RAMA v.

MOISES
December 6, 2016| Bersamin, J. |

SUMMARY: The main issue of the case is who has the authority to appoint the members of the Board of Directors of Metropolitan Cebu
Water District – the Cebu City mayor or the Province of Cebu’s governor. Petitioners (Mayor of Cebu, etc) argues that Section 3(b) of P.D.
198 is unconstitutional as it is arbitrary and the granting of authority to the Provincial Governor to appoint members of the Board of
Directors of MCWD violates the principle of the local autonomy granted by the Constitution. The RTC ruled in favor of the Governor’s
authority. The Court reversed. It struck down Section 3(b) as unconstitutional.
DOCTRINE: It is accepted that the LGUs, more than the National Government itself, know the needs of their constituents, and cater to
such needs based on the particular circumstances of their localities. Where a particular law or statute affecting the LGUs infringes on
their autonomy, and on their rights and powers to efficiently and effectively address the needs of their constituents, we should
lean in favor of their autonomy, their rights and their powers.

FACTS:
 On May 25, 1973, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 198 (Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973).
 By virtue of P. D. No. 198, Cebu City formed the Metro Cebu Water District (MCWD) in 1974. Thereafter, the Cities of Mandaue,
Lapu-Lapu and Talisay, and the Municipalities of Liloan, Compostela, Consolacion, and Cordova turned over their waterworks
systems and services to the MCWD.
 Since then, the MCWD has distributed water and sold water services to said cities and municipalities.
 From 1974 to 2002, the Cebu City Mayor appointed all the members of the MCWD Board of Directors (BoD) in accordance with Sec.
3 (b) of P. D. No. 198.
Section 3. Definitions. -As used in this Decree, the following words and terms shall have the meanings herein set forth, unless a
different meaning clearly appears from the context. The definition of a word or term applies to any of its variants.
(a) Act. This is the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973.
(b) Appointing authority. The person empowered to appoint the members of the board of Directors of a local water
district, depending upon the geographic coverage and population make-up of the particular district. In the event that
more than seventy-five percent of the total active water service connections of a local water district are within
the boundary of any city or municipality, the appointing authority shall be the mayor of that city or
municipality, as the case may be; otherwise, the appointing authority shall be the governor of the province
within which the district is located. If portions of more than one province are included within the boundary of the
district, and the appointing authority is to be the governors then the power to appoint shall rotate between the
governors involved with the initial appointments made by the governor in whose province the greatest number of
service connections exists.
 In July 2002, Cebu Provincial Governor Pablo L. Garcia wrote to the MCWD to assert his authority and intention to appoint the
members of the MCWD BoD
o He stated in his letter that since 1996, the active water service connections in Cebu City had been below 75% of the total
active water service connection of the MCWD;
o that no other city or municipality under the MCWD had reached the required percentage of 75%; and that, accordingly, he,
as the Provincial Governor of Cebu, was the appointing authority for the members of the MCWD BoD pursuant to Section
3 (b)
 Later on, the MCWD commenced in the RTC Cebu City its action for declaratory relief seeking to declare Section 3(b) of P.D. No.
198 unconstitutional; or, should the provision be declared valid, it should be interpreted to mean that the authority to appoint the
members of the MCWD BoD belonged solely to the Cebu City Mayor.
 RTC: The RTC dismissed the action for declaratory relief without any finding and declaration as to the proper appointing authority
for the members of the MCWD Board of Directors should none of the cities and municipalities reach 75% of the total water service
connections in the areas under the MCWD.
 In the meanwhile, the terms of 2 members of the MCWD Board of Directors ended, resulting in 2 vacancies. To avoid a vacuum and
in the exigency of the service, Provincial Governor Gwendolyn F. Garcia and Cebu City Mayor Tomas R. Osmeña jointly
appointed Atty. Adelino Sitoy and Leo Pacana to fill the vacancies. However, the position of Atty. Sitoy was deemed vacated
upon his election as the Municipal Mayor of Cordova, Cebu in the 2007 elections.
 Consequently, Governor Garcia commenced an action for declaratory relief to seek the interpretation of Section 3 (b) of P.D. No. 198
on the proper appointing authority for the members of the MCWD Board of Directors.
 It appears that on February 7, 2008, the Cebu Provincial Legal Office, upon being informed that Mayor Osmeña would be appointing
Joel Mari S. Yu to replace Atty. Sitoy as a member of the MCWD BoD, formally advised in writing Cynthia A. Barrit, the MCWD
Board Secretary, to defer the submission of the list of nominees to any appointing authority until the RTC rendered its final ruling on
the issue of the proper appointing authority.
 On February 22, 2008, however, Mayor Osmeña appointed Yu as a member of the MCWD Board of Directors.
 RTC: Dismissed the action for declaratory relief on the ground that declaratory relief became improper once there was a breach or
violation of the provision.
 On June 13, 2008, Governor Garcia filed a complaint to declare the nullity of the appointment of Yu as a member of the MCWD
Board of Directors alleging that the appointment by Mayor Osmeña was illegal; that under Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198, it was she as
the Provincial Governor of Cebu who was vested with the authority to appoint members of the MCWD BoD because the total active
water service connections of Cebu City and of the other cities and municipalities were below 75% of the total water service
connections in the area of the MCWD. She impleaded Mayor Osmeña, the MCWD, and Yu as defendants.
 RTC: On November 16, 2010, rendered the assailed judgment and the appointment of Yu as ILLEGAL and VOID
o Section 3(b) needs no interpretation, it is clear
o The active water service connections of Cebu City in the MCWD is at 61.28%, below the required 75% for the city mayor to
have authority to appoint members of the BoD
o Power is vested with the governor even if he had not participated in the organizing MCWD nor did the Province invest in
establishing waterworks in the city
o Sec. 3(b) does not violate Constitution – authority of governor to appoint is not intrusion into the affairs of the HUCs/CCs
nor a threat to their autonomy
o Defendants have already recognized appointing authority of previous appointments (Mr. Pacana and Atty. Sitoy)
o Doubts should be resolved in favor of constitutionality
 Mayor Osmeña and Yu filed MR. Denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari

RULING: WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition for certiorari; ANNUL and SET ASIDE the decision rendered in Civil Case No.
CEB-34459 on November 16, 2010 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, in Cebu City; and DECLARE as UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Section 3(b) of Presidential Decree No. 198 to the extent that it applies to highly urbanized cities like the City of Cebu and to component
cities with charters expressly providing for their voters not to be eligible to vote for the officials of the provinces to which they belong for
being in violation of the express policy of the 1987 Constitution on local autonomy, the 1991 Local Government Code and subsequent
statutory enactments, and for being also in violation of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. ACCORDINGLY, the
Mayor of the the City of Cebu is declared to be the appointing authority of the Members of the Board of Directors of the Metro Cebu
Water District.

Whether Yu’s expiration of term rendered the case moot and academic – NO
 Yu's term as a member of the MCWD BoD expired on December 31, 2012.
 The case should still be decided because public interest is involved, and because the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review.
 The appointment by the proper official of the individuals to manage the system of water distribution and service for the consumers
residing in the concerned cities and municipalities involves the interest of their populations and the general public affected
by the services of the MCWD as a public utility.
 Moreover, the question on the proper appointing he cities and municipalities have at least 75% of the water consumers will not be
definitively resolved with finality if we dismiss the petition on the ground of mootness. It is notable that the two cases for declaratory
relief filed for the purpose of determining the proper appointing authority were dismissed without any definitive declaration or
ultimate determination of the merits of the issue. The issue festers. Hence, the Court needs to decide it now, not later.

Whether the issue is a political question – NO

 PETITIONERS: The RTC did not explain why it held Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 to be not violative of the constitutional provision
on local autonomy and HUCs, and why it only opined that the question of constitutionality of the provision should be left to
Congress; that it did not determine whether the requisites for raising the constitutional issue had been met; that it did not discuss the
reasons for holding that the issue about Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 was a political question; that no political question was involved
because what was being inquired into was not the wisdom of the provision but its validity; and that because it did not perform its
constitutional duty of reviewing the provision, its judgment was void.
 COURT: Records show that the RTC fully discharged its duty. (See November 16, 2010 Decision). Nonetheless, the petitioners rightly
contend that the RTC improperly regarded the matter about Section 3(b) as a political question – it is NOT. Case at bar is a justiciable
one as Courts have the power to pass upon constitutionality of treaty, agreement, or law [Art X, Sec 2(2)]

Whether Section 3(b) of P.D. 198 is already superseded – YES

Whether Section 3(b) is unconstitutional – YES, for being repugnant to the local autonomy granted by the 1987 Consitution to
the LGUs and being inconsistent with RA 7160 (1991 LGC) and related laws on local government
PETITIONERS:
 Section 3 (b) of P.D. No. 198 was unconstitutional on its face for being unreasonable and arbitrary because the determination of
who would exercise the power to appoint the members of the MCWD Board of Directors was thereby made to depend on the
shifting number of water users in the water district's component LGUs;
 The provision on the authority of the Provincial Governor to appoint in cases where the water connections of any of the water
water district's cities or municipalities were below 75% was arbitrary for not distinguishing whether or not the province had
contributed any waterworks to the water district; The provision did not consider whether a city or municipality comprised the
majority or more of the water consumers;
 The provision was irrational as it gave the Provincial Governor the power to appoint regardless of whether the province had
participated in the organization of the water district or not;
  The assailed provision was void on its face for violating the constitutional provision on local autonomy and independence of
HUCs under Article X of the 1987 Constitution;
 The provision unduly interfered with the internal affairs of Cebu City, and diminished the autonomy of the LGUs;
 The provision undermined the independence of HUCs;
 Office of the Government Corporate Counsel and the OSG: have opined that because Cebu City was an HUC, the City Mayor of
Cebu City should retain the right to appoint the members of the MCWD Board of Directors;
 The chief executive of the LGU having the majority of water consumers was in the best position to exercise the discretion of
choosing the most competent persons who could best serve the constituents;
 Because the largest number of water consumers were in Cebu City, any intrusion on the City Mayor's power to appoint would
violate its independence and autonomy; that the Province of Cebu could not exercise powers that affected the constituents of
HUCs;
 Providing water to constituents was the sole responsibility of the concerned LGU; that the water utility of the LGU was a
patrimonial property that was not for public use; that as such, the operation, ownership and management of the public utility
should belong to the LGU;

COURT:
 The Court opines that Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 should be partially struck down for being repugnant to the local autonomy
granted by the 1987 Constitution to LGUs, and for being inconsistent with R.A. No. 7160 (1991 Local Government Code) and related
laws on local governments.
 The enactment of P.D. No. 198 on May 25, 1973 was prior to the enactment on December 22, 1979 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 (An
Act Providing for the Elective or Appointive Positions in Various Local Governments and for Other Purposes) and antedated as well
the effectivity of the 1991 Local Government Code on January 1, 1992.
 At the time of the enactment of P.D. No. 198, Cebu City was still a component city of Cebu Province. Section 328 of B.P. Blg. 51
reclassified the cities of the Philippines based on well-defined criteria. Cebu City thus became an HUC, which immediately meant that
its inhabitants were ineligible to vote for the officials of Cebu Province.
 In accordance with Section 12 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution, cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, and
component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials, shall be independent of the
province, but the voters of component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such prohibition, shall not be deprived of
their right to vote for elective provincial officials.
 Later on, Cebu City, already an HUC, was further effectively rendered independent from Cebu Province pursuant to Section 29 of
the 1991 Local Government Code, viz.:
Section 29. Provincial Relations with Component Cities and Municipalities. -The province, through the governor, shall ensure
that every component city and municipality within its territorial jurisdiction acts within the scope of its prescribed powers and
functions. Highly urbanized cities and independent component cities shall be independent of the province. (Emphasis supplied)
 Hence, all matters relating to its administration, powers and functions were exercised through its local executives led by the
City Mayor, subject to the President's retained power of general supervision over provinces, HUCs, and independent component
cities pursuant to and in accordance with Section 25 of the 1991 LGC a law enacted for the purpose of strengthening the autonomy
of the LGUs in accordance with the 1987 Constitution. Article X of the 1987 Constitution guarantees and promotes the administrative
and fiscal autonomy of the LGUs.
 The foregoing statutory enactments enunciate and implement the local autonomy provisions explicitly recognized under the 1987
Constitution.
 To conform with the guarantees of the Constitution in favor of the autonomy of the LGUs, therefore, it becomes the duty of the
Court to declare and pronounce Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 as already partially unconstitutional.
o We note that this pronouncement is also advocated by the National Government, as shown in the comment of the Solicitor
General.
 In Navarro v. Ermita, the Court has pointed out that the central policy considerations in the creation of local government units are
economic viability, efficient administration, and capability to deliver basic services to their constituents. These considerations must be
given importance as they ensure the success of local autonomy.
 It is accepted that the LGUs, more than the National Government itself, know the needs of their constituents, and cater to such needs
based on the particular circumstances of their localities. Where a particular law or statute affecting the LGUs infringes on their
autonomy, and on their rights and powers to efficiently and effectively address the needs of their constituents, we should
lean in favor of their autonomy, their rights and their powers.
 Water and its efficient supply are among the primary concerns of every LGU. Issues that tend to reduce or diminish the authority of
the boards of directors to manage the water districts are imbued with public interest.
 Bearing this in mind, and recalling that the MCWD had been established from the erstwhile Osmeña Waterworks Systems (OWS)
without any investment or contribution of funds and material from the Province of Cebu towards the creation and maintenance of
OWS and the MCWD, and considering that it had always been the City Mayor of the City of Cebu who appointed the members of the
MCWD Board of Directors regardless of the percentage of the water subscribers, our pronouncement herein rests on firm ground.
Whether Section 3(b) of P.D. 198 violates due process and equal protection – No but eventually, YES. The reclassification of City
of Cebu into an HUC and the enactment of 1991 LGC rendered the continued application of Sec. 3(b) unreasonable and unfair
PETITIONERS:
 Sec. 3(b) being unfair, violated substantive due process; that Governor Garcia could not determine the water needs of each of the
LGUs within the MCWD; that the provision allowed inequality of treatment of the cities and municipalities in relation to the province,
and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution; that the provision unduly deprived Cebu City of the power to
determine the membership in the MCWD Board of Directors despite Cebu City having the majority of the water service connections;
that the Province of Cebu was given unreasonable and unwarranted benefit despite Cebu City being independent from the Province of
Cebu; that Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 did not distinguish whether the province contributed any resource to the water district or not;
that under the provision, if two or more provinces contributed to the water district, they were not subject to the 75% requirement to
avail of the power of appointment, indicating that the power to appoint devolved only in the provinces; that this violated the guarantee
of equality of treatment in favor of the participating LGUs; that the provision created a privileged class (the provinces) without any
justification in reason; and that "the classification is not germane to the purpose of the law and is not based on substantial distinctions
that make real differences."

COURT:
 Substantive due process: “requires that the law itself, not merely the procedures by which law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable,a
nd just.” What to be determined is wheteher the law has a valid governmental objective, like the interest of public as againt a particular
class.
 Equal protection: In order for classification to be valid, it must: (1) rest on substantital distinctions; (2) germane to the purpose of the
law; (3) not limited to existing conditions only; (4) apply equally to all members of the same class
 Althoug Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 provided for substantial distinction and was germane to the purpose of P.D. No. 198 when it
was enacted in 1973, the intervening reclassification of the City of Cebu into an HUC and the subsequent enactment of the 1991 Local
Government Code rendered the continued application of Section 3(b) in disregard of the reclassification unreasonable and unfair.
 Clearly, the assailed provision no longer provided for substantial distinction because, firstly, it ignored that the MCWD was
built without the participation of the provincial government; secondly, it failed to consider that the MCWD existed to serve
the community that represents the needs of the majority of the active water service connections; and, thirdly, the main
objective of the decree was to improve the water service while keeping up with the needs of the growing population.
 The Whereas Clauses of P.D. No. 198 essentially state the raison d'etre of its enactment, to wit:
o WHEREAS, existing domestic water utilities are not meeting the needs of the communities they serve; water quality
is unsatisfactory; pressure is inadequate; and reliability of service is poor; in fact, many persons receive no piped water service
whatsoever;
o WHEREAS, conditions of service continue to worsen for two apparent reasons, namely: (1) that key element of existing
systems are deteriorating faster than they are being maintained or replaced, and (2) that they are not being expanded at a
rate sufficient to match population growth; and
o WHEREAS, local water utilities should be locally-controlled and managed, as well as have support on the national
level in the area of technical advisory services and financing;
 Verily, the decree was enacted to provide adequate, quality and reliable water and waste-water services to meet the needs of the local
communities and their growing populations. The needs of the communities served were paramount.
 Hence, we deem it to be inconsistent with the true objectives of the decree to still leave to the provincial governor the appointing
authority if the provincial governor had administrative supervision only over municipalities and component cities accounting for
16.92% of the active water service connection in the MCWD.
 In comparison, the City of Cebu had 61.28% of the active service water connections. There is no denying that the MCWD has been
primarily serving the needs of Cebu City. Although it is impermissible to inquire into why the decree set 75% as the marker for
determining the proper appointing authority, the provision has meanwhile become unfair for ignoring the needs and circumstances of
Cebu City as the LGU accounting for the majority of the active water service connections, and whose constituency stood to be the
most affected by the decisions made by the MCWD's BoD.
 Indeed, the classification has truly ceased to be germane or related to the main objective for the enactment of P.D. No. 198 in 1973
 The RTC gravely abused its discretion in upholding Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198. It thereby utterly disregarded the clear policies
favoring local autonomy enshrined in the 1987 Constitution and effected by the 1991 Local Government Code and related subsequent
statutory enactments, and for being violative of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution.

DISSENTING OPINION, Brion, J.

(Sorry mahaba pero mahaba talaga discussion nya and may part na wala sa main opinion)
 In my opinion, the present petition must be dismissed because: first, the petitioners disregarded the hierarchy of courts; second, the
RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion; and third, Section 3(b) does not violate the Constitution, nor was it superseded by the
Local Government Code, or by Cebu City's reclassification as a highly urbanized city.

Hierarchy of courts
 Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (inferior) courts should be filed with the RTC, and those against the
RTC with the CA. In this case, since the petitioners insist on filing a Petition for Certiorari, they should have done so before the CA.
 Neither do I find anything special or important in this case to invoke the Court's original certiorari jurisdiction. Neither the petitioner
nor the respondent allege that MCWD's operations has been, or will be paralyzed, simply because the appointing power has shifted
from one government official to another. At any rate, what is clear to me is that MCWD' s operations are not hampered by the
existence of the constitutional issues presented before us, and that the CA is more than capable of resolving the present petition.

RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion

 Presiding judge emphasized three observations: first, Section 3(b) is not an intrusion into Cebu City's autonomy; second, the issue is
not whether the governor participated in organizing the water district, but whether the law granted him the power to appoint the
LWD's board of directors; and third, granting the power appoint to the governor may not be the most appropriate solution but it is
not illegal. I find that the above observations satisfactorily addressed the petitioners' constitutional challenge. In fact, no less than the
petitioners themselves admitted in their December 30, 2010 motion for reconsideration before the RTC that they (petitioners) "fully
[appreciate] the extensive effort made by the Court in arriving at its conclusions for its decision."
 If there is any flaw in the RTC's decision at all, it would be the lack of a more detailed discussion. Despite this flaw, however, I
disagree with the ponencia 's conclusion that the RTC gravely abused its discretion because it improperly relied on the political
question doctrine to skirt the duty of judicial review.
 To my mind, albeit not exhaustively, the RTC exercised its power of judicial review and, therefore, did not commit grave abuse of
discretion. The November 16, 2010 decision does not patently show that the RTC arbitrarily, capriciously, or whimsically withheld the
power of judicial review. On the contrary, as the ponencia itself noted, "the RTC, which indisputably had the power and the duty to
determine and decide the issue of constitutionality of Section 3(b) of P.D. 198, discharged its duty."
 Admittedly, the presiding judge's writing style which did not address the constitutional issues point-by-point may have resulted in a
poorly written draft. Still, the draft's poor quality does not amount to grave abuse of discretion in the absence of arbitrariness or
personal hostility on the part of the trial judge. This Court must not allow litigants to directly resort to certiorari petitions simply
because they think the presiding judge lacked the skill to close out all arguments presented before the trial court

Section 3(b) is netiher unconstitutional nor antiquated

 Petitioners have no locus standi. I wish to emphasize, however, that insofar as the due process challenge is concerned, the
petitioners are not suing on behalf of their constituents. Instead, the City of Cebu questions Section 3(b)'s arbitrariness from a private
standpoint.
 To repeat, the petitioner Cebu City claims that the operation of LWDs, such as the MCWD, is a patrimonial property of the local
government unit it serves.
 In support of this view, the City points out that MCWD's assets originated from the Osmeña Waterworks System (OWS) - a
waterworks system previously operated and maintained by the City of Cebu. They argue that since the Province of Cebu never
invested in the OWS, or in the MCWD, the Governor has no right to appoint the members of the MCWD Board.
 I disagree with this view as the City of Cebu has no proprietary right over MCWD's waterworks. Without any property right over
MCWD's waterworks (see History below), the City of Cebu cannot claim that Section 3(b) operates to deprive it of any property right
without due process of law. Accordingly, the City of Cebu lacks the requisite standing to question Section 3(b)'s constitutionality under
the due process clause

History of City of Cebu, MCWD and PD 198

 In the early part of the 20th century, the Municipality of Cebu's water supply was provided and maintained by the Osmeña
Waterworks System (OWS).
 In 1934, CA No. 58 transformed the municipality of Cebu into a city. In 1964, the City's Revised Charter placed the exclusive
ownership, control, direction and supervision of the OWS to the City of Cebu.
 Acknowledging the lack of water utilities and the poor water quality in provincial areas, President Ferdinand Marcos issued PD 198 on
May 25, 1973. PD 198 seeks to provide quality, adequately pressured and reliable water service by encouraging LGUs to form local
water districts, and to transfer thereto existing water supply and wastewater disposal facilities on a local option basis.
 In turn, the National Government promises LGUs support in the areas of technical advisory, service, and financing. To create LWDs,
PD 198 authorized LGUs to form water districts by enacting Resolutions for the purpose, and by filing copy/ies of the resolution/s to
the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) - an office attached to the office of the president.
 Once formed, the districts shall become GOCC and will NO longer be under the jurisdiction of any political subdivision.
 Under these terms, the City of Cebu, through the then mayor Engr. Eulogio Borres, approved on May 9, 1974 Resolution No. 873
creating the MCWD. Thereafter, the City of Cebu transferred all of OWS’ assets and facilities to MCWD. Soon after, the City Councils
of Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu, and the municipal governments of Compostela, Consolacion, and Cordova, all located within the
Province of Cebu, approved concurring resolutions turning over their respective waterworks to MCWD.
 Based on the above facts, I see no merit in Cebu City's claim that it retains proprietary rights over MCWD's waterworks.
 The MCWD is a separate and distinct entity from the LGUs it serves, including the City of Cebu. Neither can the City of
Cebu claim that it retains ownership, or that it has a better right, over MCWD's waterworks than any other LGU. That the
City of Cebu had transferred all of OWS' waterworks to the MCWD, to my mind, is beyond question.
 LWDs are GOCCs that are independent from any political subdivision. All powers, privileges, and duties of the LWD are exercised
and performed by and through the LWD's board of directors, and not by any LGU official.
 Accordingly, neither the LGUs, which created the LWD, nor the LGU official, to whom the appointing power resides, can
countermand the LWD should it decide to expand its services, regardless if the expansion dilutes or increases the city's or
municipality's waterworks connection below or above the 75% threshold. In fact, PD 198 expressly prohibits LGUs from "dissolving,
altering or affecting" the LWDs they created.

Section 3 (b) contains a Reasonable classification.

 One substantial distinction between provinces, on one hand, and cities (whether component, highly urbanized, or independent) and
municipalities, on the other, is the land areas they cover.
 Under the Local Government Code, a province must have a contiguous territory of at least 2000 square kilometers. On the other
hand, a city or a municipality must have a contiguous territory of at least 100, and 50 square kilometers, respectively.
 By giving the Governor the power to appoint, Section 3(b) entrusts the appointing power to the highest local official who oversees the
largest geography where the LWD may expand its operations.
 However, Section 3(b) also realizes that confining the appointing power to the Governor loses its relevance where the LWD operates
almost entirely within a single city or municipality. Thus, as an alternative, Section 3(b) lodges the appointing power with the Mayor of
the City or Municipality where 75% or ¾ of the LWDs water connections are located.
 Neither was the 75% threshold created to favor Governors, as specific class, over Mayors; nor is it limited to conditions existing at the
time PD 198 was enacted, or at the time an L WD is created.
 The phrase "In the event that more than seventy-five percent of the total active water service connections of a local water district
are within the boundary of any city or municipality" signifies that the appointing power may shift at any time depending on the
circumstances.
 To illustrate this dynamic, while the province of Cebu now enjoys the appointing power, a future increase in MCWD's water
connections within Cebu City may re-shift the appointing power to the Mayor.
 Finally, do I not see anything wrong in applying the 75% threshold to all cities, regardless of their respective status as a component,
independent component or highly urbanized.
 Ironically, what would consist of discrimination is to treat highly urbanized and independent component cities differently from
component cities on the supposed reason that the former enjoys autonomy over its territory. The authority to appoint, as I will
discuss below, does not equate to control over the other LGUs serviced by an LWD.

Section 3 (b) is not superseded by the Local Government Code.

 The main flaw in the petitioners' argument and corollary, in the ponencia's conclusions, is the misconception that PD 198 grants the
appointing power control over LWDs and, therefore, violates the constitutional and statutory provisions on local autonomy. This is
simply not the case.
 All laws including PDs issued by President Marcos enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. Both the 1986 Freedom and the 1987
Constitutions recognize the validity of PDs unless and until they are amended, repealed, and revoked.
 Hand in hand with the presumption of validity, this Court must first attempt to harmonize Section 3(b) with other laws on the same
subject matter so as to form a complete, coherent, and intelligible system.
 As I discussed above, the appointing power has NO control over the LWD. Since the appointing power has no control over
the LWD, Section 3(b) does not create a link between the LGU where the appointing power sits, and the LGUs served by
the LWD.
 As applied to this case, reposing the appointing authority on the Governor of Cebu does not grant the provincial government
control or supervision over Cebu City or over the other LGUs where the LWD operates.
 In the same way, the Mayor of Cebu -during the period he/she exercised the appointing power -never exercised control or supervision
over the other LGUs served by MCWD,( i.e., Mandaue City, Lapu-Lapu City, Talisay City, etc)
 In short, the shift of the appointing power to the Governor does not infringe on the autonomy that Cebu City enjoys as a
highly urbanized city.
 While the LGC mandates and empowers the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Panlunsod and Bayan "to enact ordinances, approve
resolutions, and appropriate funds" for "the establishment, operation, maintenance, and repair of an efficient waterworks system," the
LGC explicitly states the LGU's can only exercise such power "subject to existing laws." Indisputably, one of these existing laws is PD
198.
 Following the principle of harmonization of laws, the LWDs created under PD 198 -such as the MCWD -are still governed by
PD 198 as a special law. Accordingly, these LWDs remain independent from the political subdivisions they serve, and their
subsisting relations with the proper appointing official, as provided for in PD 198, must be respected.

The Court should not resort to judicial legislation

 I wish to address the petitioners' prayer for this Court to "declare" that the appointing power should be lodged with the Mayor of the
city or municipality which participated in the L WD's formation and where a majority of the LWD's water connections lie.
 First and foremost, this Court cannot resort to judicial legislation even if it declares a law unconstitutional. Second, the petitioners are
mistaken in implying that legislative fiat will result if this Court declares Section 3(b) void. Section 10 of PD 198 empowers the
majority of the incumbent directors to fill vacancies in the board should the appointing power fail to make an appointment. Lastly,
there is simply no constitutional provision or principle that provides for the so-called doctrine of majority rule. In fact, modern legal
principles (such as the social justice principle) focus less on numerical superiority and, instead, ensures that the less privileged have
more in law.

DISSENTING OPINION, J. Leonardo-De Castro

 Firstly, I disagree with the majority opinion that Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 should be partially struck down for being
repugnant to the local autonomy granted by the 1987 Constitution to LGUs, and for being inconsistent with Republic Act
No. 7160 (1991 LGC) and related laws on local government.
 There is no impairment of the local autonomy provided by the 1987 Constitution and its implementing legislations.
 The decision to form a local water district is lodged upon the legislative body of any city, municipality or province itself, which can do
so by enacting a resolution to form or join a district. An LGU is free to decide to join or not a local water district based on its own
assessment of whether or not it will redound to its benefit to be covered by P.D. No. 198, which provides, among others, for a
package of powers, rights and obligations. Specifically, the local water district is assured of "support on the nation on the national level
in the area of techincal advisory services and financing guarantee of exclusive franchise for domestic water service within the district
(Sec. 46), and exemption from income taxes under Section 45.
 Moreover, the LGU joining a local water district does not surrender any of its powers under the Constitution or the Local
Government Code to another LGU vested with the power to appoint the members of the Board of the local water district
since Presidential Decree No. 198 expressly provides that a district once formed shall not be under the jurisdiction of any
political subdivision.
 The local water district has a separate juridical personality which is independent of the LGUs. It is governed by its Board of
Directors pursuant to Section 17.
 Hence, the power to appoint the members of the Board of Directors of the local water districts, which is vested upon the LGU
determined in accordance with the formula or rule prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 198, does not impair the autonomy of the
other LGUs included in the District.
 If a province can join a local water district and be subjected to the provisions of P.D. No. 198, there is no cogent reason why the
change of status of a component city of a province, which would later on become a highly urbanized city, should affect its powers,
rights and obligations under P.D. No. 198.
 A province which enjoys local autonomy may join a local water district and be subject to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 198
pursuant to Section 6 of said Decree
 Secondly, the majority opinion indulged itself in constitutionally objectionable judicial legislation by effectively amending
Section 3(b) of Presidential Decree No. 198
 The majority opinion criticized the 75% threshold prescribed by Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 to vest an LGU with the power to
appoint the members of the Board of Directors of the local water district, and in doing so, framed it within the supposed violation of
the due process clause and equal protection of the laws.
 While the majority opinion claimed to have partially struck down Section 3(b) of P.D. 198, it had practically nullified too the last
sentence of said Section 3(b ), which did not apply the threshold of 51% or majority rule in case more than one province are included
in the local water district. In this case, Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 provides that the appointing authority among the provinces is
determined by rotation.
 Assuming that Section 3(b) of P.D. 198, as argued in the majority opinion, is no longer in keeping with the recent developments in the
status, socio-economic and political conditions of the LGUs comprising a local water district, the remedy is legislative amendment.
 It is not for this Court to prescribe another rule or formula to determine who shall have the authority to appoint the Board
of Directors of a local water district.

CONCURRING OPINION, J. Leonen

 Section 3(b) of Presidential Decree No. 198 is unconstitutional because it violates the local autonomy of cities and municipalities
covered by MCWD. It interferes with the cities' and municipalities' power and duty to conduct their own affairs, particularly with
regard to the delivery of basic services.
 Presidential Decree No. 198 allows provinces to interfere with this duty of municipalities and cities when it empowered the governor
to appoint MWCD directors in case none of the cities and municipalities covered by MCWD reached the 75% requirement.
 Since MCWD's polices are created by MCWD's Board ofDirectors,21 the appointment of directors is the only means by which local
government units may exercise control over the policies that will be implemented by MCWD. Any exercise of this appointment power
entails great consideration not only of the needs of the most affected but also judgment as to whose decisions could best determine
and serve the needs of the local community. The person who could make such judgment is not the governor but the mayor of the
most number of barangays served by MCWD. It is that city o municipality that will be most affected by the decisions and policies of
the board of directors of MCWD.
 The presumption of constitutionality accorded to legislative acts by the Congress should not equally apply to presidential decrees.
Separation of powers, as well as the principle of checks and balances, were limited during the martial law.