WARM and Tecson v. MWSS, et al.SC G.R. No. ______________ Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus, with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, Accounting, and RefundPage 3
This led to the passing of the Water Crisis Act, which,among other provisions, advocated the privatization of water service.3.
Ultimately, two concessions were established—the Eastand West Service Areas—which were ultimately awarded to ManilaWater Co., Inc. and Maynilad Water Systems, Inc., respectively.4.
These concessionaires were tasked with the rehabilitationof the waterworks system already in place. And this came at a price.a. First, the concessionaires had to be permittedto recover losses during the entire 25-year concessions.b. Second, the MWSS was mandated tocooperate with these concessionaires.c. Third, the MWSS Regulatory Office wascreated through funding by—and, as will be seen later,under virtual control of—the concessionaires themselves.5.
Eventually, this setup was aggravated by arbitraryinterpretations by the concessionaires, with the blessing of the MWSSand its Regulatory Office, on the extent of “expenditures” that maybe passed on to the water consumers within their respective ServiceAreas. Even income taxes—which, as previously held by thisHonorable Court, may not be properly characterized as“expenditures”—were passed on to water consumers anyway. Eventhe costs for projects that were admitted to have been “failed”undertakings were likewise passed on.6.
It is for these reasons—all grounded on the sheer greedand blatant disregard by respondents for the welfare of the waterconsumers—that petitioners now elevate this matter to thisHonorable Court.N
ATURE OF THE
This is a
Petition for Certiorari
pursuant to Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court:
P. 65, § 1.