Rama, et al. vs. Moises, et al.
Case Digest Governor Garcia commenced an action for
Hon. Michael L. Rama, et al. vs. Hon. Gilbert P.
Moises, et al.
G.R. No. 197146. December 6, 2016
Ponente:
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.
From 1974 to 2002, the Cebu City Mayor appointed
all the members of the MCWD Board of Directors in
accordance with Section 3 (b) of P. D. No. 198, to wit:
(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. (emphasis supplied)
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 Board
of Directors
Later on, the MCWD commenced in the Regional
Trial Court in Cebu City (RTC) 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 Board of Directors belonged solely to the
Cebu City Mayor. The RTC (Branch 7) dismissed the
action for declaratory relief.
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.
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.
On February 22, 2008, however, Mayor Osmeña
appointed Yu as a member of the MCWD Board of
Directors.7 Accordingly, on May 20, 2008, the 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 (docketed
as Civil Case No. CEB-34459), alleging that the
appointment by Mayor Osmefia 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 Board of
Directors 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.
On November 16, 2010, the RTC rendered the
assailed judgment declaring the appointment of Yu as
illegal and void and ruled that the court has not been
able to find any constitutional infirmity in the
questioned provision (Sec. 3) of Presidential Decree
No. 198. The fundamental criterion is that all
reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the
constitutionality of a statute. Every law has in its favor
the presumption of constitutionality. For a law to be
nullified, there must be shown that there is a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution. The ground
for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable
doubt.
Mayor Osmeña and Yu jointly moved for
reconsideration, but the RTC denied their motion.
Hence, the petitioners have instituted this special civil
action for certiorari.
Issues
1. Whether Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 was
void on its face for violating the constitutional
provision on local autonomy and independence of
HUCs under Article X of the 1987 Constitution.
2. Whether Section 3(b) of P.D. 198 is
unconstitutional for violating the Due Process Clause
and the Equal Protection Clause.
Rulings
Section 3(b) of P.D. 198 is already superseded
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.
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 252
of the 1991 Local Government Code, 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.
Section 3(b) of P.D. 198 is unconstitutional for
violating the Due Process Clause and
the Equal Protection Clause
We opine that although 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.
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; Mandaue,
another HUC, 16%; and Lapu Lapu City, another
HUC, 6.8%. 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
Board of Directors. 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.
Under the foregoing circumstances, therefore, 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.
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