2/6/25, 1:40 PM G.R. No. 197146 - Rama vs. Moises 2/6/25, 1:40 PM G.R. No. 197146 - Rama vs.

Moises 2/6/25, 1:40 PM G.R. No. 197146 - Rama vs. Moises

petition in the Court of Appeals instead of in this Court, which is a court of last resort. They
Title also insist that the petitioners have no locus standi inasmuch as they - being officials of Cebu
Rama vs. Moises
City - will never sustain direct injury from the application of Section 3(b) of P.D. 198.4

Case Decision Date We deny the motion for reconsideration.

G.R. No. 197146 Aug 8, 2017
The policy on the hierarchy of courts is not to be regarded as an iron-clad rule. In The
Cebu City Mayor and MCWD challenged Section 3(b) of PD 198, arguing it Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections5 and Querubin v. Commission on Elections,6
violated local autonomy. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for highly
the Court has enumerated the various specific instances when direct resort to the Court may
urbanized cities, upholding city autonomy.
be allowed, to wit: (a) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be
addressed at the most immediate time; (b) when the issues involved are of transcendental
815 Phil. 954
importance; (c) cases of first impression; (d) when the constitutional issues raised are best
decided by this Court; (e) when the time element presented in this case cannot be ignored; (f)
EN BANC when the petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ; (g) when there is no other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; (h) when public welfare and the
[ G.R. No. 197146, August 08, 2017 ] advancement of public policy so dictates, or when demanded by the broader interest of
justice; (i) when the orders complained of are patent nullities; and G) when appeal is
HON. MICHAEL L. RAMA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF CEBU CITY; METROPOLITAN considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.
CEBU WATER DISTRICT (MCWD), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
ARMANDO PAREDES; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MCWD, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIR, ELIGIO A. PACANA; JOEL MARI S. YU, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE This case falls under two of the aforestated exceptions considering that the validity or
MCWD BOARD; THE HONORABLE TOMAS R. OSMEAA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS constitutionality of P.D. No. 198 a statute or decree, or a provision thereof is being challenged.
CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SOUTH DISTRICT, CEBU CITY, Moreover, the Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance of and assume
PETITIONERS, VS. HON. GILBERT P. MOISES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF jurisdiction over the special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus filed directly with it
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 18, CEBU CITY; AND HON. GWENDOLYN F. for exceptionally compelling reasons or when warranted by the nature of the issues that are
GARCIA, IN HER CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE OF CEBU, RESPONDENTS.
clearly and specifically raised in the petition.7
RESOLUTION
While this Court has often insisted on the strict application of the principle of hierarchy of
BERSAMIN, J.: courts in numerous cases, the application has not been absolute. When the issues involve the
constitutionality of a statute or law, or when the issues involved are those of transcendental
For resolution is the motion for reconsideration filed by the respondents vis-a-vis the importance, procedural technicalities should yield in accordance with the well-entrenched
decision promulgated on December 6, 20161 annulling and setting aside the decision principle that rules of procedure are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but
rendered on November 16, 20102 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, in Cebu City in rather to facilitate and promote the administration of justice.8 And while it is true that laws
Civil Case No. CEB-34459; and declaring Section 3(b) of Presidential Decree No. 198 are presumed to be constitutional, that presumption is not by any means conclusive and in
unconstitutional to the extent that the provision applied to highly urbanized cities like Cebu fact may be rebutted. Indeed, if there be a clear showing of their invalidity, and of the need to
City as well as to component cities with charters expressly providing for their voters not declare them so, then "will be the time to make the hammer fall, and heavily, 11 to recall
eligible to vote for the officials of the provinces to which they belong, and for being in Justice Laurel's trenchant warning. Stated otherwise, courts should not follow the path of
violation of the express policy of the 1987 Constitution on local autonomy, among others. least resistance by simply presuming the constitutionality of a law when it is questioned.9

The respondents claim that the petitioners have disregarded the principle of hierarchy of The standing of the petitioners to bring this suit is also being challenged on the basis that
courts, and have resorted to the wrong remedy in assailing the decision of the RTC.3 They they would not suffer any direct injury from the enforcement of the assailed law.
explain that under the principle of hierarchy of courts, the petitioners should have filed their

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/rama-v-moises-63411?q=G.R.+No.+197146#_ 1/8 https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/rama-v-moises-63411?q=G.R.+No.+197146#_ 2/8

2/6/25, 1:40 PM G.R. No. 197146 - Rama vs. Moises 2/6/25, 1:40 PM G.R. No. 197146 - Rama vs. Moises

The challenge is unworthy of consideration. In Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr.,10

the Court, citing FELIPA G. BORLONGAN-
Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres,11 has held that the standing requirement may ANAMA
be relaxed in cases of paramount importance where serious constitutional questions are
Clerk of Court
involved, and a suit may be allowed to prosper even where there is no direct injury to the
party claiming the right of judicial review.12 Moreover, the Court has held that a party's
standing before the Court is a procedural technicality that it may, in the exercise of its
discretion, set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised.13

All the other issues raised by the respondent in the motion for reconsideration were already
resolved and sufficiently discussed in the assailed decision. 1 Rollo, pp. 503-522.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration for its lack of merit. 2 Id. at 73-80.

SO ORDERED. 3 Id. at 576-580; penned by Judge Gilbert P. Moises.

Sereno, C. J., Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Mendoza, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Martires, 4 Id. at 568.
Tijam, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
Carpio, J., I join the dissent of Justice Brion in the main case. 5 G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015, 747 SCRA 1, 45-49.
Leonardo-De Castro, J., Please see my dissenting opinion.
Del Castillo, J., I maintain my vote joining the dissent of J. Brion in the main case. 6 G.R. No. 218787, December 8, 2015, 776 SCRA 715, 754-755.
Jardeleza, J., I maintain my vote joining the dissent of J. Brion in the case main.
7Department of Foreign Affairs v. Falcon, G.R. No. 176657, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 644,
669.

8Jaworski v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No. 144463, January 14,
2004, 419 SCRA 317, 323-324.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
9 Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-74457, March 20, 1987, 148 SCRA 659, 666.

Sirs/Mesdames:
10G.R. Nos. 204819, 204934, 204957, 204988, 205003, 205043, 205138, 205478, 205491,
Please take notice that on August 8, 2017 a Decision/Resolution, copy attached herewith, was 205720, 206355, 207111, 207172, & 207563, April 8, 2014, 721 SCRA 146.
rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received
11 G.R. No. 132527, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 47.
by this Office on November 22, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.

12 Imbong v. Ochoa, supra note 10, at 284.

Very truly yours,

13 Kilosbayan, Incorporated v. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 113375, May 5, 1994, 232 SCRA 110, 191.

(SGD)

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/rama-v-moises-63411?q=G.R.+No.+197146#_ 3/8 https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/rama-v-moises-63411?q=G.R.+No.+197146#_ 4/8

2/6/25, 1:40 PM G.R. No. 197146 - Rama vs. Moises 2/6/25, 1:40 PM G.R. No. 197146 - Rama vs. Moises

of constitutionality. To justify the nullification of a law, there must be a clear and unequivocal
DISSENTING OPINION breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and equivocal breach. Laws shall not be declared
invalid unless the conflict with the Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt.2
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
I am still of the opinion that there is no clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution by
I vote to grant the Motion for Reconsideration of respondent Governor of Cebu Province and Section 3(b) of PD No. 198. Petitioners were unable to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
maintain my position that Section 3(b) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 198 is not Section 3(b) of PD No. 198 violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal
unconstitutional and that the Court should not engage in judicial legislation by vesting the protection of the law.
power to appoint a member of the Board of Directors of Metropolitan Cebu Water District
(MCWD) upon petitioner Mayor of Cebu City. Section 3(b) of PD No. 198 does not deprive Cebu City of any property without due process of
law. Indeed, majority of the assets and facilities of MCWD originated from the OsmeAa
The ponente, in his Resolution denying respondent Governor's Motion for Reconsideration, Waterworks System (OWS), which was previously operated and maintained by Cebu City. Yet,
directly addressed only two procedural issues raised in said Motion, i.e., the failure of in accordance with the provisions of PD No. 198 on the creation of an LWD, Cebu City,
petitioners to observe the hierarchy of courts and petitioners' lack of legal standing. through Resolution No. 873, which was approved on May 9, 1974 by then Mayor Eulogio
Essentially, the ponente cited the exceptions to well-settled principles/doctrines to justify his Borres, created the MCWD, and thereafter, transferred all the assets and facilities of OSW to
giving due course to the instant Petition for Certiorari despite its procedural infirmities. The MCWD. Once formed, the MCWD became a government-owned-and-controlled corporation
ponente then stated that all other issues raised by respondent Governor in the Motion for which was no longer under the jurisdiction of any political subdivision, even of Cebu City.
Reconsideration were already resolved and sufficiently discussed in the Decision dated The assets and facilities of OSW are now owned by MCWD, and Cebu City no longer has any
December 6, 2016. existing proprietary rights to the same.

In my view, petitioners utterly failed to establish that the constitutional issues raised in the Neither does Section 3(b) of PD No. 198 violate the right of Cebu City to equal protection of
Petition at bar are of transcendental importance calling for urgent resolution, which would the law since it is based on a reasonable classification. Worth reproducing below is Justice
warrant the relaxation of the doctrine of locus standi and the principle of hierarchy of courts. Brion's ratiocination on the matter in his Dissenting Opinion to the Decision dated December
Indeed, the constitutional issues presently before the Court relate to local water districts 6, 2016:
(LWDs) in charge of local water supply and waste water disposal; but as pointed out by now One substantial distinction between provinces, on one hand, and cities (whether component,
retired Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, whom I joined in his Dissenting Opinion to the highly urbanized, or independent) and municipalities, on the other, is the land areas they
Decision dated December 6, 2016, none of the parties alleged that the operations of MCWD cover.
had been or would be paralyzed simply because the appointing power of the members of the
MCWD Board of Directors shifted from one government official to the other. In addition, Under the Local Government Code, a province must have a contiguous territory of at least
Section 18 of PD No. 1981 specifically limits the power of the Board of Directors of an LWD, two thousand (2,000) square kilometers. On the other hand, a city or a municipality must
such as MCWD, to policy-making, hence, any question as to the appointment of its Board have a contiguous territory of at least one hundred (100), and fifty (50) square kilometers,
members will not have a direct and immediate effect upon the day-to-day operations of respectively.
MCWD.
By giving the Governor the power to appoint, Section 3(b) entrusts the appointing power to
More importantly, respondent Governor's arguments in the Motion for Reconsideration on the highest local official who oversees the largest geography where the LWD may expand its
the substantive issues should be accorded more than just a cursory, pro-forma operations.
consideration. The constitutional issues at the crux of the present case deserve another
thorough scrutiny. However, Section 3(b) also realizes that confining the appointing power to the Governor loses
its relevance where the LWD operates almost entirely within a single city or municipality.
As Justice Brion declared in his Dissenting Opinion to the Decision dated December 6, 2016, Thus, as an alternative, Section 3(b) lodges the appointing power with the Mayor of the City
all laws, including Presidential Decrees issued by President Marcos, enjoy the presumption or Municipality where 75% or 3/4 of the LWDs water connections are located.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/rama-v-moises-63411?q=G.R.+No.+197146#_ 5/8 https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/rama-v-moises-63411?q=G.R.+No.+197146#_ 6/8

2/6/25, 1:40 PM G.R. No. 197146 - Rama vs. Moises 2/6/25, 1:40 PM G.R. No. 197146 - Rama vs. Moises

political conditions of the LGUs comprising the LWD, then the appropriate remedy is
Neither was the 75% threshold created to favor Governors, as specific class, over Mayors; nor legislative amendment, not judicial legislation. It is not for the Court to prescribe another
is it limited to conditions existing at the time PD 198 was enacted, or at the time an LWD is rule or formula to determine which LGU shall have the authority to appoint the Board
created. members of the LWD.

The phrase "In the event that more than seventy-five percent of the total active water service For the aforementioned reasons, I vote to grant the Motion for Reconsideration and deny the
connections of a local water district are within the boundary of any city or municipality" Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit.
signifies that the appointing power may shift at any time depending on the circumstances.

To illustrate this dynamic, while the province of Cebu now enjoys the appointing power, a
future increase in MCWD's water connections within Cebu City may re-shift the appointing
power to the Mayor. 1 Sec. 18. Functions Limited to Policy-Making. - The function of the board shall be to establish

policy. The Board shall not engage in the detailed management of the district.
Finally, do I not see anything wrong in applying the 75% threshold to all cities, regardless of
their respective status as a component, independent component or highly urbanized. 2 Dumlao v. Commission on Elections, 184 Phil. 369, 382 (1980).

Ironically, what would consist of discrimination is to treat highly urbanized and independent
component cities differently from component cities on the supposed reason that the former
enjoys autonomy over its territory. The authority to appoint, as I will discuss below, does not
equate to control over the other LGUs serviced by an LWD.
May I also reiterate herein the argument in my Dissenting Opinion to the Decision dated
December 6, 2016 that the LGU does not surrender any of its powers under the Constitution
or the Local Government Code to another LGU vested with the power to appoint Board
members of the LWD since PD No. 198 explicitly provides that a district once formed shall
not be under the jurisdiction of any political subdivision. The LWD has a separate juridical
personality which is independent of the LGUs comprising it. Consequently, the power to
appoint Board members of an LWD, which is vested upon the LGU determined in accordance
with the formula or rule prescribed by Section 3(b) of PD No. 198, does not impair the
autonomy of the other LGUs included in the LWD. Moreover, if a province can join an LWD
and be subjected to the provisions of PD No. 198, there is no cogent reason why the change of
status of a component city of a province, which would later become a highly urbanized city,
should affect its powers, rights, and obligations under PD No. 198.

Finally, the Decision dated December 6, 2016 engaged in judicial legislation by substituting a
rule or formula to that provided under Section 3(b) of PD No. 198 for determining the
appointing authority for the Board members of MCWD. By granting the Petition and vesting
the appointing authority on Cebu City, the Decision effectively reduced the threshold of 75%
of total active water service connections within the boundary of any city or municipality,
which is fixed under Section 3(b) of PD N6. 198, to just a majority (or 51%) of such total active
water service connections, which is a totally arbitrary figure without basis in law. If Section
3(b) of PD No. 198 is no longer in keeping with the current status, socio-economic, and

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/rama-v-moises-63411?q=G.R.+No.+197146#_ 7/8 https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/rama-v-moises-63411?q=G.R.+No.+197146#_ 8/8