RULE 8

WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

 INTRODUCTION
A writ can be described as a judicial remedy
in the form of an order from a court.
In Latin, the term mandamus means we
order.
A writ of mandamus is a writ issued by a
court to compel performance of a particular
act by a government officer or body, to
correct a prior action of failure to act.
 INTRODUCTION
The aggrieved person must have a legal right that is
denied by the respondent by not performing an act
that he is assigned to do officially or by doing it
improperly.
The right in question must be judicially enforceable.
The respondent cannot be forced to do something
which does not come under the ambit of his official
duty, which is public in nature. So, the writ of
mandamus is issued against judicial bodies and
public authorities, who are assigned with statutory
duties.
 INTRODUCTION

The respondent is assigned to do the act

mandatorily (ministerial in nature). The duty
must not be discretionary in nature.
 INTRODUCTION
Example: A has filed a visa application and the
consulate officials delayed decision on the
application for a long time, without any reason. A
can file a petition seeking a writ of mandamus,
directing the consulate officials to decide on the
visa application at the earliest. In this case, the
respondents are legally entitled to process visa
applications, and they failed to do their official duty,
to the detriment of the petitioner.
 INTRODUCTION
Types of Mandamus
1. Alternative mandamus - commands the respondent to
perform an act, or appear before the court on the
specified date, to show cause why he is unable to
perform the same
2. Peremptory mandamus - a final order to the
respondent to perform the act (such as when the
respondent fails to comply with the first mandamus)
3. Continuing mandamus - usually issued in public
interest, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice
- commands the respondent to do an act or series of
acts until the judgment is fully satisfied
 WRIT OF CONTINIUNG MANDAMUS DEFINED

a writ issued by a court in an environmental case

directing any agency or instrumentality of the government,
or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed
by final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment
is fully satisfied (Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)
 GROUNDS TO AVAIL OF A WRIT OF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS
A person may file a verified petition for a Writ of Continuing
Mandamus when any of the following instances are present:
(1)When the respondent either:
a. Unlawfully omits to perform a duty specifically enjoined
by law, arising from an office, trust or station, in relation
to the enforcement or violation of an environmental
law, rule or regulation or a right therein; or
b. Unlawfully excludes another from the use or
enjoyment of such right; and
(2) There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law.
 PERSON WHO MAY FILE A PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

Any person personally aggrieved by

the unlawful act or omission.
 PERSON AGAINST WHOM A PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS IS FILED

A petition is filed against any agency,

instrumentality of the Government or an
officer thereof.
 COURT WHERE THE PETITION FOR A WRITOF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS IS FILED
a. Regional Trial Court that has
jurisdiction over the unlawful act or
omission;

b. Court of Appeals; or

c. Supreme Court
PROCEDURE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS

The petitioner shall file his application for a Writ

of Continuing Mandamus with the proper venue
as specified in the preceding paragraph.

No docket fees shall be paid.

PROCEDURE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS
The petition should be verified, and shall include the following:

a. Allegation of facts;
b. Supporting evidence
c. That the petition concerns environmental law, rule or
regulation:
d. Prayer that the judgment shall direct the respondent to do
an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied;
e. That damages shall be paid to the petitioner for the injury
suffered by reason of the unlawful act or omission of the
respondent; and
f. A sworn certification against non-forum shopping.
PROCEDURE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS
If the petition is sufficient in form and substance,
the court shall:

(1) issue the Writ of Continuing Mandamus; and

(2) require the respondent to comment on the

petition within ten (10) days from receipt
thereof.
PROCEDURE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS
The court may also issue a Temporary Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO) for two reasons:

(1)to expedite the proceedings; and

(2) to preserve the rights of the parties pending

litigation.
PROCEDURE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS
The court shall set the petition for a summary hearing
or require the parties to file their respective
memoranda after:

(1) the respondent files his comment; or

(2) the period for the filing of the comment has

already expired.
PROCEDURE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS
After hearing, judgment shall be rendered within sixty
(60) days from the date of the submission of the
petition for resolution.

The court may either:

(1) grant the privilege of the Writ of Continuing

Mandamus; or

(2) deny the petition

PROCEDURE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS

Should the court grant it, the respondent shall be

required to perform an act or series of acts and
to satisfy other reliefs as may be warranted.

To ensure compliance with the judgment, the

respondent shall also submit periodic reports
that shall describe the manner and progress of
the execution of the judgment.
PROCEDURE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS

These periodic reports shall be contained in

partial returns of the Writ of Continuing
Mandamus.

A final return of the Writ of Continuing

Mandamus shall be submitted by the
respondent once the judgment is fully satisfied.
PROCEDURE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS
The court may also evaluate and monitor
compliance with the Writ of Continuing
Mandamus, and the petitioner may comment
on the respondents satisfaction of the
judgment.

Upon submission of the final return of the writ,

the court shall enter the satisfaction of the
judgment on the court dockets.
PROCEDURE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS
DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES OF WRIT OF
KALIKASAN AND WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS
Writ of Continuing Mandamus Writ of Kalikasan
Subject Matter Neglect or exclusion; Unlawful act or omission;
law, rule or right life, health or property; magnitude
Petitioner One who is personally aggrieved Any person or representative/agent
(PO/NGO/Public Interest Group)
Respondent Government or its officers Public or private individual or entity

Exemption from docket fees Exempted Exempted

Temporary Environmental Ancillary remedy Ancillary remedy

Protection Order (TEPO)

Venue RTC or Court of Appeals Court of Appeals or Supreme Court

or Supreme Court
Discovery Measures No enumeration Ocular inspection or production of
documents
Damages Allow damages for malicious None;
neglect of duty Separate suit
 MMDA V. Concerned Residents Of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

MMDA, DENR, DECS, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP MARITIME GROUP, and
DILG, petitioners,
vs.
CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and joined by DIVINA V.
ILAS, et al., respondents.

.At the core of the case is the Manila Bay, a place with a proud historic past,
once brimming with marine life and, for so many decades in the past, a spot for
different contact recreation activities, but now a dirty and slowly dying expanse
mainly because of the abject official indifference of people and institutions that
could have otherwise made a difference.
 MMDA V. Concerned Residents Of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008
On January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a
complaint before the RTC in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies,
for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay.

The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way
below the allowable standards set by law, specifically P.D. No. 1152 or the
Philippine Environment Code. This environmental aberration, the complaint
stated, stemmed from:

x x x [The] reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of omission or

commission [of the defendants] resulting in the clear and present danger to
public health and in the depletion and contamination of the marine life of
Manila Bay, [for which reason] ALL defendants must be held jointly and/or
solidarily liable and be collectively ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to restore
its water quality to class B waters fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of
contact recreation
 MMDA V. Concerned Residents Of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

Many factors have contributed to the pollution and deterioration of

Manila Bay, namely, improper disposal of wastes by individuals and
establishments, deposit of toxic and hazardous substances and other
ship-generated wastes from docking vessels, deposit of debris, such
as carcass of sunken vessels and other non-biodegradable garbage
in the bay, and improper treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and
sewage coming from septic tanks, among others.

Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be

ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted
concrete plan of action for the purpose.
 MMDA V. Concerned Residents Of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

Petitioners asserted, among others, that the cleaning of the Manila

Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.

The Supreme Court held that the cleaning or rehabilitation of Manila

Bay can be compelled by mandamus. While the implementation of
the MMDA's mandated tasks may entail a decision-making
process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what
the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be
compelled by mandamus. Under what other judicial discipline
describes as continuing mandamus , the Court may, under
extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view
of ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by
administrative inaction or indifference.
 MMDA V. Concerned Residents Of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008
A perusal of other petitioners respective charters or like enabling
statutes and pertinent laws would yield this conclusion: these
government agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutory
obligation, to perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly
to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the
Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these
duties.

In particular, the Supreme Court ordered:

1. DENR to fully implement its Operational Plan for the Manila Bay
Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation, restoration, and conservation
of the Manila Bay at the earliest possible time.
 MMDA V. Concerned Residents Of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

2. DILG to inspect all factories, commercial establishments, and

private homes along the banks of the major river systems in their
respective areas of jurisdiction to determine whether they have
wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed
by existing laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations.

3. MWSS to provide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary

adequate waste water treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and
Cavite where needed at the earliest possible time.
 MMDA V. Concerned Residents Of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

4. LWUA to provide, install, operate, and maintain sewerage and

sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection, treatment,
and disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan,
Pampanga, and Bataan where needed at the earliest possible time.

5. DA, through the BFAR, to improve and restore the marine life of the
Manila Bay.

6. The PCG and the PNP Maritime Group to apprehend violators of

PD 979, RA 8550, and other existing laws and regulations designed to
prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.
 MMDA V. Concerned Residents Of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

7. PPA to immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge

and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated
wastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and
apprehend the violators.

8. MMDA to dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and

other encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279, and
other applicable laws, and to establish, operate, and maintain a
sanitary landfill, as prescribed by R.A. No. 9003, within a period of one
(1) year from finality of the Courts decision.
 MMDA V. Concerned Residents Of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

9. DepEd to integrate lessons on pollution prevention, waste

management, environmental protection, and like subjects in the
school curricula of all levels to inculcate the importance of
maintaining a balanced and healthful ecosystem in the Manila Bay
and the entire Philippine archipelago.

10. DBM to consider incorporating an adequate budget in the

General Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover
the expenses relating to the cleanup, restoration, and preservation of
the water quality of the Manila Bay.
 MMDA V. Concerned Residents Of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008

11. The heads of petitioners-agencies 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
quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken in
accordance with this Decision.
THANK YOU!