CA ruling compels gov’t to clean up Manila Bay

By Michael Punongbayan, The Philippine Star

Fifteen government agencies are now compelled to save the country’s most important coastline following a landmark decision by the Court of Appeals (CA) to favor Manila Bay area residents, who filed a class suit against the national government in 1999.

The appellate court, in a resolution dated Sept. 28, 2005, cracked the whip on the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems, the Local Water Utilities Administration, the Philippine Ports Authority and 12 other national government offices for being remiss in their obligation to clean up, rehabilitate, and protect Manila Bay, which has been downgraded into a virtual body of water filled with fecal coliform.

The order gives the 15 agencies and all concerned local government units six months to act.

Also included in the suit were the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Philippine Coast Guard, Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, Philippine National Police— Maritime Group, Department of Budget and Management, Department of Education and Department of the Interior and Local Government.

The CA specifically tasked government agencies to come up with a "concerted plan of action to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay and its waterways to restore it to Class SB classification (bathing standard) and to revitalize its marine life."

CA Second Division Associate Judge Eliezer de Los Santos, as concurred by Associate Judges Eugenio Labitoria and Jose Reyes Jr., upheld the earlier decision of Executive Judge Lucenito Tagle of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite dated Sept. 13, 2002, favoring concerned residents in cities and municipalities surrounding Manila Bay in a class suit filed against the Philippine government in January 1999.

The Star, through lawyer Tony Oposa of the Philippine Bar Association (PBA), obtained a copy of the 13-page decision, which he described as a "grandslam" victory for environmental advocates like him who fear for the continuing depletion and deterioration of the country’s natural resources.

All 15 government agencies, after losing at the lower court, took the case to the CA in an effort to reverse the ruling.

However, the CA said the consolidated appeal was "bereft of merit."

"The decision of the lower court does not require defendants to do tasks outside of their usual functions. They are merely directed to come up with consolidated and coordinated efforts, each performing its basic function in rehabilitating and cleaning up the waters of Manila Bay," the CA ruling said. No Excuses
The appellate court gave weight to the testimony of the complainant’s lone witness, Renato Cruz of the DENR’s Water Quality Management Section, who presented results of water quality tests using samples from the Manila Bay.

Cruz stated that based on findings, 10 beaches around Manila Bay are not suitable for primary contact like bathing and swimming because of extreme amounts of fecal coliform.

The CA said it took note of the said fact, which was not even refuted by the agencies for it was a "glaring indication that indeed, appellants failed to perform their duties relative to addressing the Manila Bay’s environmental problem."

The court also junked the Philippine government’s argument that it has no money and even used this claim against them, saying that government agencies not having enough funding to do a task implies admission that they have been remiss in their duties.

There is no need to provide government agencies with more funding to clean up Manila Bay because a consolidated effort or action simply means performing each office’s basic function, the CA said.

The court said the MMDA, for instance, is supposed to establish and maintain adequate solid waste disposal, the DA is tasked to revitalize marine life in all seas and waters while the DPWH has the duty to remove and demolish structures along esteros and creeks.

Oposa said the CA decision is a big blow to the Philippine government, particularly agencies that have failed to clean up, revive, and protect Metro Manila’s coastline.

He said the decision caps a long legal battle waged by environmental advocates.

He called on Environment Secretary Mike Defensor to take the lead, as ordered by the Court, in the massive clean up of Manila Bay.

At the same time, Oposa thanked those who supported him in the legal battle, particularly lawyer Sigfrid Fortun, Rotary Club of Manila and his former environmental law students at the UP College of Law.

The students, now lawyers, served as initial co-plaintiffs in the civil case.

Oposa said the CA, in its decision, noted that while the standard for fecal coliform is only 200 units (MPN/100ml), Manila Bay now has 80,000 units which is way above the standard level.

"Manila Bay lies at the apex of the Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Triangle, the richest marine waters on earth. The sad state of Manila Bay is a mirror image of our irresponsibility in the management of this national and natural treasure," he said.

Foreseeing the possible elevation of the case to the Supreme Court, the lawyer said he is appealing to government agencies concerned not to delay the cleanup by filing more appeals.

"This is nothing personal. However, if despite the CA’s bold and enlightened decision a government agency will continue to file frivolous appeals, I will make it personal," Oposa, a United Nations Environmental Program Global 500 awardee, warned.

"I will then proceed to file criminal cases against the heads of government agencies for gross negligence and non-feasance of public duty," he said