the companies, if found to be noncomplying, areasonable time within which to set up the necessary facilities under painof cancellation of its environmental sanitation clearance.

(10) Pursuant to Sec. 53 of PD 1152, Sec. 118 of RA 8550, and Sec. 56of RA 9003, the DepEd shall integrate lessons on pollution prevention,waste management, environmental protection, and like subjects in theschool curricula of all levels to inculcate in the minds and hearts ofstudents and, through them, their parents and friends,

132





out by the court in the original case, but also goes furtherby requiring reports and updates from the said governmentagencies, and setting deadlines for the submission thereof.

I find these directives in the Majority Resolutionpatently irreconcilable with basic constitutional doctrinesand with the legislative mechanisms already in place, suchas the Administrative Code and the Local GovernmentCode, which explicitly grant control and supervision overthese agencies to the President alone, and to no one else.For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the MajorityResolution.In issuing these directives, the Court has encroached upon the exclusive authority of the Executive Department and violated the doctrine of Separation of Powers

The Resolution assigned the Department of NaturalResources as the primary agency for environmentprotection and required the implementation of itsOperational Plan for the

_______________

the importance of their duty toward achieving and maintaining a balancedand healthful ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entire Philippinearchipelago.

(11) The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequate budget in theGeneral Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover theexpenses relating to the cleanup, restoration, and preservation of thewater quality of the Manila Bay, in line with the country’s developmentobjective to attain economic growth in a manner consistent with theprotection, preservation, and revival of our marine waters.

(12) The heads of petitionersagencies 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 quarterlyprogressive report of the activities undertaken in accordance with thisDecision.

No costs.SO ORDERED.

133





Manila Bay Coastal Strategy. It ordered the DENR tosubmit the updated operational plan directly to the Court;to summarize data on the quality of Manila Bay waters;and to “submit the names and addresses of persons andcompanies…that generate toxic or hazardous waste on orbefore September 30, 2011.”

The Department of the Interior and Local Governmentis directed to “order the Mayors of all cities in MetroManila; the Governors of Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan,Pampanga and Bataan; and the Mayors of all the cities andtowns in said provinces to inspect all factories, commercialestablishments and private homes along the banks of themajor river systems…” to determine if they havewastewater treatment facilities, on or before 30 June 2011.The LGUs are given a deadline of 30 September 2011 tofinish the inspection. In cooperation with the Departmentof Public Works and Highways (DPWH), these localgovernments are required to submit their plan for theremoval of informal settlers and encroachments which arein violation of Republic Act No. 7279. The said demolitionmust take place not later than 31 December 2012.

The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System(MWSS) is required to submit its plans for the constructionof wastewater treatment facilities in areas where needed,the completion period for which shall not go beyond theyear 2020. On or before 30 June 2011, the MWSS is furtherrequired to have its two concessionaires submit a report onthe amount collected as sewerage fees. The Local WaterUtilities Administration (LWUA) is ordered to submit on orbefore 30 September 2011 its plan to install and operatesewerage and sanitation facilities in the towns and citieswhere needed, which must be fully implemented by 31December 2020.

The Department of Agriculture and the Bureau ofAquatic Fisheries and Resources are ordered to submit onor before 30 June 2011 a list of areas where marine life inManila Bay has improved, and the assistance extended todifferent Local Gov

134





ernment Units in this regard. The Philippine PortsAuthority (PPA) is ordered to report the names, make, andcapacity of each ship that would dock in PPA ports; thedays they docked and the days they were at sea; theactivities of the concessionaire that would collect solid andliquid shipgenerated waste, the volume, treatment anddisposal sites for such wastes; and the violators that PPAhas apprehended.

The Department of Health (DOH) is required to submitthe names and addresses of septic and sludge companiesthat have no treatment facilities. The said agency mustalso require companies to procure a “license to operate”issued by the DOH. The Metropolitan Manila DevelopmentAuthority (MMDA) and the seventeen (17) LGUs in MetroManila must submit a report on the “amount of garbagecollected per district…visàvis the average amount ofgarbage disposed monthly in landfills and dumpsites.”MMDA must also submit a plan for the removal of informalsettlers and encroachments along NCR Rivers whichviolate R.A. No. 7279.

Clearly, the Court has no authority to issue thesedirectives. They fall squarely under the domain of theexecutive branch of the state. The issuance of specificinstructions to subordinate agencies in the implementationof policy mandates in all laws, not just those that protectthe environment, is an exercise of the power of supervisionand control—the sole province of the Office of thePresident.

Both the 1987 Constitution and Executive Order No.292, or the Administrative Code of the Philippines, state:

“Exercise of Executive Power.—The Executive power shall bevested in the President.3

Power of Control.—The President shall have control of all theexecutive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure thatthe laws be faithfully executed.”4

_______________

3 E.O. 292, Book II, Chapter 3, Sec. 11; and 1987 Constitution, Art. 7,Sec. 1.



135



In Anak Mindanao Partylist Group v. ExecutiveSecretary,5 this Court has already asserted that theenforcement of all laws is the sole domain of the Executive.The Court pronounced that the express constitutionalgrant of authority to the Executive is broad andencompassing, such that it justifies reorganizationmeasures6 initiated by the President. The Court said:

“While Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, thePresident executes the laws. The executive power is vested in thePresident. It is generally defined as the power to enforce andadminister the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws intopractical operation and enforcing their due observance.

As head of the Executive Department, the President is theChief Executive. He represents the government as a whole andsees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employeesof his department. He has control over the executive department,bureaus and offices. This means that he has the authority toassume directly the functions of the executive department, bureauand office, or interfere with the discretion of its officials. Corollaryto the power of control, the President also has the duty ofsupervising and enforcement of laws for the maintenance ofgeneral peace and public order. Thus, he is grantedadministrative power over bureaus and offices under his controlto enable him to discharge his duties effectively.”

To herein petitioner agencies impleaded below, thisCourt has given very specific instructions to report theprogress and status of their operations directly to thelatter. The Court also required the agencies to apprise it ofany noncompliance with the standards set forth bydifferent laws as to environment

_______________

4 E.O. 292, Book III, Chapter 1, Sec. 1; and 1987 Constitution, Art. 7,Sec. 17.

5 G.R. No. 166052, 29 August 2007, 531 SCRA 583.6 E.O. 379 and 364 were promulgated, placing the Presidential





Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) under the supervision and controlof the DAR, and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)as an attached agency under the Department of Agrarian Reform.

136



protection. This move is tantamount to making theseagencies accountable to the Court instead of the President.The very occupation streamlined especially for thetechnical and practical expertise of the Executive Branch isbeing usurped without regard for the delineations of powerin the Constitution. In fact, the issuance of the Resolutionitself is in direct contravention of the President’s exclusivepower to issue administrative orders, as shown thus:

“Administrative Orders.—Acts of the President which relate toparticular aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of hisduties as administrative head shall be promulgated inadministrative orders.”7

The Court’s discussion in Ople v. Torres8 pertaining tothe extent and breadth of administrative power bestowedupon the President is apt:

“Administrative power is concerned with the work of applyingpolicies and enforcing orders as determined by propergovernmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniformstandard of administrative efficiency and check the officialconduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue administrativeorders, rules and regulations.

… … …An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the

President which relates to specific aspects in the administrativeoperation of government. It must be in harmony with the law andshould be for the sole purpose of implementing the law andcarrying out the legislative policy.”

The implementation of the policy laid out by thelegislature—in the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004, theToxic and Hazardous Waste Act or Republic Act 6969, theEnvironment Code, and other laws geared towardsenvironment protection—is under the competence of the





President.

_______________

7 E.O. 292, Book 3, Title 1, Chapter 2, Sec. 3.8 G.R. No. 127685, 23 July 1998, 293 SCRA 141.

137



Achieved thereby is a uniform standard of administrativeefficiency. And since it is through administrative orderspromulgated by the President that specific operationalaspects for these policies are laid out, the Resolution of thisCourt overlaps with the President’s administrative power.No matter how urgent and laudatory the cause ofenvironment protection has become, it cannot but yield tothe higher mandate of separation of powers and themechanisms laid out by the people through theConstitution.

One of the directives is that which requires localgovernments to conduct inspection of homes andestablishments along the riverbanks, and to submit a planfor the removal of certain informal settlers. Not contentwith arrogating unto itself the powers of “control” and“supervision” granted by the Administrative Code to thePresident over said petitioner administrative agencies, theCourt is also violating the latter’s general supervisoryauthority over local governments:

“Sec. 18. General Supervision Over Local Governments.—ThePresident shall exercise general supervision over localgovernments.9

Sec. 25. National Supervision over Local Government Units.—(a) Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy, thePresident shall exercise general supervision over localgovernment units to ensure that their acts are within the scope oftheir prescribed powers and functions.10

The powers expressly vested in any branch of the Governmentshall not be exercised by, nor delegated to, any other branch of theGovernment, except to the extent authorized by theConstitution.”11





As has often been repeated by this Court, the doctrine ofseparation of powers is the very wellspring from which theCourt draws its legitimacy. Former Chief Justice ReynatoS.

_______________

9 1987 Constitution, Art. 2 on State Policies.10 E.O. 292, Book 3, Title 1, Chapter 6, Sec. 25.11 E.O 292, Book 2, Chapter 1, Sec. 1(8).

138



Puno has traced its origin and rationale as inhering in therepublican system of government:

“The principle of separation of powers prevents theconcentration of legislative, executive, and judicial powers to asingle branch of government by deftly allocating their exercise tothe three branches of government...

In his famed treatise, The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieuauthoritatively analyzed the nature of executive, legislative andjudicial powers and with a formidable foresight counselled thatany combination of these powers would create a system with aninherent tendency towards tyrannical actions…

Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be notseparated from the legislative and the executive. Were it joinedwith the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would beexposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then thelegislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge mightbehave with violence and oppression.

There would be an end of everything, were the same man orthe same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercisethose three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing thepublic resolutions, and that of trying the causes of individuals.”12

Nor is there merit in the contention that these directiveswill speed up the rehabilitation of Manila Bay better thanif said rehabilitation were left to the appropriate agencies.Expediency is never a reason to abandon legitimacy. “TheSeparation of Powers often impairs efficiency, in terms of






dispatch and the immediate functioning of government. Itis the longterm staying power of government that isenhanced by the mutual accommodation required by theseparation of powers.”13

_______________

12 C.J. Reynato S. Puno, Separate Concurring Opinion, Macalintal v.Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 157013, 10 July 2003, 405 SCRA 614.

13 United States v. American Tel. &Tel Co., 567 F 2d 121 (1977), citingJ. Brandeis, Separate Dissenting Opinion, Myers v. United States, US 52293, 47 (1926).

139



Mandamus does not lie to compel a discretionary act.

In G.R. Nos. 17194748, the Court explicitly admittedthat “[w]hile the implementation of the MMDA’s mandatedtasks may entail a decisionmaking process, theenforcement of the law or the very act of doing what thelaw exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may becompelled by mandamus.”14 In denying the appeal ofpetitioners and affirming the Decision of the RTC, theCourt of Appeals stressed that the trial court’s Decision didnot require petitioners to do tasks outside of their usualbasic functions under existing laws.15

In its revised Resolution, the Court is now settingdeadlines for the implementation of policyformulations which require decisionmaking by theagencies. It has confused an order enjoining a duty, withan order outlining specific technical rules on how to performsuch a duty. Assuming without conceding that mandamuswere availing under Rule 65, the Court can only require aparticular action, but it cannot provide for the means toaccomplish such action. It is at this point where thedemarcation of the general act of “cleaning up the ManilaBay” has become blurred, so much so that the Court nowengages in the slippery slope of overseeing technicaldetails.

In Sps. Abaga v. Sps. Panes16 the Court said:





“From the foregoing Rule, there are two situations when a writof mandamus may issue: (1) when any tribunal, corporation,board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performanceof an act which the law specifically enjoins as a dutyresulting from an office, trust, or station; or (2) when anytribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully excludesanother from the use and en

_______________

14 P. 12, MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 17194748, 15December 2008, 574 SCRA 661.

15 Id., at p. 9.16 G.R. No. 147044, 24 August 2007, 531 SCRA 56, 6263.

140



joyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled. The“duty” mentioned in the first situation is a ministerial duty, not adiscretionary duty, requiring the exercise of judgment…In short,for mandamus to lie, the duty sought to be compelled to beperformed must be a ministerial duty, not a discretionary duty,and the petitioner must show that he has a welldefined, clearand certain right.”

Discretion, on the other hand, is a faculty conferredupon a court or official by which he may decide thequestion either way and still be right.17

The duty being enjoined in mandamus must be oneaccording to the terms defined in the law itself. Thus, therecognized rule is that, in the performance of an officialduty or act involving discretion, the corresponding officialcan only be directed by mandamus to act, but not to act oneway or the other. This is the end of any participation by theCourt, if it is authorized to participate at all.

In setting a deadline for the accomplishment of thesedirectives, not only has the Court provided the means ofaccomplishing the task required, it has actually gonebeyond the standards set by the law. There is nothing inthe Environment Code, the Administrative Code, or theConstitution which grants this authority to the judiciary. Itis already settled that, “If the law imposes a duty upon a






public officer and gives him the right to decide when andhow the duty shall be performed, such duty is notministerial.”18In Alvarez v. PICOP Resources,19 the Courtruled that,

“As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies onlyto compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not adiscretionary one; mandamus will not issue to control the exerciseof discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon himthe duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any manner inwhich he is required to

_______________

17 Asuncion v. De Yriarte, 28 Phil. 67.18 Meralco Securities v. Savellano, L36748, 23 October 1982, 117 SCRA 804.19 G.R. No. 162243, 29 November 2006, 508 SCRA 498.

141



act, because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not thatof the court.”

The Constitution does not authorize the courts to “monitor” the execution of their decisions.

It is an oftrepeated rule that the Court has no power toissue advisory opinions, much less “directives” requiringprogress reports from the parties respecting the executionof its decisions. The requirements of “actual case orcontroversy” and “justiciability” have long been establishedin order to limit the exercise of judicial review. While itsdedication to the implementation of the fallo in G.R.17194748 is admirable, the Court’s power cannot spill overto actual encroachment upon both the “control” and policepowers of the State under the guise of a “continuingmandamus.”

In G.R. 17194748, the Court said: “Under what otherjudicial discipline describes as ‘continuing mandamus,’ theCourt may, under extraordinary circumstances, issuedirectives with the end in view of ensuring that its decisionwould not be set to naught by administrative inaction or






indifference.”Needless to say, the “continuing mandamus” in this case

runs counter to principles of “actual case or controversy”and other requisites for judicial review. In fact, theSupreme Court is in danger of acting as a “superadministrator”20—the scenario presently unfolding in Indiawhere the supposed remedy originated. There the remedywas first used in Vineet Narain and Others v. Union ofIndia,21 a public interest case for corruption filed againsthighlevel officials. Since then, the

_______________

20 A term used by Manu Nair, correspondent of The InternationalEnvironment News, describing the Supreme Court of India in the ForestConservation Case. Available at http://www.abanet.org/intlaw/committees/business_regulation/environment/nairreportjune05.pdf. (visited 17 November 2010)

21 1996 SC (2) 199 JT 1996 (1) 708 1996 SCALE (1) SP 31.

142



remedy has been applied to environmental cases as anoversight and control power by which the Supreme Court ofIndia has created committees (i.e. the EnvironmentPollution Authority and the Central EmpoweredCommittee in forest cases) and allowed these committees toact as the policing agencies.22 But the most significantjudicial intervention in this regard was the series of orderspromulgated by the Court in T.N. Godavarman v. Union ofIndia.23

“Although the Writ Petition filed by Godavarman was anattempt to seek directions from the Court regarding curbing theillegal felling of trees, the Supreme Court went further to makepolicy determinations in an attempt to improve the country’sforests. The Court Order suspending felling of trees that did notadhere to state government working plans resulted in effectivelyfreezing the country’s timber industry. The Supreme Courtcompletely banned tree felling in certain northeastern states toany part of the country. The court’s role was even more





pronounced in its later directions. While maintaining the ban onfelling of trees in the seven northeast states, the court directedthe state governments to gather, process, sell, and otherwisemanage the already felled timber in the manner its specified theSupreme Court became the supervisor of all forest issues, rangingfrom controlling, pricing and transport of timber to managementof forest revenue, as well as implementation of its orders.”24

Thus, while it was originally intended to assert publicrights in the face of government inaction and neglect, theremedy is now facing serious criticism as it has spiraled outof control.25 In fact, even Justice J. S. Verma, who pennedthe

_______________

22 Rajeev Davan, Supreme Court advocate, Supreme Court of India,Judicial Excessivism, available at http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/content/judicialexcessivism. (visited 17 November 2010)

23 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors (1997) 2SCC 267.

24 Supra note 20 at page 2.25 ABHAYKUMAR DILIP OSTWAL, Supreme Court advocate, Supreme Court

of India, Judicial Activism and SelfRestraint, available athttp://airwebworld.com/articles/index.php. (visited 17 November 2010)

143



majority opinion in Vineet Narain in which ‘continuingmandamus’ first made its appearance, subsequentlypronounced that “judicial activism should be neitherjudicial ad hocism nor judicial tyranny.”26 Justice B.N.Srikrishna observed that judges now seem to want toengage themselves with boundless enthusiasm in complexsocioeconomic issues raising myriads of facts andideological issues that cannot be managed by “judiciallymanageable standards.”27 Even Former Chief Justice A. S.Anand, a known defender of judicial activism, has warnedagainst the tendency towards “judicial adventurism,”reiterating the principle that “the role of the judge is thatof a referee. I can blow my judicial whistle when the ball







goes out of play; but when the game restarts I must neithertake part in it nor tell the players how to play.”28

Unless our own Supreme Court learns to curb itsexcesses and apply to this case the standards for judicialreview it has developed over the years and applied to coequal branches, the scenario in India could very well playout in the Philippines. The Court must try to maintain ahealthy balance between the departments, precisely as theConstitution mandates, by delineating its “deft strokes andbold lines,”29 ever so conscious of the requirements ofactual case and controversy. While, admittedly, there arecertain flaws in the operation and implementation of thelaws, the judiciary cannot take the initiative to compensatefor such perceived inaction.

The Court stated in Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance:30

_______________

26 Justice J.S. Verma, “Judicial activism should be neither judicial adhocism nor judicial tyranny”, as published in The Indian Express, 06thApril 2007 (http://www.indianexpress.com).

27 Justice B.N. Srikrishna, “Skinning a Cat” (2005) 8 SCC (J) 3.28 Supra note 1.29 A phrase used by Justice Laurel in Angara v. Electoral Commission,

63 Phil. 130 (1936).30 G.R. No. 115525, 25 August 1994, 435 SCRA 630, holding that

judicial inquiry whether the formal requirements for the enactment ofstatutes—beyond those prescribed by the Constitution—

144



“Disregard of the essential limits imposed by the case andcontroversy requirement can in the long run only result inundermining our authority as a court of law. For, as judges, whatwe are called upon to render is judgment according to law, notaccording to what may appear to be the opinion of the day…”

Hence, “over nothing but cases and controversies cancourts exercise jurisdiction, and it is to make the exercise of








that jurisdiction effective that they are allowed to passupon constitutional questions.”31 Admirable though thesentiments of the Court may be, it must act withinjurisdictional limits. These limits are founded upon thetraditional requirement of a cause of action: “the act oromission by which a party violates a right of another.”32 Inconstitutional cases, for every writ or remedy, there mustbe a clear pronouncement of the corresponding right whichhas been infringed. Only then can there surface that “clearconcreteness provided when a question emerges preciselyframed and necessary for decision from a clash of adversaryargument exploring every aspect of a multifaceted situationembracing conflicting and demanding interests.”33

Unfortunately, the Court fails to distinguish between apronouncement on violation of rights on one hand, and nonperformance of duties visàvis operational instructions, onthe other. Moreover, it also dabbles in an interpretation ofconstitutional rights in a manner that is dangerously preemptive of legally available remedies.The “continuing mandamus” palpably overlaps with the power of congressional oversight.

_______________

have been observed, is precluded by the principle of separation of powers.

31 VICENTE V. MENDOZA, “The Nature and Function of Judicial Review,”31 IBP Journal 1 (2005).

32 Rules of Court, Rule 2, Sec. 2.33 United States v. Fruehauf, 365 U.S. 146, 157 (1968).

145



Article 6, Section 22 of the 1987 Constitution states:

“The heads of department may upon their own initiative, withthe consent of the President, or upon the request of either House,or as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and beheard by such House on any matter pertaining to theirdepartments. Written questions shall be submitted to the






President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives at least three days before their scheduledappearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to writtenquestions, but may cover matters related thereto. When thesecurity of the state or the public interest so requires and thePresident so states in writing, the appearance shall be conductedin executive session.”

This provision pertains to the power to conduct aquestion hour, the objective of which is to obtaininformation in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function.Macalintal v. Comelec34 discussed the scope ofcongressional oversight in full. Oversight refers to thepower of the legislative department to check, monitor andensure that the laws it has enacted are enforced:

“The power of Congress does not end with the finishedtask of legislation. Concomitant with its principal powerto legislate is the auxiliary power to ensure that the laws itenacts are faithfully executed. As well stressed by one scholar,the legislature “fixes the main lines of substantive policy and isentitled to see that administrative policy is in harmony with it; itestablishes the volume and purpose of public expenditures andensures their legality and propriety; it must be satisfied thatinternal administrative controls are operating to secure economyand efficiency; and it informs itself of the conditions ofadministration of remedial measure.

… … …Clearly, oversight concerns postenactment measures

undertaken by Congress: (a) to monitor bureaucratic compliancewith program objectives, (b) to determine whether agencies areproperly

_______________

34 Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 157013, 10 July 2003, 405SCRA 614.

146



administered, (c) to eliminate executive waste and dishonesty, (d)to prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority, and (d) to




assess executive conformity with the congressional perception ofpublic interest.

… … …Congress, thus, uses its oversight power to make sure

that the administrative agencies perform their functionswithin the authority delegated to them.”

Macalintal v. Comelec further discusses that legislativesupervision under the oversight power connotes acontinuing and informed awareness o n the part ofCongress regarding executive operations in a givenadministrative area. Because the power to legislateincludes the power to ensure that the laws are enforced,this monitoring power has been granted by theConstitution to the legislature. In cases of executive nonimplementation of statutes, the courts cannot justify theuse of “continuing mandamus,” as it would by its verydefinition overlap with the monitoring power undercongressional oversight. The Resolution does not onlyencroach upon the general supervisory function of theExecutive, it also diminished and arrogated unto itself thepower of congressional oversight.Conclusion

This Court cannot nobly defend the environmentalrights of generations of Filipinos enshrined in theConstitution while in the same breath eroding thefoundations of that very instrument from which it draws itspower. While the remedy of “continuing mandamus” hasevolved out of a Third World jurisdiction similar to ours, wecannot overstep the boundaries laid down by the rule oflaw. Otherwise, this Court would rush recklessly beyondthe delimitations precisely put in place to safeguardexcesses of power. The tribunal, considered by manycitizens as the last guardian of fundamental rights, wouldthen resemble nothing more than an idol with feet of clay:strong in appearance, but weak in foundation.

147





…The Court becomes a conscience by acting to remind us oflimitation on power, even judicial power, and theinterrelation of good purposes with good means. Morality isnot an end dissociated from means. There is a morality ofmorality, which respects the limitation of office and thefallibility of the human mind…selflimitation is the firstmark of the master. That, too is part of the role of theconscience.35

The majority Resolution would, at the same time, castthe light of scrutiny more harshly on judicial action inwhich the Court’s timely exercise of its powers is called for—as in the cases of prisoners languishing in jail whosecases await speedy resolution by this Court. There wouldthen be nothing to stop the executive and the legislativedepartments from considering as fair game the judiciary’sown accountability in its clearly delineated department.

DENR ordered to submit updated Operational Plan forthe Manila Bay Coastal Strategy; DILG shall orderinspection of all factories, commercial establishments andprivate homes along banks of major rivers systems andother minor rivers and waterways that discharge water intoManila Bay and lands abutting it, MWSS shall submit toCourt the list of areas in Metro Manila, Rizal and Cavitethat do not have wastewater treatment facilities; The LocalWater Utilities Administration ordered to submit plan toprovide, install, operate and maintain sewerage andsanitation facilities; DA ordered to submit report toSupreme Court on areas in Manila Bay where marine lifehas to be restored or improved and the assistance it hasextended; The PPA shall report list of violators and status oftheir cases; the PNP Maritime Group submit its plan ofaction to apprehend violators of RA No. 8550; The MMDAshall submit report of names and addresses of informalsettlers along PasigMarikinaSan Juan Rivers, the NCR

_______________

35 Paul Freund, quoting Justice Brandeis, In Law and Justice 36(1968).

148






rivers, the NavotasMalabonTullahanTenejeros Rivers;The DOH shall submit names and addresses of owners ofseptic and sludge companies; and The DEPED shall reporton integration into school curricula for 20112012 subjectson pollution prevention, waste management, environmentalprotection, environmental laws and the like.

Notes.—By virtue of its constitutional power ofadministrative supervision over all courts and courtpersonnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court ofAppeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk, it isonly the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges’ andcourt personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take theproper administrative action against them if they commitany violation thereof. No other branch of government mayintrude into this power, without running afoul of thedoctrine of separation of powers. (Caoibes, Jr. vs.Ombudsman, 361 SCRA 395 [2001])

It would be too presumptuous on the part of theSupreme Court to summarily compel public respondents tocomply with pertinent provisions of law regardingprocurement of government infrastructure projects withoutany factual basis or prior determination of very particularviolations committed by specific government officials of theexecutive branch—for the Court to do so would amount to abreach of the norms of comity among coequal branches ofgovernment. (Suplico vs. National Economic andDevelopment Authority, 558 SCRA 329 [2008])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Documents

SCRA FULL MMDA vs. Concerned