REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

MALACAANG, MANILA
TOURISM
INFRASTRUCTURE
AND
ENTERPRISE ZONE AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, THE HONORABLE MARK T. LAPID,
Petitioner-Appellee,
-versus-

O.P. _____________
OSJ Case No. 04331-11

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD,

Respondent-Appellant,
x-----------------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT / OPPOSITION
(To: Appeal Memorandum dated 8 October 2012 filed by the
National Water Resources Board)
Appellee TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENTERPRISE ZONE
AUTHORITY (TIEZA), represented by its Chief Operating Officer, Mark T. Lapid,
respectfully states:

1.

On 16 November 2012, it received a copy of the 8 October 2012

Appeal Memorandum filed by the appellant assailing the May 23, 2012
Resolution and August 15, 2012 Order respectively rendered by the Honorable
Secretary of Justice in the above-entitled case ruling that PETITIONER TIEZA
has the sole and exclusive right to regulate all utilities, including waterworks and
sewerage systems, in Boracay and other tourist zones; and Boracay Island
Water Company, Inc. (BIWC) and other agents and concessionaires of petitioner
TIEZA in the tourist zones, need not secure Certificate of Public Convenience
(CPC) from respondent National Water Resources Board (NWRB) for the
operation of waterworks and sewerage systems.

2.

Appellee submits that the said Notice of Appeal filed by respondent

appellant should be denied for the following reasons, to wit:

I.

Respondent NWRBs jurisdiction to

regulate the operation of water
utilities in the Philippines emanates
from the Public Service Act which is
merely a general law.

3.
The Public Service Act is a general law which deals with water
utilities in general. On the other hand, the Tourism Act deals with utilities in in
tourist zones only, and thus, can be considered

IV.

The Notice of Appeal

is contrary to law.
a.)

Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 242 provides:

Section 2. In all cases involving questions of law, the
same shall be submitted to and settled or adjudicated by

the Secretary of Justice, as Attorney General and ex officio

legal adviser of all government-owned or controlled
corporations and entities, in consonance with section 83 of
the Revised Administrative Code. His ruling or determination
of the question in each case shall be conclusive and binding
upon all the parties concerned. (Underscoring supplied)

Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 242 provides:

Section 5. The decisions of the Secretary of Justice, as
well as those of the Solicitor General or the Government
Corporate Counsel, when approved by the Secretary of
Justice, shall be final and binding upon the parties
involved. Appeals may be taken to and entertained by
the Office of the President only in cases wherein the
amount of the claim or value of the property exceeds P1
million. The decisions of the Office of the President on
appeal cases shall be final. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 242 provides:
Section 6. The final decisions rendered in the settlement
or adjudication of all such disputes, claims or
controversies shall have the same force and effect as
final decisions of the courts of justice. (Emphasis
supplied)

3.

It is clearly stated under section 5 of P.D. No. 242 that

appeals may be taken to and entertained by the Office of the President

only in cases wherein the amount of the claim or value of the property
exceeds P1 million. In the case at bar, the issue neither involves a money
claim nor a property. The issue merely involves a question of jurisdiction.
Hence, no appeal may be taken by NWRB. The decision of the Secretary
of Justice is final and binding upon the parties involved.
4.

In United CMC Textile Workers Union v. Clave 1, the Court

held that the right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due
process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the
manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law (Aguila v.
Navarro, 55 Phil. 898; Santiago vs. Valenzuela, 78 Phil. 397). Thus, appeal
is simply a procedural remedy wherein there can be no vested right. But

G.R. No. L-57595, July 5, 1985

as long as the law provides for an appeal, the right to appeal is part of due
process.
5.

Furthermore, in U.P v. CSC2, the Supreme Court ruled that

an appeal is not part of due process, but a statutory privilege which

may be exercised only in the manner and within the period
prescribed by law. And where the law does not grant a right to
appeal, such remedy cannot be invoked. (Emphasis supplied)
6.

Since the right to appeal from the decision of the Secretary

of Justice to the Office of the President is neither provided in Presidential

Decree No. 242, its Implementing Rules nor in the 1987 Administrative
Code, the said remedy cannot be invoked by herein appellant.

II.

Respondent NWRBs jurisdiction to

regulate the operation of water
utilities in the Philippines emanates
from the Public Service Act which is
merely a general law.

RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this
Honorable Office issue an order denying said Notice of Appeal for utter lack of
merit.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed
for.
City of Manila, 20 November 2012.

For the Tourism Infrastructure

and Enterprise Zone Authority

________________________
MARK T. LAPID
2

228 SCRA 297 (1993)

Chief Operating Officer

Copy Furnished (by personal service):

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
THE NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD
8th Floor, NIA Building
EDSA Diliman, Quezon City

FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
SOLICITOR GENERAL
The Office of the Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi VIllage
Makati City
JOHN EMMANUEL F. MADAMBA
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
The Office of the Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi VIllage
Makati City
MAISARA C. DANDAMUN-LATIPH
STATE SOLICITOR II
The Office of the Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi VIllage
Makati City