Hon. Michael L. Rama,
et al. vs. Hon. Gilbert P. Moises, et al.
G.R. No. 197146.
December 6, 2016
Synopsis
A law enacted prior to
the 1987 Constitution, like a presidential decree, is presumed to be
valid and constitutional on the theory that it was carefully studied
by the Legislative and Executive Departments prior to its enactment,
and determined to be in accord with the Fundamental Law. However, the
presumption of validity and constitutionality is overturned and the
law should be struck down once it becomes inconsistent with the
present Constitution and the later laws.
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.' 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; 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 Board of
Directors pursuant to Section 3 (b) of P. D. No. 198.
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.
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.
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
- Whether Yu's expiration of term renders case moot and academic.
- 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.
- Whether Section 3(b) of P.D. 198 is unconstitutional for violating the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.
Rulings
Yu's expiration of term did not
render case moot and
academic
We note that respondent
Yu's term as a member of the MCWD Board of Directors expired on
December 31, 2012. However, this fact does not justify the dismissal
of the petition on the ground of its being rendered moot and
academic. The case should still be decided, despite the intervening
developments that could have rendered the case moot and academic,
because public interest is involved, and because the issue is capable
of repetition yet evading review.
For sure, 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 authority for the members of the MCWD Board of Directors
should none of the 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.
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 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment