PHILIPPINE CLEAN WATER ACT (RA 9275)
NWRB, Department of Health (DOH), Department
- Enacted on March 22, 2004
- Enacted based on a policy of economic growth in
a manner consistent with the protection,
preservation and revival of the quality of our fresh,
brackish and marine waters.
- The Act applies to water quality management in
all water bodies, but shall primarily govern the
abatement and control of pollution from land-based
sources.
I. DECLARATION OF POLICY
- This law stresses that the State shall pursue a
policy of economic growth in a manner consistent
with the protection, preservation, and revival of the
quality of our fresh, brackish, and marine waters.
- It is also the policy of the government to
streamline processes and procedures in the
prevention, control, and abatement of pollution
mechanisms for the protection of water resources
- To promote environmental strategies and use of
appropriate economic instruments and of control
mechanisms for the protection of water resources
- To formulate a holistic national program of water
quality management that recognizes that issues
related to this management cannot be separated
from concerns about water sources and ecological
protection, water supply, public health, and quality
of life
- To provide a comprehensive management program
for water pollution focusing on pollution
prevention.
II. MANAGEMENT OF NON-ATTAINMENT
AREAS
- The Department shall designate water bodies, or
portions where specific pollutants from either
natural or man-made source have already exceeded
water quality guidelines as non-attainment areas for
the exceeded pollutants.
- It shall prepare and implement a program that will
not allow new sources of exceeded water pollutant
in non-attainment areas without a corresponding
reduction in discharges from existing sources.
- The department shall, in coordination with
of Agriculture (DA) and other concerned
government agencies and private sectors shall take
such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the
quality of such water in non-attainment areas to
meet the standards under which it was classified.
- The LGUs shall prepare and implement
contingency plans and other measures including
relocation, whenever necessary, for the protection of
health and welfare of the residents within
potentially affected areas.
III. FINANCIAL LIABILITY MECHANISM
A. FINANCIAL LIABILITY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL REHABILITATION
- The Department shall require program and project
proponents to put up environmental guarantee fund
(EGF) as part of environmental management plan.
- The EGF shall finance the maintenance of the
health of the ecosystems and specially the
conservation of the watersheds and aquifers affected
by the development, and the needs of emergency
response, clean-up or rehabilitation of areas that
may be damaged during the programs or projects
actual implementation.
- Liability for damages shall continue even after the
termination of a program or project.
B. CLEAN UP OPERATIONS
- Any person who causes pollution in or pollutes
water bodies in excess of the applicable and
prevailing standards shall be responsible to contain,
remove, and clean-up any pollution incident at his
own expense to the extent that the same water
bodies have been rendered unfit for utilization and
beneficial use.
- In the event emergency clean-up operations are
necessary and the polluter fails to immediately
undertake the same, the Department, in coordination
with other government agencies concerned, shall
conduct containment, removal and clean-up
operations.
 1. Concerned govt agencies
required to act even in the absence
of specific pollution incident
- In Metro Manila Development Authority vs.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, the court ruled
that even in the absence of a specific pollution
incident, the Metro Manila Development Authority
(MMDA) and other concerned agencies are required
to take such measures as may be necessary to meet
the prescribed water quality standards. They are
not to confine themselves to the containment,
removal, and cleaning operations only when a
specific pollution incident occurs.
- The underlying duty to upgrade the quality of
water is not conditional on the occurrence of any
pollution incident.
2. Enforcement through the writ of
continuing mandamus
- The clean-up and/or restoration of the Manila Bay
is only an aspect and the initial stage of the long-
term solution. The preservation of the water quality
of the bay after the rehabilitation process is as
important as the cleaning phase.
- The court may, under extraordinary circumstances,
issue a writ of continuing mandamus with the end in
view of ensuring that its decision would not be set
to naught by the administrative inaction or
indifference.
3. LLDA charged with the
responsibility of protecting the
inhabitants from the deleterious
effects of pollutant in the Laguna
Lake Area
- RA No. 4850 (Laguna Lake Development Act)
mandates the LLDA to carry out and make effective
the declared national policy of promoting and
accelerating the development and balanced growth
of the Laguna Lake area and the cities of San Pablo,
Manila, Pasay, Quezon and Caloocan with the due
regard and adequate provisions for the
environmental management and control,
preservation of the quality of human life and
ecological systems, and the prevention of undue
ecological disturbances, deterioration and pollution.
- LLDA has the responsibility to protect the
inhabitants of the Laguna Lake Region from the
deleterious effects of the pollutants emanating from
the discharge of wastes from the surrounding areas.
IV. INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISM
A. DENR
- Under EO no. 192, DENR is the primary agency
responsible for the conservation, management,
development, and proper use of the countrys
environment and natural resources.
- DENR is the primary agency for the enforcement
and implementation of all the aspects of water
quality management.
- DENR is also tasked to prepare a National Quality
Status Report, an Integrated Water Quality
Management area Action Plan which is nationwide
in scope covering the Manila Bay and Adjoining
areas.
B. POLLUTION ADJUDICATION
BOARD (PAB)
- PAB is the agency generally charged with the
determination and resolution of pollution cases.
(note:lagay to sa ppt)
- EO No. 192 transferred to the Pollution
Adjudication Board (PAB) the powers and functions
of the National Pollution and Control Commission
provided in RA No. 3931.
- These empowered the PAB to determine the
location, magnitude, extent, severity, causes and
effects of water pollution.
- PAB serves as the arbitrator for the determination
of reparation, or restitution of the damages and
losses resulting from pollution.
V. ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
LGU shall, through its Environment and Natural
Resources Office (ENRO), have the following
powers and functions:
a. Monitoring of water quality
b. Emergency response
 c. Compliance with the Framework of the
Water Quality Management Action Plan
d. To take active participation in all efforts
concerning water quality protection and
rehabilitation
e. To coordinate with other government
agencies and civil society and the concerned
sectors in the implementation of measures to
prevent and control water pollution.
VI. LINKAGE MECHANISM WITH OTHER
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
- The Department and its concerned attached
agencies including LLDA shall coordinate and enter
into agreement with other government agencies,
industrial sector and other concerned sectors in the
furtherance of the objectives of this Act. The
following agencies shall perform the functions
specified hereunder:
a. Philippine Coast Guard in coordination
with the DA and the Department shall
enforce for the enforcement of water quality
standards in marine waters, set pursuant to
the Act, specifically from offshore sources.
b. DPWH through its attached agencies,
such as the MWSS, LWUA, and including
other urban water utilities for the provision
of the sewerage and sanitation facilities and
the efficient and safe collection, treatment
and disposal of sewage within their area of
jurisdiction.
c. DA, shall coordinate with the Department,
in the formulation of guidelines for the re-
use of wastewater for irrigation and other
agricultural uses and for the prevention,
control and abatement of pollution from
agricultural and aquaculture activities.
d. DOH shall be primarily responsible for
the promulgation, revision and enforcement
of drinking water quality standards.
e. DOST, in coordination with the
Department and other concerned agencies
shall prepare a program for the evaluation,
verification, development and public
dissemination of pollution prevention and
cleaner production technologies
f. DepEd, CHED, DILG, and PIA shall
assist and coordinate with the Department in
the preparation and implementation of a
comprehensive and continuing public
education and information program pursuant
to the objectives of this Act.
VII. PROHIBITED ACTS (p.446-448)
A. PENAL SANCTIONS
- Any person who commits any of the prohibited
acts or violates any of the provisions of this act shall
be fined by the Secretary, upon the recommendation
of PAB, in the amount of not less than P10,000 no
more than P200,000 for every day of violation.
- The Secretary, upon recommendation of PAB, may
order the closure, suspension of development or
construction, or cessation of operations or, where
appropriate disconnection of water supply, until
such time that proper environmental safeguards are
put in place and/or compliance with the Act or its
rules and regulations are undertaken.
- Failure to undertake clean-up operations, willfully,
or though gross negligence, shall be punished by
imprisonment of not less than 2 years and more than
4 years and a fine not less than P50,000 and not
more than P100,000 per day for each day of
violation.
- Such failure or refusal which results in serious
injury or loss of life and/or irreversible water
contamination of surface, ground, coastal and
marine water shall be punished with imprisonment
of not less than six (6) years and one day and not
more than twelve (12) years, and a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) per day for
each day during which the omission and/or
contamination continues.
- In case of gross violation of this Act, the PAB
shall issue a resolution recommending that the
proper government agencies file criminal charges
against the violators. Gross violation shall mean any
of the following:
a) deliberate discharge of toxic pollutants identified pressing concerns of private enterprises, big or
pursuant to Republic Act No.6969 in toxic amounts; small (Universal Robina Corporation vs. Laguna
Lake Development Authority)
b) five {5) or more violations within a period of two
(2) years; or B. ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS
c) blatant disregard of the orders of the PAB, such - Local government officials concerned shall be
as the non-payment of fines, breaking of seals or subject to Administrative sanctions in case of failure
operating despite the existence of an order for to comply with their action plan accordance with
closure, discontinuance or cessation of operation. the relevant provisions of R.A. No. 7160.
In which case, offenders shall be punished with a
fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) but not more than Three million
pesos (P3,000,000.00} per day for each day of
violation or imprisonment of not less than six {6)
years but not more than ten {10) years, or both, at
the discretion of the court. If the offender is a
juridical person, the president, manager and the
pollution control officer or the official in charge of
the operation shall suffer the penalty herein
provided.
- For violations falling under Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No.979 or any regulations
prescribed in pursuance thereof, such person shall
be liable for a fine of no1 less than Fifty thousand
pesos {P50,000.00) nor more than One million
pesos (P1,000,000.00) or by imprisonment of not
less than one {1) year nor more than six (6) years or
both, for each offense, without prejudice to the civil
liability of the offender in accordance with existing
laws. If the offender is a juridical entity, then its
officers, directors, agents or any person primarily
responsible shall be held liable: Provided, That any
vessel from which oil or other harmful substances
are discharged in violation of Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No.979 shall be liable for
penalty of fine specified in the immediately
preceding paragraph and clearance of such vessel
from the port of the Philippines may be withheld
until the fine is paid and such penalty shall
constitute a lien on such vessel which may be
recovered in proceedings by libel in rem in the
proper court which the vessel may be. The owner or
operator of a vessel or facility which discharged the
oil or other harmful substances will be liable to pay
for any clean-up costs.
a. Protection of the environment, including
bodies of water, is no less urgent or vital than the

CASES:
1. METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY VS. CONCERNED RESIDENTS
OF MANILA BAY
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008
VELASCO, JR., J.:
FACTS:
On January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned
Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite
against several government agencies, among them
the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and
protection of the Manila Bay, and to submit to the
RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the
purpose.
The complaint alleged that the water quality
of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the
allowable standards set by law, which was
confirmed by DENRs Water Quality Management
Chief, Renato T. Cruz that water samples collected
from different beaches around the Manila Bay
showed that the amount of fecal coliform content
ranged from 50,000 to 80,000 most probable
number (MPN)/ml which is beyond the standard
200 MPN/100ml or the SB level under DENR
Administrative Order No. 34-90.
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, the
RTC held petitioners liable and ordered to clean up
and rehabilitate Manila Bay and to restore its water
quality to class B waters fit for swimming, skin-
diving, and other forms of contact recreation.
Herein petitioners appealed before the Court
of Appeals contending that the pertinent provisions
of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to
the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do
not cover cleaning in general. They also asserted
that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a
ministerial act which can be compelled by
mandamus.
The CA sustained RTCs decision stressing that
petitioners were not required to do tasks outside of
their basic functions under existing laws, hence, this
appeal.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not Sections 17 and 20 of PD
1152 under the headings, Upgrading of
Water Quality and Clean-up Operations,
envisage a cleanup in general or are they
limited only to the cleanup of specific
pollution incidents;
(2) Whether or not petitioners be compelled
by mandamus to clean up and
rehabilitate the Manila Bay.
HELD:
Supreme Court held that the cleaning up and
rehabilitating Manila Bay is a ministerial in nature
and can be compelled by mandamus.
Sec. 3(c) of R.A. No. 7924 (the law creating
MMDA) states that the MMDA is mandated to put
up an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and
solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other
alternative garbage disposal systems. SC also noted
that MMDAs duty in the area of solid waste
disposal is set forth not only in the Environment
Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but also in its
charter, therefore, it is ministerial in nature and can
be compelled by mandamus.
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 clean up, rehabilitation,
protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay.
They are precluded from choosing not to perform
these duties. So, their functions being ministerial in
nature can be compelled by mandamus.
As regard to Secs. 17 & 20 of P.D. 1152, the
Court ruled that

Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code
Include Cleaning in General
The disputed sections are quoted as follows:
Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality.Where
the quality of water has deteriorated to a degree
where its state will adversely affect its best usage,
the government agencies concerned shall take such
measures as may be necessary to upgrade the
quality of such water to meet the prescribed water
quality standards.
Section 20. Clean-up Operations.It shall be the
responsibility of the polluter to contain, remove and
clean-up water pollution incidents at his own
expense. In case of his failure to do so, the
government agencies concerned shall undertake
containment, removal and clean-up operations and
expenses incurred in said operations shall be
charged against the persons and/or entities
responsible for such pollution.
For one thing, said Sec. 17 does not in any
way state that the government agencies concerned
ought to confine themselves to the containment,
removal, and cleaning operations when a specific
pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17
requires them to act even in the absence of a
specific pollution incident, as long as water
quality has deteriorated to a degree where its
state will adversely affect its best usage. This
section, to stress, commands concerned government
agencies, when appropriate, to take such measures
as may be necessary to meet the prescribed water
quality standards. In fine, the underlying duty to
upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on
the occurrence of any pollution incident.
For another, a perusal of Sec. 20 of the
Environment Code, as couched, indicates that it is
properly applicable to a specific situation in which
the pollution is caused by polluters who fail to clean
up the mess they left behind. In such instance, the
concerned government agencies shall undertake the
cleanup work for the polluters account. Petitioners
assertion, that they have to perform cleanup
operations in the Manila Bay only when there is a
water pollution incident and the erring polluters do
not undertake the containment, removal, and
cleanup operations, is quite off mark. As earlier
discussed, the complementary Sec. 17 of the
Environment Code comes into play and the
specific duties of the agencies to clean up come in
even if there are no pollution incidents staring at
them. Petitioners, thus, cannot plausibly invoke
and hide behind Sec. 20 of PD 1152 or Sec. 16 of
RA 9275 on the pretext that their cleanup mandate
depends on the happening of a specific pollution
incident. In this regard, what the CA said with
respect to the impasse over Secs. 17 and 20 of PD
1152 is at once valid as it is practical. The appellate
court wrote: PD 1152 aims to introduce a
comprehensive program of environmental
protection and management. This is better served by
making Secs. 17 & 20 of general application rather
than limiting them to specific pollution incidents.
The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea
resource, playground, and as a historical landmark
cannot be over-emphasized. It is not yet too late in
the day to restore the Manila Bay to its former
splendor and bring back the plants and sea life that
once thrived in its blue waters. But the tasks ahead,
daunting as they may be, could only be
accomplished if those mandated, with the help and
cooperation of all civic-minded individuals, would
put their minds to these tasks and take
responsibility. This means that the State, through
petitioners, has to take the lead in the preservation
and protection of the Manila Bay.
2. SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION VS.
JALOS
ROBERTO A. ABAD
FACTS:
Petitioner Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.
(Shell) and the Republic of the Philippines entered
into Service Contract 38 for the exploration and
extraction of petroleum in northwestern Palawan.
Two years later, Shell discovered natural gas in the
Camago-Malampaya area and pursued its
development of the well under the Malampaya
Natural Gas Project. This entailed the construction
and installation of a pipeline from Shells production
platform to its gas processing plant in
Batangas. The pipeline crossed
the Oriental Mindoro Sea.
Respondents Efren Jalos et al filed a
complaint for damages against Shell before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), claimed that they were
all subsistence fishermen from the coastal barangay
of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro whose livelihood was
adversely affected by the construction and operation
of Shells natural gas pipeline.
Jalos, et al claimed that their fish catch
became few after the construction of the pipeline.
They said that the pipeline greatly affected
biogenically hard-structured communities such as
coral reefs and led to stress to the marine life in
the Mindoro Sea.
RTC dismissed the case and ruled that it should be
filed before PAB for the latter has jurisdiction over
the case. CA reversed the RTCs decision hence this
petition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the complaint is a pollution case
that falls within the primary jurisdiction of the PAB
RULING:
1. The complaint is a pollution case and thus falls
within the jurisdiction of PAB.
Section 2(a) of P.D. 984 defines pollution as any
alteration of the physical, chemical and
biological properties of any water x x x as will or
is likely to create or render such water x x x
harmful, detrimental or injurious to public health,
safety or welfare or which will adversely affect
their utilization for domestic, commercial,
industrial, agricultural, recreational or other
legitimate purposes.
It is clear from this definition that the stress to
marine life claimed by Jalos, et al is caused by
some kind of pollution emanating from Shells
natural gas pipeline. The pipeline, they said, greatly
affected or altered the natural habitat of fish and
affected the coastal waters natural function as
fishing grounds. The power and expertise needed to
determine such issue lies with the PAB.
Executive Order 192 (1987) transferred to the PAB
the powers and functions of the National Pollution
and Control Commission provided in R.A. 3931, as
amended by P.D. 984.These empowered the PAB to
determine the location, magnitude, extent,
severity, causes and effects of water
pollution. Among its functions is to serve as
arbitrator for the determination of reparation, or
restitution of the damages and losses resulting from
pollution. In this regard, the PAB has the power to
conduct hearings, impose penalties for violation of
P.D. 984, and issue writs of execution to enforce its
orders and decisions. The PABs final decisions may
be reviewed by the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court.