**** Naiingit to eh, ayaw ,agpa penalize kasi ang MMDA case daw, pinag comply lang daw
HERNANDO, J:
Facts of the Case
In 2009, the Regional Office of the DENR, and the EMB Region III filed a complaint with PAB
against MWSS, Maynilad, and Manila Water for violation of Section 8 of RA 9275 (or the Clean
Water Act) for failure to provide, install, operate, and maintain adequate Wastewater Treatment
Facilities (WWTFs) for sewerage system resulting in the degraded quality and beneficial use of
the receiving bodies of water leading to Manila Bay, which in turn hampered DENR's mandate in
restoring and rehabilitating the Manila Bay.
The DENR EMB -NCR and Region IVA also instituted complains before the PAB, charging
MWSS, Maynilad, and Manila Water with failure to :
(a) provide, install, or maintain sufficient WWTFs compliant with the standards and
objectives of the Clean Water Act;
(b) construct Sewage Treatment Plants and Sewerage Treatment Facilities (STPs &
STFs) for treatment of household wastes; and, ultimately,
© perform its obligations under the said law.
SECTION 8. Domestic Sewage Collection, Treatment and Disposal. - Within five (5)
years following the effectivity of this Act, the Agency vested to provide water supply and
sewerage facilities and/or concessionaires in Metro Manila and other highly urbanized cities
(HUCs) as defined in Republic Act No. 7160, in coordination with LGUs, shall be required to
connect the existing sewage line found in all subdivisions, condominiums, commercial centers,
hotels, sports and recreational facilities, hospitals, market places, public buildings, industrial
complex and other similar establishments including households to available sewerage system.
Provided, That the said connection shall be subject to sewerage services charge/fees in
accordance with existing laws, rules or regulations unless the sources had already utilized their
own sewerage system: Provided, further, That all sources of sewage and septage shall comply
with the requirements herein.
In areas not considered as HUCs, the DPWH in coordination with the Department, DOH
and other concerned agencies, shall employ septage or combined sewerage-septage
management system.
For the purpose of this section, the DOH, coordination with other government agencies,
shall formulate guidelines and standards for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage
including guidelines for the establishment and operation of centralized sewage treatment system.
According to the EMB-NCR and EMB-RVI-A, the test results of water samples taken from Manila
Bay showed that the quality of water near the area has worsened without improvement in all
parameters.
The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SENR) acted on the complaints and
issued a Notice of Violation to petitioners.
MWSS Arguments
o Insisted that they never violated the law, and argued that its obligation under Section 8
had not yet accrued because of the lack of assistance from the LGU as stipulated in
Section 7.
Maynilad’s Arguments
o Anchored its arguments in the ruling in MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
where the Supreme court ordered MWSS to construct the necessary WWTFs in the
areas of Metro Manila, Rizal and Cavite with a deadline for completion of the
construction.
Manila Water’s Arguments
o Contented that it was exempted from the 5-year timeline for compliance
The Ruling of the SENR
The SENR ruled that the provision in the Clean Water Act about the 5-year period to connect the
existing sewage lines was mandatory, and the refusal of the petitioner to abide was irrelevant, and that
their failure to abide to such mandate was a continuing unmitigated environmental pollution resulting in
the release and discharge of untreated water into various water areas and Manila Bay.
The petitioners were solidarily fined the amout of PhP 29,400,000.00 covering the lapsed period,
and a succeeding 200,000.00 per day until such time that they have complied.
The Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
The Rulings of the Court of Appeals
Each case was dismissed in different grounds.
Maynilad’s petition : Petition was dismissed for having been filed beyond the reglementary
period.
Manila Water’s Petition : was dismissed, applying the doctrine of verba legisin which section 8
was clear in requiring the Manila Water to connect the existing sewage lines in its service area to
sewerage systems ready for and already in use within five years from effectivity of the law.
MWSS’s petition : was dismissed for the incorrect recourse to Rule 43 in questioning the Orders
of the SENR, and for not exhausting the administrative remedies.
All 3 petitioners were deemed to have violated Section 8 of the Clean Water Act.
Issues
1. Procedural :
a. Whether the Orders of the SENR did not comply with the requirements under
Section 28 (Fines, Damages and Penalties) of the Clean Water Act and Section 19
of Executive Order No. 192.
b. Whether petitioners were deprived of procedural due process when the Secretary
of the DENR imposed a fine on them for violation of the Clean Water Act.
2. Substantive
a. Whether petitioners violated Section 8 of the Clean Water Act.
i. Whether compliance by specified government agencies to their obligations
under Section 7 of the Clean Water Act is a condition precedent to
petitioners' fulfillment of their obligations thereunder.
ii. Whether petitioners' actual compliance to the Agreements regarding specific
targets for completion of sewerage system projects prevail over that of their
obligations under Section 8 of the Clean Water Act.
iii. whether petitioners are exempted from complying thereto by the provided
deadline
iv. Whether the ruling in MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
supersedes the five-year compliance period stated in Section 8 of the Clean
Water Act and extended petitioners' compliance therewith until the year
2037.
v. Whether the MMDA case impliedly repealed Section 8 of the Clean Water
Act.
vi. Whether the MMDA case effectively nullified the Orders of the SENR dated
07 October and 02 December 2009.
vii. Whether petitioners ought to be fined under Section 28 of the Clean Water
Act.
Supreme Court Ruling
The petitions were DENIED.
Ratio Decidendi
The SC chided the petitioners and advised them to stop making excuses, as the meat of the
cases was the fact of delay by the petitioners in complying with the mandate under Section 8, in
comparison to the matter involved in MMDA vs Concerned Citizens of the Manila bay which was
the urgency rehabilitation of the Manila Bay.
The SC ruled that the correct the PAB had the jurisdiction in adjudicating pollution cases based
on exceedance of the DENR Effluent Standards and other acts defined as prohibited under
Section 27 of R.A. 9275, and following the IRR of RA 9275, Secretary of the DENR may impose
fines , order the closure, suspension of development or construction, or cessation of operations,
or, where appropriate disconnection of water supply, upon recommendation of the PAB.
o The correct remedy from the orders of SENR was an appeal to the office of the president.
o Petitioners prematurely filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals and failed to
exhaust administrative remedies. These erroneous procedural steps effectively rendered
petitioners' appeals dismissible, resulting in the finality of the Orders of the SENR.
Due Process violations
o Petitioners were issued a Notice of Violation and were notified of the charges against them,
were given an opportunity to be heard during a technical conference, and were informed of the
penalty for possible violations of the Clean Water Act.
Based on the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the respondents have committed a violation
under the provision of the Clean Water Act or R.A. 9275, particularly Section 8 thereof which a
penalty of fines ranging from PhP 10,000.00 to PhP 200,000.00 per day of violation may be
imposed against them.
Section 7 is not a condition precedent to compliance with Section 8
Jura Regalia
o Is the State exercising its sovereign power as the owner of the lands in its domain, and in
the interest of quality and efficiency, the State turns over its resources to private entities
to distribute the burden of fulfilling the citizen’s needs, while it regulates these entities to
protect the welfare of the citizen – by way of its police power.
o Parens patriae means father of the nation, and expresses the inherent power of the
state to protect the person and the property of a person non sui juris, which also means
that the Filipino consumers that needs the protection from overpowering business suits.
Upon realizing the gap on the 3 doctrines, the SC introduced the Public Trust Doctrine, which was
derived from the American jurisprudence, imposing the power of the State and its
representatives to continue supervising over the water appropriation, and as well as the
reaffirmation of the public rights over the private rights, for critical resources.
The Public Trust Doctrine, (1) the State is the trustee that manages the natural resources (2)
which was the trust principal, for the benefit of the current and future beneficiaries (the citizens
and the generations to come)
https://lawreview.ust.edu.ph/maynilad- v-secretary-of-denr/
