G.R. No. 197146 , December 6, 2016
HON. MICHAEL L. RAMA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. GILBERT P. MOISES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

DISSENTING OPINION BRION, J.:

FACTS

The core dispute concerns the appointing authority over the board of directors of the Metro Cebu Water District (MCWD), a local water district created under Presidential Decree No. 198 (PD 198). Section 3(b) of PD 198 provides that the appointing authority is the city or municipal mayor if more than 75% of the district’s active water service connections are within that locality; otherwise, it is the provincial governor. Historically, the Mayor of Cebu City made the appointments. In 2002, the Provincial Governor asserted this power, contending that Cebu City’s connections had fallen below the 75% threshold. This led to a legal battle when the Governor filed an action for declaratory relief, which was later dismissed. Subsequently, the Governor filed a complaint to annul an appointment made by the Mayor.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the Governor, annulling the Mayor’s appointment. It held that since Cebu City accounted for only 61.28% of MCWD’s connections, the appointing authority under PD 198’s plain text was the Provincial Governor. The petitioners (the Mayor, MCWD, and others) directly elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion and that Section 3(b) of PD 198 is unconstitutional, having been superseded by the Local Government Code and constitutional principles of local autonomy, particularly given Cebu City’s status as a highly urbanized city independent from the province.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in applying Section 3(b) of Presidential Decree No. 198 and in ruling that the Provincial Governor of Cebu, not the Mayor of Cebu City, possesses the authority to appoint members to the MCWD Board of Directors.

RULING

No, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The ponencia’s conclusion to the contrary is erroneous. The RTC correctly performed its duty of judicial review by interpreting and applying the clear, unambiguous language of Section 3(b) of PD 198. The provision establishes a straightforward, objective numerical criterion based on the geographic distribution of water service connections. The factual finding that Cebu City’s connections were below the 75% threshold is conclusive, mandating that the appointing authority be the Provincial Governor. The RTC did not treat the issue as a non-justiciable political question; it squarely addressed and rejected the constitutional challenges.
The constitutional and statutory arguments for supersession are unfounded. PD 198 remains a valid, subsisting, and special law. The Local Government Code of 1991, which generally devolves powers to local government units, does not implicitly repeal PD 198’s specific scheme for appointing water district boards. The autonomy of a highly urbanized city is not absolute and does not automatically nullify all laws where provincial authority may intersect with city interests. The operation of MCWD, which services multiple local government units beyond Cebu City, is a matter of regional concern appropriately governed by PD 198. The RTC’s decision was a faithful application of the law, not an arbitrary or capricious exercise of judgment constituting grave abuse of discretion.