Supreme Court of the Philippines
Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority; Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Department of Education, Culture and Sports; Department of Health; Department of Agriculture; Department of Public Works and Highways; Department of Budget and Management; Philippine Coast Guard; Philippine National Police Maritime Group; and Department of the Interior and Local Government.
Alarmed by the deterioration of the water quality in Manila Bay, residents (plaintiffs) in 1999 lodged a complaint with the Regional Trial Court against multiple government agencies (defendants), contending that the agencies were required to clean, rehabilitate and protect the Bay. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the Bay’s water quality – which they alleged had been caused by the defendants’ “reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of omission” – posed a clear danger to public health and marine life. The quality had fallen far below the permissible standards established by domestic law, including the Environmental Code.
Therefore, the defendants’ alleged failure to act violated international law, the public trust doctrine, statutory laws related to pollution and the environment and the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to life, health and a balanced ecology (R2HE). By way of remedy, the concerned residents sought an order from the court directing the defendants to clean up Manila Bay, submit a concrete action plan to that end and restore its water quality to a standard fit for swimming and other forms of recreation.
In 2002, the Trial Court found the government defendants accountable and mandated the cleanup and restoration of Manila Bay. Several government agencies contested the Court’s decision, arguing on appeal that domestic law required only the amelioration of specific pollution incidents, in contrast with the court order for a general and comprehensive cleanup. The defendants also raised concerns about the lack of funding and contended that the Bay’s cleanup could not be compelled by writ of mandamus. However, a Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision in 2005, reasoning that the original ruling required nothing of the petitioners but “their usual basic functions under existing laws.”
The government petitioners lodged one more appeal, this time to the Supreme Court, which once more favored Manila Bay’s concerned residents. Citing domestic precedent recognizing the “transcendental” nature of current and future generations’ R2HE, the Supreme Court held that the government petitioners couldn’t escape their corresponding obligation to conduct a comprehensive cleanup and keep the waters of Manila Bay clean.