Manila Bay is a large body of water with an area of 1,994 square kilometers. It is undeniably that Manila Bay is already polluted. The reason beside the pollution are so many and varied. And when the citizens and government institutions continually neglect this, our environment will totally be damaged.
Our Manila Bay waters have remained polluted despite of the fact that there are several laws been enacted defining the functions and responsibilities of different government agencies with respect to keeping a healthy environment. Maybe, this triggers the Manila Bay case, a case against eleven (11) eleven executive government departments and agencies for their failure to perform their tasks as exacted by the nature of their respective offices and statutory-mandated duties. As a solution, the plaintiffs prayed that the defendant-agencies be ordered to clean-up and rehabilitate the bay pursuant to a concerted plan of action and restore its waters to class “B” level, making it fit for swimming and other forms of contact recreation.
The trial court and later the Court of Appeals found for the plaintiffs, the defendant-agencies being enjoined to clean up and rehabilitate the bay in accordance with a consolidated and concerted action plan. The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal on the issue, among others, of the propriety of a mandamus to compel performance by government agencies of official duties. By a unanimous decision, the en banc Court not only upheld the appealed decision, but also took further steps. These extra steps partook of an exercise of judicial activism, for they tend to encroach on the prerogatives of the executive department as implementer of environment laws.
For me, this is patently incorrect. The dispositions in the Manila Bay case are simply the result of the exercise by the Supreme Court of its power of judicial review over a case, although it incidentally affected certain government agencies made parties to the case.
In my opinion, it was the Court’s sentiment that the daunting challenge in environmental rehabilitation and protection that is Manila Bay needed a more comprehensive but doable solution. Most importantly, maybe it is the monitoring mechanism be put in place if the short-term goal of cleaning up the bay is to succeed.
The Manila Bay case clearly shows us that only length time frame and sequential activities on environment and sanitation matters. The Decision in the Manila Bay case required several government agencies to undertake specific activities and projects set out in some detail in Operational Plan for Manila Bay Coastal Strategy to provide long-term solutions to address Manila Bay’s pollution. And to ensure that the Decision shall not be put to nothing, the Court required the heads of the agencies concerned to submit a periodic progressive report of the activities each has taken in the implementation and compliance of the decision.
And to ensure the compliance of the agencies concern, the compliance report is required to be submitted directly to the Supreme Court. Ordinarily, the trial court of origin issues the writ to execute a judgement and the sheriff implements and makes a return of the writ. In this instance, the court plays as the monitoring and implementing body, assuming the responsibility of seeing to it that its disposition is enforced.
In this Manila Bay case, the execution of the Court’s decision is not time bound. Meaning, the responsibility of those concerned in the cleaning-up, the rehabilitation and preservation of the Manila Bay and all corollary activities towards that end is not circumscribed by a specific time, five and ten-year threshold. As long as something remains to be done in terms of cleaning, rehabilitating and preserving the bay, the Manila Bay case is for all intents and purposes, still open and the mandamus therein decreed continues to be in effect.
The writ of continuing mandamus is really a convenient tool enabling the court to effectively exact compliance of its orders. And as a result of the Manila Bay case, the issued Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases has codified the Wirt of Continuing Mandamus as one of the critical principal remedies that may be sought in environmental cases.
Under the Rules, a continuing mandamus petition permits the court to retain post judgement jurisdiction to ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs decreed under its decision. Towards this end, the court may compel the submission of periodic reports from the responding government agencies as well as avail of other medium to monitor compliance with its decision.
With that, I end this paper with a verse in the book of Genesis, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it”. Above all, we should take our part in taking care of our environment. We can make a difference in every little things that we do in caring and protecting our environment.
By: Ms. Judith Guzman | Teacher 1 | BNHS
