Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
MOISES
December 6, 2016| Bersamin, J. |
SUMMARY: The main issue of the case is who has the authority to appoint the members of the Board of Directors of Metropolitan Cebu
Water District – the Cebu City mayor or the Province of Cebu’s governor. Petitioners (Mayor of Cebu, etc) argues that Section 3(b) of P.D.
198 is unconstitutional as it is arbitrary and the granting of authority to the Provincial Governor to appoint members of the Board of
Directors of MCWD violates the principle of the local autonomy granted by the Constitution. The RTC ruled in favor of the Governor’s
authority. The Court reversed. It struck down Section 3(b) as unconstitutional.
DOCTRINE: It is accepted that the LGUs, more than the National Government itself, know the needs of their constituents, and cater to
such needs based on the particular circumstances of their localities. Where a particular law or statute affecting the LGUs infringes on
their autonomy, and on their rights and powers to efficiently and effectively address the needs of their constituents, we should
lean in favor of their autonomy, their rights and their powers.
FACTS:
On May 25, 1973, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 198 (Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973).
By virtue of P. D. No. 198, Cebu City formed the Metro Cebu Water District (MCWD) in 1974. Thereafter, the Cities of Mandaue,
Lapu-Lapu and Talisay, and the Municipalities of Liloan, Compostela, Consolacion, and Cordova turned over their waterworks
systems and services to the MCWD.
Since then, the MCWD has distributed water and sold water services to said cities and municipalities.
From 1974 to 2002, the Cebu City Mayor appointed all the members of the MCWD Board of Directors (BoD) in accordance with Sec.
3 (b) of P. D. No. 198.
Section 3. Definitions. -As used in this Decree, the following words and terms shall have the meanings herein set forth, unless a
different meaning clearly appears from the context. The definition of a word or term applies to any of its variants.
(a) Act. This is the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973.
(b) Appointing authority. The person empowered to appoint the members of the board of Directors of a local water
district, depending upon the geographic coverage and population make-up of the particular district. In the event that
more than seventy-five percent of the total active water service connections of a local water district are within
the boundary of any city or municipality, the appointing authority shall be the mayor of that city or
municipality, as the case may be; otherwise, the appointing authority shall be the governor of the province
within which the district is located. If portions of more than one province are included within the boundary of the
district, and the appointing authority is to be the governors then the power to appoint shall rotate between the
governors involved with the initial appointments made by the governor in whose province the greatest number of
service connections exists.
In July 2002, Cebu Provincial Governor Pablo L. Garcia wrote to the MCWD to assert his authority and intention to appoint the
members of the MCWD BoD
o He stated in his letter that since 1996, the active water service connections in Cebu City had been below 75% of the total
active water service connection of the MCWD;
o that no other city or municipality under the MCWD had reached the required percentage of 75%; and that, accordingly, he,
as the Provincial Governor of Cebu, was the appointing authority for the members of the MCWD BoD pursuant to Section
3 (b)
Later on, the MCWD commenced in the RTC Cebu City its action for declaratory relief seeking to declare Section 3(b) of P.D. No.
198 unconstitutional; or, should the provision be declared valid, it should be interpreted to mean that the authority to appoint the
members of the MCWD BoD belonged solely to the Cebu City Mayor.
RTC: The RTC dismissed the action for declaratory relief without any finding and declaration as to the proper appointing authority
for the members of the MCWD Board of Directors should none of the cities and municipalities reach 75% of the total water service
connections in the areas under the MCWD.
In the meanwhile, the terms of 2 members of the MCWD Board of Directors ended, resulting in 2 vacancies. To avoid a vacuum and
in the exigency of the service, Provincial Governor Gwendolyn F. Garcia and Cebu City Mayor Tomas R. Osmeña jointly
appointed Atty. Adelino Sitoy and Leo Pacana to fill the vacancies. However, the position of Atty. Sitoy was deemed vacated
upon his election as the Municipal Mayor of Cordova, Cebu in the 2007 elections.
Consequently, Governor Garcia commenced an action for declaratory relief to seek the interpretation of Section 3 (b) of P.D. No. 198
on the proper appointing authority for the members of the MCWD Board of Directors.
It appears that on February 7, 2008, the Cebu Provincial Legal Office, upon being informed that Mayor Osmeña would be appointing
Joel Mari S. Yu to replace Atty. Sitoy as a member of the MCWD BoD, formally advised in writing Cynthia A. Barrit, the MCWD
Board Secretary, to defer the submission of the list of nominees to any appointing authority until the RTC rendered its final ruling on
the issue of the proper appointing authority.
On February 22, 2008, however, Mayor Osmeña appointed Yu as a member of the MCWD Board of Directors.
RTC: Dismissed the action for declaratory relief on the ground that declaratory relief became improper once there was a breach or
violation of the provision.
On June 13, 2008, Governor Garcia filed a complaint to declare the nullity of the appointment of Yu as a member of the MCWD
Board of Directors alleging that the appointment by Mayor Osmeña was illegal; that under Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198, it was she as
the Provincial Governor of Cebu who was vested with the authority to appoint members of the MCWD BoD because the total active
water service connections of Cebu City and of the other cities and municipalities were below 75% of the total water service
connections in the area of the MCWD. She impleaded Mayor Osmeña, the MCWD, and Yu as defendants.
RTC: On November 16, 2010, rendered the assailed judgment and the appointment of Yu as ILLEGAL and VOID
o Section 3(b) needs no interpretation, it is clear
o The active water service connections of Cebu City in the MCWD is at 61.28%, below the required 75% for the city mayor to
have authority to appoint members of the BoD
o Power is vested with the governor even if he had not participated in the organizing MCWD nor did the Province invest in
establishing waterworks in the city
o Sec. 3(b) does not violate Constitution – authority of governor to appoint is not intrusion into the affairs of the HUCs/CCs
nor a threat to their autonomy
o Defendants have already recognized appointing authority of previous appointments (Mr. Pacana and Atty. Sitoy)
o Doubts should be resolved in favor of constitutionality
Mayor Osmeña and Yu filed MR. Denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari
RULING: WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition for certiorari; ANNUL and SET ASIDE the decision rendered in Civil Case No.
CEB-34459 on November 16, 2010 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, in Cebu City; and DECLARE as UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Section 3(b) of Presidential Decree No. 198 to the extent that it applies to highly urbanized cities like the City of Cebu and to component
cities with charters expressly providing for their voters not to be eligible to vote for the officials of the provinces to which they belong for
being in violation of the express policy of the 1987 Constitution on local autonomy, the 1991 Local Government Code and subsequent
statutory enactments, and for being also in violation of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. ACCORDINGLY, the
Mayor of the the City of Cebu is declared to be the appointing authority of the Members of the Board of Directors of the Metro Cebu
Water District.
Whether Yu’s expiration of term rendered the case moot and academic – NO
Yu's term as a member of the MCWD BoD expired on December 31, 2012.
The case should still be decided because public interest is involved, and because the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review.
The appointment by the proper official of the individuals to manage the system of water distribution and service for the consumers
residing in the concerned cities and municipalities involves the interest of their populations and the general public affected
by the services of the MCWD as a public utility.
Moreover, the question on the proper appointing he cities and municipalities have at least 75% of the water consumers will not be
definitively resolved with finality if we dismiss the petition on the ground of mootness. It is notable that the two cases for declaratory
relief filed for the purpose of determining the proper appointing authority were dismissed without any definitive declaration or
ultimate determination of the merits of the issue. The issue festers. Hence, the Court needs to decide it now, not later.
COURT:
The Court opines that Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 should be partially struck down for being repugnant to the local autonomy
granted by the 1987 Constitution to LGUs, and for being inconsistent with R.A. No. 7160 (1991 Local Government Code) and related
laws on local governments.
The enactment of P.D. No. 198 on May 25, 1973 was prior to the enactment on December 22, 1979 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 (An
Act Providing for the Elective or Appointive Positions in Various Local Governments and for Other Purposes) and antedated as well
the effectivity of the 1991 Local Government Code on January 1, 1992.
At the time of the enactment of P.D. No. 198, Cebu City was still a component city of Cebu Province. Section 328 of B.P. Blg. 51
reclassified the cities of the Philippines based on well-defined criteria. Cebu City thus became an HUC, which immediately meant that
its inhabitants were ineligible to vote for the officials of Cebu Province.
In accordance with Section 12 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution, cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, and
component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials, shall be independent of the
province, but the voters of component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such prohibition, shall not be deprived of
their right to vote for elective provincial officials.
Later on, Cebu City, already an HUC, was further effectively rendered independent from Cebu Province pursuant to Section 29 of
the 1991 Local Government Code, viz.:
Section 29. Provincial Relations with Component Cities and Municipalities. -The province, through the governor, shall ensure
that every component city and municipality within its territorial jurisdiction acts within the scope of its prescribed powers and
functions. Highly urbanized cities and independent component cities shall be independent of the province. (Emphasis supplied)
Hence, all matters relating to its administration, powers and functions were exercised through its local executives led by the
City Mayor, subject to the President's retained power of general supervision over provinces, HUCs, and independent component
cities pursuant to and in accordance with Section 25 of the 1991 LGC a law enacted for the purpose of strengthening the autonomy
of the LGUs in accordance with the 1987 Constitution. Article X of the 1987 Constitution guarantees and promotes the administrative
and fiscal autonomy of the LGUs.
The foregoing statutory enactments enunciate and implement the local autonomy provisions explicitly recognized under the 1987
Constitution.
To conform with the guarantees of the Constitution in favor of the autonomy of the LGUs, therefore, it becomes the duty of the
Court to declare and pronounce Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 as already partially unconstitutional.
o We note that this pronouncement is also advocated by the National Government, as shown in the comment of the Solicitor
General.
In Navarro v. Ermita, the Court has pointed out that the central policy considerations in the creation of local government units are
economic viability, efficient administration, and capability to deliver basic services to their constituents. These considerations must be
given importance as they ensure the success of local autonomy.
It is accepted that the LGUs, more than the National Government itself, know the needs of their constituents, and cater to such needs
based on the particular circumstances of their localities. Where a particular law or statute affecting the LGUs infringes on their
autonomy, and on their rights and powers to efficiently and effectively address the needs of their constituents, we should
lean in favor of their autonomy, their rights and their powers.
Water and its efficient supply are among the primary concerns of every LGU. Issues that tend to reduce or diminish the authority of
the boards of directors to manage the water districts are imbued with public interest.
Bearing this in mind, and recalling that the MCWD had been established from the erstwhile Osmeña Waterworks Systems (OWS)
without any investment or contribution of funds and material from the Province of Cebu towards the creation and maintenance of
OWS and the MCWD, and considering that it had always been the City Mayor of the City of Cebu who appointed the members of the
MCWD Board of Directors regardless of the percentage of the water subscribers, our pronouncement herein rests on firm ground.
Whether Section 3(b) of P.D. 198 violates due process and equal protection – No but eventually, YES. The reclassification of City
of Cebu into an HUC and the enactment of 1991 LGC rendered the continued application of Sec. 3(b) unreasonable and unfair
PETITIONERS:
Sec. 3(b) being unfair, violated substantive due process; that Governor Garcia could not determine the water needs of each of the
LGUs within the MCWD; that the provision allowed inequality of treatment of the cities and municipalities in relation to the province,
and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution; that the provision unduly deprived Cebu City of the power to
determine the membership in the MCWD Board of Directors despite Cebu City having the majority of the water service connections;
that the Province of Cebu was given unreasonable and unwarranted benefit despite Cebu City being independent from the Province of
Cebu; that Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 did not distinguish whether the province contributed any resource to the water district or not;
that under the provision, if two or more provinces contributed to the water district, they were not subject to the 75% requirement to
avail of the power of appointment, indicating that the power to appoint devolved only in the provinces; that this violated the guarantee
of equality of treatment in favor of the participating LGUs; that the provision created a privileged class (the provinces) without any
justification in reason; and that "the classification is not germane to the purpose of the law and is not based on substantial distinctions
that make real differences."
COURT:
Substantive due process: “requires that the law itself, not merely the procedures by which law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable,a
nd just.” What to be determined is wheteher the law has a valid governmental objective, like the interest of public as againt a particular
class.
Equal protection: In order for classification to be valid, it must: (1) rest on substantital distinctions; (2) germane to the purpose of the
law; (3) not limited to existing conditions only; (4) apply equally to all members of the same class
Althoug Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 provided for substantial distinction and was germane to the purpose of P.D. No. 198 when it
was enacted in 1973, the intervening reclassification of the City of Cebu into an HUC and the subsequent enactment of the 1991 Local
Government Code rendered the continued application of Section 3(b) in disregard of the reclassification unreasonable and unfair.
Clearly, the assailed provision no longer provided for substantial distinction because, firstly, it ignored that the MCWD was
built without the participation of the provincial government; secondly, it failed to consider that the MCWD existed to serve
the community that represents the needs of the majority of the active water service connections; and, thirdly, the main
objective of the decree was to improve the water service while keeping up with the needs of the growing population.
The Whereas Clauses of P.D. No. 198 essentially state the raison d'etre of its enactment, to wit:
o WHEREAS, existing domestic water utilities are not meeting the needs of the communities they serve; water quality
is unsatisfactory; pressure is inadequate; and reliability of service is poor; in fact, many persons receive no piped water service
whatsoever;
o WHEREAS, conditions of service continue to worsen for two apparent reasons, namely: (1) that key element of existing
systems are deteriorating faster than they are being maintained or replaced, and (2) that they are not being expanded at a
rate sufficient to match population growth; and
o WHEREAS, local water utilities should be locally-controlled and managed, as well as have support on the national
level in the area of technical advisory services and financing;
Verily, the decree was enacted to provide adequate, quality and reliable water and waste-water services to meet the needs of the local
communities and their growing populations. The needs of the communities served were paramount.
Hence, we deem it to be inconsistent with the true objectives of the decree to still leave to the provincial governor the appointing
authority if the provincial governor had administrative supervision only over municipalities and component cities accounting for
16.92% of the active water service connection in the MCWD.
In comparison, the City of Cebu had 61.28% of the active service water connections. There is no denying that the MCWD has been
primarily serving the needs of Cebu City. Although it is impermissible to inquire into why the decree set 75% as the marker for
determining the proper appointing authority, the provision has meanwhile become unfair for ignoring the needs and circumstances of
Cebu City as the LGU accounting for the majority of the active water service connections, and whose constituency stood to be the
most affected by the decisions made by the MCWD's BoD.
Indeed, the classification has truly ceased to be germane or related to the main objective for the enactment of P.D. No. 198 in 1973
The RTC gravely abused its discretion in upholding Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198. It thereby utterly disregarded the clear policies
favoring local autonomy enshrined in the 1987 Constitution and effected by the 1991 Local Government Code and related subsequent
statutory enactments, and for being violative of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution.
Hierarchy of courts
Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (inferior) courts should be filed with the RTC, and those against the
RTC with the CA. In this case, since the petitioners insist on filing a Petition for Certiorari, they should have done so before the CA.
Neither do I find anything special or important in this case to invoke the Court's original certiorari jurisdiction. Neither the petitioner
nor the respondent allege that MCWD's operations has been, or will be paralyzed, simply because the appointing power has shifted
from one government official to another. At any rate, what is clear to me is that MCWD' s operations are not hampered by the
existence of the constitutional issues presented before us, and that the CA is more than capable of resolving the present petition.