Seares: LWUA contradicts RTC ruling, says Mayor Rama has no authority to remove Daluz, 2 directors from MCWD board. LWUA letter is dated Oct. 17 before mayor swore in new board last Oct. 31.
THE Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) had refused the request of the City Legal Office to certify that LWUA has no objection to the termination of the chairman, Jose Daluz III, and two directors, Miguelito Pato and Jodelyn Seno, from the Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD).
For context, the letter was signed by LWUA Administrator Vicente Homer Revil and Legal Department Manager Roberto San Andres. LWUA Chairman Ronnie Ong and the senior undersecretary, undersecretary and assistant secretary, as well as the LWUA board of trustees were just copy-furnished.
The letter didn’t say or indicate that it was the position of the board or the rejection was voted upon. And the letter was dated October 17, 2023, or two weeks before Mayor Michael Rama laid the ground for a new MCWD board by terminating anew Daluz and two others, appointing their replacements, and re-appointing the two “remaining” directors.
WHY THE CLOSE LOOK AT NEW DISCLOSURE. People tend to be wary about information coming out as “new development” in the MCWD controversy.
Last November 4 (2023), a Manila Times business columnist reported that the LWUA board adopted last September 28 Resolution No. 35 suspending for six months the entire MCWD board and authorizing themselves (the LWUA directors) to name temporary replacements. But that resolution was allegedly “hijacked” (the secretary “pulled it out”) while it was routed for signatures. Until Tuesday, November 7, it was not clear if that resolution was already deemed officially issued.
Now this release, also Tuesday, of a letter dated October 17 and signed by two LWUA officials. The letter purportedly responded to a specific request from the mayor through then city attorney Jerone Castillo for LWUA to certify a no-objection to, or approval of, the city’s “recommendation” to terminate Daluz and two directors.
Note that it was not until 14 days later, October 31, that Mayor Rama made the moves to push forward the creation and activation of a new board: he issued the order, swore in the new directors, who then convened and held their first board meeting. By then, it was no longer a “recommendation” but a done deed.
PLAIN, DIRECT. LWUA Administrator Revil and Legal Department chief San Andres wrote Castillo plainly and directly: Local executives “have no authority to remove the chairperson and members of the board of directors of a water district” and “hence, we find no legal basis to issue the requested certificate of no-objection.”
The LWUA letter cited Section 7 of PD No. 198, which says that upon the filing of the local legislature’s resolution creating the water district, it shall be “deemed fully formed and existing” and from that day, the local government “shall lose ownership, supervision and control of any right whatsoever over the district,” except when otherwise provided in the said law. (The major exception to that: The city mayor, in the case of MCWD, has the power to appoint the directors.)
LWUA’s Revil and San Andres also cited memorandum-circular no. 2016-46 of the Department of Interior and Local Government, supporting LWUA’s position and reminding local executives that “water districts, once formed, are not under the jurisdiction of any political subdivision” and “are autonomous agencies independent of local governments” and must be “allowed to operate without the least hindrance and interference of local officials.”
HOW ABOUT THE RTC RULING? The Cebu Regional Trial Court last June 30, 2023 dismissed the complaint of Ralph Sevilla, Augustus Pe Jr. and Cecilia Adlawan that they were illegally dismissed as MCWD directors by then mayor, the late Edgar Labella. On August 15, the RTC denied their motion for reconsideration. That letter prompted the mayor from switching the request “recommending dismissal” to “ordering dismissal” of Daluz and two directors, converting it to a termination, which would be subject to approval and review by LWUA.
The core issue in the RTC case was whether the city mayor had the authority to terminate the three directors, which was also the main issue in the complainants’ appeal to the Supreme Court -- and in the current imbroglio with Daluz and colleagues.
The RTC ruled that the mayor’s authority to fire is a “consequence” of his authority to hire the directors. That does not apply, the ruling said, “only when the power is expressly vested in an office or authority other than the appointing power.”
The petitioners in the SC case disagree, contending that an exception to the doctrine of implication is “simply a contrary statutory provision.” Sections 6 and 7 of PD No. 198 prohibiting the LGU from exercising control and supervision over the local water district are, the Sevilla-Pe-Adlawan petition says, “clear statutory provisions contrary to the theory that the local chief executive has the power to remove an MCWD director.”
POWERS OF MCWD BOARD. Under PD No. 198, the MCWD board of directors, the SC petition says, exercises “all the powers, privileges and duties” vested in the water district. The water district, in this case MCWD, through its board, “exercises the powers, rights, and privileges give to private corporations under existing laws.”
The MCWD board may even dissolve the water district itself under specified conditions, the petition asks, “what is a measly removal of a member thereof?”
IF REMOVAL OF DALUZ ET AL IS “MEASLY,” compared to MCWD’s dissolution, it is obviously big to Mayor Rama. In the past few days since he left on November 1 for a month-long vacation, Mayor Mike has been ranting from out there mostly about the controversy, incensed by Daluz’s reported order to bar the new board from the district’s premises and driven to urge his supporters to storm the heavens with prayers that would result in the MCWD chairman’s exit.
Prayers, whatever their force, must be accompanied with legal arguments stronger than, say, the RTC’s fear that if the board has the power to remove a member, that may “dangerously lead” to directors protecting one another. Pure speculation, a question on the wisdom of the law, the petition before the SC says, not the court’s job. There are already checks and balance in place, the petitioners say, citing an SC decision. The directors are accountable to all the laws and regulations and code of conduct and, like all other officials and employees, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the Civil Service Commission.
HOW ABOUT PUBLIC INTEREST? The lawyers in the SC petition -- which basically argues the legal issue in which Mike Rama and Joey Daluz are entangled -- seem to cover all the bases except public interest, I said to Amando Virgil Ligutan, one of the lawyers for the SC petitioners.
“It is in the public interest that water districts should be immune from politics,” Atty. Ligutan told me Tuesday, November 7. “Now we are experiencing the deleterious effects” of the removal of MCWD’s board by then mayor Labella. The present turmoil, he said, is “Exhibit A of our main argument: water districts should be kept out of politics.”
Coincidental, if not ironic, that Mayor Rama and his lawyers have also accused Daluz of the same “offense”: namely, Joey is politicking, preparing to the 2025 elections; if nobody else would rival Rama for mayor, Daluz allegedly would.
The law could be protecting local water districts from the intervention of politicians in the local government but maybe not from politicians in the water district itself. The LWUA guidelines that bar non-women from the seat for women’s organization does not exclude dormant politicians who may just be waiting for the next election. Under LWUA guidelines, a director automatically loses his seat only if he is elected or appointed to a public office, or files his certificate of candidacy in an election.