Torrecampo v.

MWSS
Doctrine: Despite the presence of judicial power under Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, a review of Executive policy is not under the jurisdiction of the courts for such policies lies only within the wisdom of the Executive branch. Petition: Petition for Injunction in the Supreme Court Plaintiff & Appellees: Barangay Captain Beda Torrecampo Defendant & Appellant: Manila Waterworks and Sewerage System Date: May 30, 2011 Ponente: Justice Carpio Summary: Barangay Captain Beda Torrecampo filed a petition for injunction in the Supreme Court regarding the C5 Road Extension Project for the said project would result to injury to the petitioner and eight million residents of Metro Manila. The project would endanger the health of the residents for aqueducts responsible for the water supply in the area could be damaged. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that Torrecampo is not entitled to an injunction for he seeks judicial review of an Executive policy which is outside of the wisdom of the courts. Facts: 1. Torrecampo filed the petition for injunction pursuant to Sec. 3 of R.A 8975 on July 1, 2009, a day after DPWH entered a portion of Barangay Matandang Balara to implement the C-5 Road Extension Project. Torrecampo insists that the RI-PADA area is a better alternative to subject lots for the project. 2. Atty. Agra for MWSS finds the petition immature for the road project has yet to be implemented. The entry of DPWH in the area is done to conduct study on the area and on the location of the aqueducts. 3. Through RA 6234, MWSS explains its participation in the C5 Road Expansion Project. The MWSS explains that they have jurisdiction, supervision, and control over all the sewerage and waterworks systems located in Metro Manila, Rizal province, and a portion of Cavite province. 4. MWSS issued Board Resolution No. 2009-052 on March 12, 2009 that allowed DPWH to use the 60meter Right-of-Way for preliminary studies of the road expansion project. 5. DPWH entered the Right-of-Way on June 30, 2009 to conduct necessary studies for the project. 6. The court issued that Torrecampo is not entitled to an injunction. Thus, Torrecampos petition is denied. Issue: 1. WON respondents should be enjoined from commencing with and implementing the C-5 Road Extension Project along Tandang Sora Road, affecting MWSS properties. Held: 1. The court rules that Torrecampo is not entitled to an injunction for judicial review does not apply to matters concerning the Executive branch.

Ratio: Torrecampos Contention Access to clean and potable water for residents of Metro Manila is at risk with the C5 Road Expansion Project and Section 16, Article II and Section 6, Article XII of the Constitution would be violated by DPWH and MWSS should the road expansion project proceed using MWSSs properties instead of the RIPADA area.

Supreme Court The Court determined that Torrecampo wants the Court to find out whether the Tandang Sora area for the project is a much better alternative to the RIPADA area for the project. Despite the definition of judicial power, as present in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, an inquiry on the issues raised by Torrecampo would mean delving into matters that are solely within the wisdom of the Executive branch. There is also the possibility of committing judicial interference. The determination of where to construct a road extension project is not within the jurisdiction of the Court but rather that of the Executive branch.

No dissenting opinions presented. Nachura, Peralta, Abad, Mendoza, JJ. concur.