You are on page 1of 5

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
MALACAÑANG, 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.

Appellee submits that the said Notice of Appeal filed by respondent appellant should be denied for the following reasons. the same shall be submitted to and settled or adjudicated by . 3. can be considered IV. On the other hand. In all cases involving questions of law.2 2. and thus.) Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 242 provides: “Section 2. the Tourism Act deals with utilities in in tourist zones only. Respondent NWRB’s jurisdiction to regulate the operation of water utilities in the Philippines emanates from the Public Service Act which is merely a general law. a. The Notice of Appeal is contrary to law. to wit: I. The Public Service Act is a general law which deals with water utilities in general.

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. 397).” (Underscoring supplied) Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 78 Phil. as Attorney General and ex officio legal adviser of all government-owned or controlled corporations and entities. In United CMC Textile Workers Union v.3 the Secretary of Justice. claims or controversies shall have the same force and effect as final decisions of the courts of justice. shall be final and binding upon the parties involved. when approved by the Secretary of Justice. But 1 G. No. the issue neither involves a money claim nor a property. The decisions of the Secretary of Justice.D.R. The decisions of the Office of the President on appeal cases shall be final. The final decisions rendered in the settlement or adjudication of all such disputes. No. Santiago vs. Navarro. L-57595. in consonance with section 83 of the Revised Administrative Code. and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law (Aguila v. 242 provides: “Section 6. appeal is simply a procedural remedy wherein there can be no vested right.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 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. His ruling or determination of the question in each case shall be conclusive and binding upon all the parties concerned. 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. Clave 1. It is clearly stated under section 5 of P. Valenzuela. The issue merely involves a question of jurisdiction. 898. In the case at bar. Thus. no appeal may be taken by NWRB. 1985 . 242 provides: “Section 5. 4.” (Emphasis supplied) 3. July 5. The decision of the Secretary of Justice is final and binding upon the parties involved. 55 Phil. as well as those of the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel. Hence.

the right to appeal is part of due process. Furthermore. And where the law does not grant a right to appeal. just and equitable under the premises. its Implementing Rules nor in the 1987 Administrative Code. it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Office issue an order denying said Notice of Appeal for utter lack of merit. the Supreme Court ruled that “an appeal is not part of due process. For the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority ________________________ MARK T.” 5. 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. in U. premises considered. LAPID 2 228 SCRA 297 (1993) . but a statutory privilege which may be exercised only in the manner and within the period prescribed by law. RELIEF WHEREFORE. the said remedy cannot be invoked by herein appellant. Other reliefs. City of Manila. II. such remedy cannot be invoked.P v.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Respondent NWRB’s jurisdiction to regulate the operation of water utilities in the Philippines emanates from the Public Service Act which is merely a general law. are likewise prayed for. 242.4 as long as the law provides for an appeal. CSC2. 20 November 2012.

Legaspi VIllage Makati City MAISARA C. NIA Building EDSA Diliman. MADAMBA ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL The Office of the Solicitor General 134 Amorsolo Street. Quezon City FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA SOLICITOR GENERAL The Office of the Solicitor General 134 Amorsolo Street. DANDAMUN-LATIPH STATE SOLICITOR II The Office of the Solicitor General 134 Amorsolo Street. Legaspi VIllage Makati City .5 Chief Operating Officer Copy Furnished (by personal service): THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD 8th Floor. Legaspi VIllage Makati City JOHN EMMANUEL F.