IT WOULD appear that, as of now, the board of directors led by MCWD Chairman Jose Daluz III has the edge over the board of directors led by his rival Chairman Melquiades Feliciano.
Both boards have reportedly been functioning in the MCWD offices, holding separate meetings. No physical confrontation between the two groups has yet occurred although last November 7 (2023), a SWAT vehicle, with special-weapons-equipped police inside, rushed to and parked across the street of the water district's building, "just in case."
DALUZ'S ADVANTAGE. The practical advantage of the Daluz board is due to the support of majority of the managers, led by Edgar Donoso, and employees of controversy-wracked MCWD or Metropolitan Cebu Water District. In a November 15 statement, Donoso and leaders of MCWD's employees' associations, rooting for Daluz et al, called for a status quo in the company's board of directors.
By that, they must mean Daluz and two directors -- Miguelito Pato and Jodelyn May Seno, whom the mayor has wanted to remove -- will stay, with two other directors Mayor Rama had earlier appointed, namely, lawyers Danilo Ortiz and Earl Bunachita. That's 3-2 board control in Daluz's favor with the GM and the rest of the people running MCWD on his side, as compared to Feliciano's all-Rama-appointees board.
Faced with two boards, MCWD managers and operators are expected to follow policies of the Daluz group, not Feliciano's.
STALEMATE. The MCWD workforce's public expression of support for the Daluz group came following the October 31 appointment of Army retired major general Feliciano by Mayor Rama, along with new directors Nelson Yuvalos and Aristotle Batuhan, their installation, and subsequent board meetings.
The mayor's move was met with the refusal by Daluz and company to step down, a repetition of similar rejections to the mayor's attempts to unseat them and install a new board minus the three holdouts.
To be precise, only Daluz has returned fire to Mayor Rama's attacks and answered the moves: first to unseat the former city councilor and Barug campaign manager as chairman, then to kick him and co-members Pato and Seno out of the MCWD board. Pato and Seno are obviously allied with Daluz but have not joined the noise.
MAJOR ISSUE. There are side issues to the battle, mostly argued in public and off-courtroom exchange of accusations, but the major point of dispute is: Can the city mayor dismiss the chairman and any member of the MCWD board?
The legal support to the contention of the Daluz camp -- "no, the mayor cannot" -- came from an October 17 (2023) letter from LWUA Administrator Vicente Homer Revil and law department manager Roberto San Andres. Both LWUA officials, in reply to an inquiry from Cebu City Administrator Collin Rosell, said "local executives have no authority to remove the chairperson and members of the board of directors of a water district." No legal basis, they said, citing Presidential Decree #198, to issue a certificate of no objection to the dismissal of Daluz, Pato and Seno.
That seems authoritative at first look and even when local media splashed the Daluz "victory" as banner headline on Page 1. The October 17 letter, received in Cebu November 6, looked questionable though, not for the late delivery but for the fact that it wasn't the action of the LWUA board to which the city's request was addressed.
What must firm up the position of City Hall -- which Mayor Rama from his vacation haven abroad talked about on city-government-media broadcast -- was the June 20 (2023) decision of the Cebu Regional Trial Court upholding then mayor Edgardo Labella's right to remove MCWD directors Agustus Pe Jr., Ralph Sevilla and Cecilia Adlawan as a "consequence" of the mayor's right to appoint.
WHICH IS WEIGHTIER? The RTC ruling is still pending appeal before the Supreme Court. It's surely not yet final but the court's decision, City Hall lawyers argue, must be heavier and more persuasive, at least as of now, than the opinion of the LWUA administrator and its chief lawyer.
The SC ruling on the Pe-Sevilla-Adlawan case would certainly settle the ambiguity of the law, which has caused a lot of "confusion" (according to City Administrator Rosell) and "madness," (according to the appellants' lawyer Amando Virgil Ligutan).
Until that is done though, what to do with the MCWD problem?
IMMOVABLE FORCES are what the competing camps of Daluz and Rama appear to be. No side looks willing to give up its position.
The "status quo" declaration of the MCWD managers and workers is not acceptable to the mayor's group. The mayor even publicly asked for the head of the GM, law graduate and CPA Donoso, ordering Acting Mayor Raymond Alvin Garcia to look for a legal way to remove him. As to the request of Atty. Ligutan for the mayor to reinstate his clients (Pe-Sevilla-Adlawan), City Hall lawyers said, no, that's for the court to do, not Rama's.
Daluz, of course, is most unlikely to budge this time, what with the opinion from two LWUA officials and the support of MCWD managers and workers.
WATER RATES HIKE, COA-FLAGGED VIOLATIONS. As to the damage the feud has caused to MCWD operations, that hasn't been closely examined. The controversy though must have distracted public attention from the impending higher water rates and the violations COA flagged in its 2022 audit of MCWD.
City officials haven't given enough light on the accusations against Daluz et al, no specifics on the alleged sins of the directors they want to remove and replace. There was an investigation and its findings and recommendation were forwarded to the Ombudsman and LWUA. But how much does the public know about the particulars?
SPECTACULAR FAILURE. LWUA's known official action on MCWD was the October 17 letter, which reached Cebu only last November 5. It was just legal opinion, said Rama's lawyers, from the manager and the LWUA legal counsel, not a decision of the board.
A LWUA board resolution (#35, dated September 28), which purportedly would suspend for six months all of Daluz's board and authorize LWUA trustees to appoint replacements in the MCWD board, was aborted and until now couldn't be considered to have been officially issued as it was allegedly not properly adopted and routed for signature among the members. Besides, it was legally questionable since under the law, LWUA board could appoint one director only for the purpose of protecting its funds loaned to MCWD; it couldn't legally take over the entire board.
Despite the furor created by the MCWD dispute, the LWUA board still has to act decisively on the problem. Perhaps, the MCWD matter is a small thing to LWUA, or it doesn't have the resources and time to oversee all the water districts in the country (584, says its website).
A solution to the MCWD problem, before the Supreme Court ruling will come, requires LWUA's quick and firm hand.