EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 185184, October 03, 2023 ]

METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, DIOSDADO JOSE M. ALLADO, PETITIONER, VS. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF BULACAN, REPRESENTED BY GOV. JOSEFINA M. DELA CRUZ, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

INTING, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assailing the Decision[2] dated May 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 86701 which affirmed with modification the Decision[3] dated June 3, 2005 and the Order[4] dated January 31, 2006 of Branch 82, Regional Trial Court (RTC), City of Malolos, Bulacan in Civil Case No. 410-M-2003. Also assailed is the CA Resolution[5] dated October 24, 2008 denying the motion for reconsideration.

The Antecedents

The case emanated from a Complaint[6] for Specific Performance/Payment of National Wealth Share filed by the Provincial Government of Bulacan (respondent), represented by its then Provincial Governor, Josefina M. Dela Cruz, against the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (petitioner), represented by its then Administrator, Orlando C. Hondrade.[7]

According to respondent, Angat Dam, which is located within its territorial jurisdiction, is the primary source of water supply of Metro Manila. It averred that petitioner has been deriving proceeds from the water resource of Angat Dam such that it should pay respondent a share arising from the utilization and development of national wealth.[8] Respondent stressed that petitioner's duty to pay is sanctioned by Section 7,[9] Article X of the 1987 Constitution in relation to Sections 289,[10] 291,[11] and 292[12] of the Local Government Code of 1991[13] (LGC).[14]

Respondent also alleged that since 1992, it has been demanding petitioner to pay its national wealth share but to no avail; it asked petitioner to furnish it with the latter's financial statements from the year 1992 which could be the basis for the determination of respondent's share; and because the request remained unheeded, it filed the complaint against petitioner.[15]

On the other hand, petitioner raised in its Answer[16] that respondent has no cause of action against it, there being no privity of contract between them.[17]

Petitioner further contended that it is a non-profit service utility which aimed to provide reliable water supply and wastewater disposal system to Metro Manila and its neighboring provinces; and it has been exercising regulatory functions in view of its agreements with various concessionaires, which were granted the right to manage the facilities and collect fees for water and sewerage services supplied to clients.[18]

Although it admitted that Angat Dam is located within the territory of respondent, petitioner argued that it is not engaged in the utilization and development of national wealth.[19] For petitioner, the water stored in Angat Dam did not necessarily come from Bulacan but was simply stored in it. Petitioner further countered that because a dam is a man-made structure, it does not fall within the purview of national wealth that would entitle a local government unit (LGU) to an equitable share in the proceeds derived from its utilization and development.[20]

The Ruling of the RTC

In its Decision[21] dated June 3, 2005, the RTC granted respondent's complaint, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered resolving the two (2) legal issues presented, as follows:
  1. Ordering defendant MWSS [petitioner] to submit and/or furnish plaintiff [respondent] of its financial statement or any financial document showing the income of MWSS from 1992 to present; and

  2. Ordering defendant MWSS to remit to the Provincial Treasurer of the Province of Bulacan the latter's share for the utilization of water resource derived from Angat Dam based on the earnings of MWSS from 1992 computed in accordance with Section 27 (a) (b) of the Local Government Code of 1991 and in the amount of 40% of the concession fee MWSS is and will be receiving by virtue of the concession agreement it had entered with private entities[,] with legal interest.

  3. Without costs.
SO ORDERED.[22]
The RTC ruled in this wise:

First, the 1987 Constitution provides that water, per se, is a natural resource. The term "water" encompasses all kinds of water which form part of national wealth, as defined under Article 386(b)[23] of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the LGC.[24]

Second, the substantial portion of the water stored in Angat Dam is sourced from respondent. In fact, the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) Topographic Map, as certified by the National Power Corporation (NPC),[25] indicated that 88.5% (without the Umiray River Basin), or 71.9% (with the Umiray River Basin) of the water in the Angat Dam is sourced exclusively from respondent.[26]

Third, in the maintenance of dams and water reservoirs, petitioner is engaged in the utilization and development of water. Thus, the fact that dams and reservoirs are man-made does not remove the water stored in them from being characterized as national wealth.[27]

Fourth and last, the maintenance and operation of dams are for the purpose of providing proper usage of water and for making it profitable. As it derives profit from the utilization and development of dam water, petitioner is liable to pay respondent its national wealth share as provided for under the LGC.[28]

In its Order[29] dated January 31, 2006, the RTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration with clarification as to the share of respondent in the earnings of petitioner:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the subject motion is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision stands subject to the qualification that the prayed for relief of the plaintiff commencing from the claimed fiscal year is limited to 1% of its equitable share in the proceeds derived from the utilization and development of the waters in Angat Dam exclusively sourced from Bulacan based on the revenues for Concession.

SO ORDERED.[30]
Aggrieved, petitioner interposed an appeal with the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

On May 30, 2008, the CA rendered the assailed Decision[31] affirming the RTC ruling with modification in that the computation of the share of respondent from the utilization and development of the water in Angat Dam should be in accordance with Section 291 of the LGC.[32]

Like the RTC, the CA elucidated that based on the definition under the IRR of the LGC, "national wealth" pertained to natural resources and water is unquestionably part of the national wealth of the State. Because water is a natural resource and 71.9% (with the Umiray River Basin) or 88.5% (without the Umiray River Basin) of the water in the Angat Dam is sourced from Bulacan, then respondent is entitled to a share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the water found in Angat Dam.[33] It stressed that under the LGC, it is not necessary that an LGU owned the natural resource; what is simply required is for the natural resource to be found in the territory of the concerned LGU.[34]

The CA also ruled that petitioner is engaged in the utilization and development of national wealth because it has been supplying water for the use of the consuming public; and pursuant to Section 291 of the LGC, the share of the LGU in the proceeds of the natural resource within its area shall be the gross receipts of the amount received by petitioner before any deductions for expenses or loan payments.[35]

With the denial of its motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed the present petition raising the following grounds:
A.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S FACTUAL FINDING ON THE SOURCE OF THE WATER FROM THE ANGAT DAM, DESPITE THE COURT A QUO'S OWN ORDER THAT ONLY LEGAL ISSUES WERE TO BE DECIDED.

B.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S RELIANCE ON THE 4 APRIL 2005 NPC LETTER-CERTIFICATION (EXH. "L") AND THE NAMRIA TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP.

C.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT [THE] WATER IN ANGAT DAM IS PART OF THE NATIONAL WEALTH WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN.

D.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS ENGAGED IN THE UTILIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL WEALTH.

E.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT SECTION 291 OF THE LGC IS NOT SELF- EXECUTORY. AN ORDINANCE MUST FIRST BE PASSED BY THE LOCAL SANGGUNIAN AUTHORIZING THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF A TAX.

F.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT ITS ALLEGED SHARE FROM THE UTILIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF WATER STORED IN ANGAT DAM THROUGH THE CONCESSION FEES BEING PAID TO PETITIONER.

G.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT A 1% TAX ON PETITIONER'S GROSS RECEIPTS OF MWSS WOULD BE UNJUST AND INEQUITABLE.[36]
Petitioner's Arguments

Petitioner faults the RTC for delving into factual matters which were purportedly never included as issues for resolution. It also contends that the RTC and the CA erroneously relied on the NAMRIA Topographic Map in ruling that 71.9% to 88.5% of the water in Angat Dam is sourced from Bulacan. It argues that the document in dispute was not admitted in evidence.[37]

Petitioner further posits that while water is a natural resource, it is not part of the national wealth because the water in Angat Dam is not exclusively within or sourced from Bulacan; and the location of Angat Dam being in Bulacan only proves the place of storage of water, but under no circumstance would this show that water is naturally sourced from Bulacan.[38]

Relying on its Charter, petitioner asserts that it was created for the sole and exclusive purpose of ensuring the uninterrupted and sufficient supply and distribution of potable water to its clients; petitioner was not created to generate income and its functions do not involve the utilization and development of a natural resource as dams and reservoirs are not natural resources; and petitioner does not derive profit from the concession agreements it enters with private entities because the amount it receives is only used to pay off loans and utilized as the budget of its office.[39]

Petitioner finally argues that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of respondent has not passed any ordinance such that respondent is not authorized to impose any tax on petitioner. It also insists that the 1% tax on its gross receipts is unjust and inequitable.[40]

Respondent's Arguments

For its part, respondent maintains that the RTC and the CA properly relied on the NAMRIA Topographic Map because: (1) the parties agreed during the preliminary conference that no witnesses would be presented, and they would instead submit position papers before the RTC; and (2) the subject document is an official document issued by the NPC.[41]

Respondent likewise asserts that the water used by petitioner emanates from Angat Dam which is located in Bulacan; that as established by the NAMRIA Topographic Map, substantial portion of the water stored in Angat Dam is sourced, located, and found in the Province of Bulacan; and that because petitioner utilizes, develops, and supplies water, it must give respondent an equitable share in the utilization and development of such national wealth.[42]

At the same time, respondent posits that petitioner is covered by the obligation to remit a share of the proceeds from its utilization and development of national wealth because Section 293 of the LGC used the word "shall" which implies that the remittance is mandatory. It adds that even if petitioner insists that it is a non-profit institution, it is still required to give respondent a national wealth share because Section 291 of the LGC did not distinguish as to which government agency, or government-owned and -controlled corporation (GOCC) must give a share to the LGUs as regards the utilization and development of national wealth.[43]

Proceedings Before the Court

In the Resolution[44] dated December 7, 2021, the Court stated that central to the resolution of the petition is the determination of the exact nature of water in the Angat Dam. Thus, the Court found it necessary to require the NPC, the National Irrigation Authority (NIA), and the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) to comment on the petition. In the same Resolution, the Court required the parties to inform the Court of supervening event, if any, which may assist it in the immediate disposition of the case.

On March 21, 2022, the NPC, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), submitted its Comment/Compliance[45] on the petition. It stressed that the NPC previously managed the Angat Hydro Electric Power Plant (AHEPP) but in 2014, the AHEPP was privatized.[46] It confirmed nonetheless that while the AHEPP was still under its management, the NPC had paid the national wealth tax to respondent.[47] The pertinent portions of the comment of the NPC read:
... [T]he Angat Hydro Electric Power Plant (AH[E]PP) was one of the dams that were previously under the management of herein NPC. However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9136 (EPIRA), said [AHEPP] was designated as one of the generating assets to be privatized by the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM).

[S]ometime in 2014, the [AHEPP] was finally privatized and sold to the Korean Water Resources Corporation (KWRC), which sale has been declared as valid and legal by the Honorable Court in "Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. vs. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM)."

[D]ue to said privatization, the management and ownership of the [AHEPP] was subsequently transferred to KWRC. The sale of the [AHEPP] included all its machineries and equipment. On the other hand, the main dam, spill way and diversion tunnel were excluded from the sale and remai[n] under PSALM's ownership.

[W]hile the [AHEPP] was still under NPC's management, herein NPC confirms that based on its records, the corporation has been paying the National Wealth Tax to the Provincial Government of Bulacan pursuant to Section 291 of Republic Act No. 7160, also known as the Local Government Code, until its privatization in 2014.[48]
On May 17, 2022, petitioner, through the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, filed its Compliance with Motion to Admit.[49] Petitioner manifested that there are no on-going negotiations, contracts, or House or Senate Bills affecting the rights and interests of the parties in the case.[50]

On July 11, 2022, the NWRB, through the OSG, submitted its Comment[51] on the petition. It stated that "[a]s to the nature of the utilization of the water of the Angat Dam, the NWRB does not issue water permits with Angat Dam as the source. The Angat Dam is merely a reservoir where water from different sources is collected, allocated, and diverted to different water permit holders."[52] It further stressed that based on its records, "it has issued Water Permits for the appropriation of water from the Angat River, not the Angat Dam."[53]

Meanwhile, in the Resolution[54] dated July 19, 2022, the Court noted that the concerned government bodies in this case are now under new administration. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 17,[55] Rule III of the Rules of Court,[56] it directed the parties as well as the NPC and the NIA to inform the Court, whether these government entities or their concerned officers would continue, maintain, or adopt the action of the predecessors in their respective offices. In the same Resolution, the Court noted the comment dated July 11, 2022 filed by the NWRB under the present administration.

In its Compliance[57] dated September 6, 2022, the NPC manifested that it maintains and continues to adopt its earlier Comment/Compliance of March 21, 2022. In similar regard, petitioner manifested in its Compliance[58] dated September 7, 2022 that petitioner and its officers continue, maintain, or adopt the actions of their predecessors-in-interest in this case.

On December 20, 2022, the NIA stated in its Manifestation[59] that upon a perusal of the petition, there is no mention of any factual or legal issue that requires its comment. It adds that the NIA has no privity over the issue of this case and the relief sought by petitioner will neither be detrimental to the NIA, nor will it affect the NIA in any way.

On May 22, 2023, respondent filed its Reply[60] to the respective Comments filed by the NPC and the NWRB. Respondent maintains that it is entitled to a just share of the utilization of national wealth sourced from the Province of Bulacan. It reiterates that the water utilized from Angat Dam was sourced from Bulacan, and while the Angat Dam is a reservoir, the water stored in the dam is from the Province of Bulacan.

The Court's Ruling

The petition has merit.

Under Section 25, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, the State guarantees the autonomy of LGUs.[61] In turn, local autonomy grants LGUs with specific functions and powers for them not to be exceedingly reliant on the National Government. Alongside the local autonomy of LGUs is the necessity of decentralization.[62]

In Mandanas v. Ochoa,[63] the Court specified four categories of decentralization: (1) political decentralization or devolution of powers whereby the central government transfers responsibilities, powers and resources to the LGUs for the performance of specific tasks; (2) administrative decentralization or deconcentration which involves the delegation of authority or functions from national offices to the regional and local offices (reflected in the creation of local schools, health and development boards/councils); (3) policy or decision-making decentralization which relates to the authority given to LGUs to make decisions on certain policy issues; and (4) fiscal decentralization which is reflected in the power of the LGUs to create their own sources of revenue aside from their just share in the national taxes.[64]

Under the last category, i.e., fiscal decentralization, LGUs are empowered to create their own sources of revenue; and LGUs are guaranteed a share in national taxes and in the utilization and development of national wealth within their corresponding areas, pursuant to Sections 5, 6, and 7 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution as follows:[65]
Section 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments.

Section 6. Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them.

Section 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.
Primarily, the present controversy centers on the application of Section 7, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, in relation to Section 289[66] of the LGC. Thus, to ascertain whether an LGU is entitled to a share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of national wealth, there must be concurrence of the following requisites: First, there must exist a national wealth forming part of a natural resource. Second, the national wealth must be located within the LGU's territory. And third, the proceeds must have been generated from the utilization and development of national wealth.

These requisites, however, were not established here. 
 
Dam water is appropriated water that is already removed from natural resource and therefore, can no longer be subject to national wealth tax.
 

During its deliberations, the Constitutional Commission discussed national wealth alongside "natural resources," viz.:
MR. OPLE: . . .

In association with Commissioner Davide, I propose the amendment which reads as follows: "Local governments shall be entitled to share in the proceeds of the exploitation and development of the national wealth within their respective areas . . . ." In view of the significance of this new section, may I ask the Committee's leave to give a brief explanation, Madam President.

. . . .

In the hinterland regions of the Philippines, most municipalities receive an annual income of only about P200,000 so that after paying the salaries of local officials and employees, nothing is left to fund any local development project. This is a prescription for a self-perpetuating stagnation and backwardness, and numbing community frustrations, as well as a chronic disillusionment with the central government. The thrust towards local autonomy in this entire Article on Local Governments may suffer the fate of earlier heroic efforts of decentralization which, without innovative features for local income generation, remained a pious hope and a source of discontent. To prevent this, this amendment which Commissioner Davide and I jointly propose will open up a whole new source of local financial self-reliance by establishing a constitutional principle of local governments, and their populations, sharing in the proceeds of national wealth in their areas of jurisdiction. The sharing with the national government can be in the form of shares from revenues, fees and charges levied on the exploitation or development and utilization of natural resources such as mines, hydroelectric and geothermal facilities, timber, including rattan, fisheries, and processing industries based on indigenous raw materials.

But the sharing, Madam President, can also take the form of direct benefits to the population in terms of price advantages to the people where, say, cheaper electric power is sourced from a local hydroelectric or geothermal facility. For example, in the provinces reached by the power from the Maria Cristina hydroelectric facility in Mindanao, the direct benefits to the population cited in this section can take the form of lower prices of electricity. The same benefit can be extended to the people of Albay, for example, where volcanic steam in Tiwi provides 55 megawatts of cheap power to the Luzon Grid.

. . . .

MR. ALONTO: Commissioner Ople has stated in his explanation that the population or inhabitants of the area should also benefit from the exploitation and development of the natural wealth and resources.

MR. OPLE: Yes.

MR. ALONTO: Will that also include the hiring and the employing of the local inhabitants who are qualified for the work and process of exploitation and development of this national wealth?

MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. In the broader contemplation of the sharing in the proceeds of natural resources and direct benefits to the population, a priority for the employment of local people is among the direct benefits to the population contemplated in this amendment.[67] (Italics supplied.)
Based on the foregoing, the framers of the Constitution referred national wealth interchangeably with or in conjunction with "natural resources." Along this line, natural resources are specified under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution to include "lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources."

That national wealth refers to "natural resources" is echoed in Article 386(b) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the LGC as follows:
Article 386(b) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7160 provides:

Article 386. Share in the Proceeds from the Development and Utilization of the National Wealth. -

. . . .

(b) The term national wealth shall mean all natural resources situated within the Philippine territorial jurisdiction including lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, mineral oils, potential energy forces, gas and oil deposits, forest products, wildlife, flora and fauna, fishery and aquatic resources, and all quarry products.
There is therefore no question that water, being a natural resource, is national wealth. However, water is deemed as already appropriated when taken or diverted from a natural resource. This is as explicitly provided under Presidential Decree No. 1067[68] or The Water Code of the Philippines, as amended (Water Code) that appropriation of water is "the acquisition of rights over the use of waters or the taking or diverting of waters from [natural resources]", which natural resources are enumerated under Articles 5 and 6 of the Water Code:
ARTICLE 5. The following belong to the State:
a. Rivers and their natural beds;
b. Continuous or intermittent waters of springs and brooks running in their natural beds and the beds themselves;
c. Natural lakes and lagoons;
d. All other categories of surface waters such as water flowing over lands, water from rainfall whether natural or artificial, and water from agriculture runoff, seepage and drainage;
e. Atmospheric water;
f. Subterranean or ground waters; and
g. Seawater.
ARTICLE 6. The following waters found on private lands also belong to the State:
a. Continuous or intermittent waters rising on such lands;
b. Lakes and lagoons naturally occurring on such lands;
c. Rain water falling on such lands;
d. Subterranean or ground waters; and
e. Water in swamps and marshes.
. . . .
To be sure, when water is already taken or diverted from a natural source, it is considered appropriated water - as in the case of dam water or water already impounded in an artificial receptacle. The fact of appropriation is crucial in determining the point within which necessary tax is to be imposed on the utilization and development of water. Article 13[69] of the Water Code provides that a water permit must be issued for the appropriation of water from a natural source. In this connection, the NWRB confirmed in its Comment to the Petition that it issues water permit for the appropriation of water from the Angat River, not the Angat Dam because Angat Dam is a mere reservoir.[70] Verily, the usage of water not directly from a natural source but that which originates from the facilities of a man-made structure, like Angat Dam, does not involve utilization and development of water by reason of the fact that it involves water that is already appropriated.

The moment that water from Angat River is already appropriated and impounded into the Angat Dam, it ceases to form part of natural resource. Water already collected through a dam system is separated from its source. "Every diversion of water from a stream is artificial - a disturbance of the natural order of things."[71] A dam or a ditch, such as Angat Dam, is an artificial mechanism because it alters the natural conditions of the river by directing the waters into a catchment and preventing its natural flow.[72]

Significantly, in IDEALS, Inc. v. PSALM[73] (IDEALS), the Court, echoing the opinion of the Department of Justice, ruled that water ceases to form part of a natural resource once removed therefrom.[74] The Court discussed that power generation, through the use of water already impounded in the Angat Dam, does not involve utilization and development of national wealth because dam water is not part of the State's natural resource.

In addition, the Court outlined in IDEALS the intricacies surrounding the operation and maintenance of the Angat Dam Complex. It explained that the Angat Reservoir and Dam has been in operation since 1968, with multi-purpose design (a) to supply irrigation to certain municipalities; (b) to provide domestic and industrial water for Metro Manila residents; (c) to generate hydroelectric power; and (d) to minimize flooding to downstream areas. In his Dissenting Opinion in IDEALS,[75] then Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. noted that different government agencies jointly operate within the Angat Dam Complex, and petitioner, for instance, makes use of water coming from the outflow of the AHEPP:
First, NWRB controls the exploitation, development, and conservation of the waters. It regulates the water from Angat River and allocates them to the three water permit holders, NPC, MWSS, and NIA.

Second, NIA appropriates the water coming from the outflow of the main units of AHEPP to Bustos Dam, for use in its irrigation systems.

Third, MWSS appropriates water coming from the outflow of the auxiliary units of AHEPP, for domestic and other purposes through its two concessionaires, Manila Water Company, Inc. and Maynilad Water Services, Inc.

Fourth, PAGASA uses its facilities located within the Angat Complex to forecast weather in the area, forecasts which are vital to the operation of the complex itself

Fifth, the Flood Forecasting and Warning System for Dam Operations (NPC-FFWSDO) is responsible for the opening of the spillway gates during the rainy season. It has sole authority to disseminate flood warning and notifies the public, particularly those residing along the riverbanks, during spilling operation.

Sixth, the NPC-Watershed is responsible for preserving and conserving the forest of Angat Watershed, vital to the maintenance of water storage in the Dam.[76] (Italics supplied.)
The Court further pointed out in IDEALS that the NPC exercises complete jurisdiction and full supervision over dams and power plants, including the Angat Dam and Reservoir, its watershed and the AHEPP.[77] It decreed that NPC has the effective control over all elements of the extraction process, including the amount and timing thereof [and] retains full supervision and control over the extraction and diversion of waters from the Angat River.[78] This finding is in consonance with Republic Act No. (RA) 6395,[79] or the Revised Charter of the NPC, which categorically states the NPC's full control over the extraction and diversion of water from the natural source:
(f) To take water from any public stream, river, creek, lake, spring or waterfall in the Philippines, for the purposes specified in this Act; to intercept and divert the flow of waters from lands of riparian owners and from persons owning or interested in waters which are or may be necessary for said purposes, upon payment of just compensation therefor; to alter, straighten, obstruct or increase the flow of water in streams or water channels intersecting or connecting therewith or contiguous to its works or any part thereof: Provided, That just compensation shall be paid to any person or persons whose property is, directly or indirectly, adversely affected or damaged thereby[.]
As above-stated, NPC made use of water coming from the Angat River. Notably, the NPC in its Comment to the Petition confirmed that while under its management and prior to the privatization of the AHEPP in 2014, the NPC had been paying the national wealth tax in favor of respondent.[80] More, while it did not categorically indicate that respondent is the recipient of payment, the publicly available Audited Financial Statement of the NPC indicates that indeed the NPC has been paying national wealth tax as late as 2021.[81]

To the Court's mind, it would be highly unreasonable if national wealth tax were to be imposed on dam water given that it is already appropriated water, and, as confirmed by the NPC, the water from the Angat River is subjected to appropriate tax upon its extraction and prior to its impounding.

The foregoing conclusion also finds support in the opinions of the Department of Justice which were likewise duly considered by the Court in IDEALS:
Opinion No. 173, 1984

. . . .

. . . while the Water Code imposes a nationality requirement for the grant of water permits, the same refers to the privilege "to appropriate and use water." This should be interpreted to mean the extraction of water from its natural source (Art. 9, P.D. No. 1067). Once removed therefrom, they cease to be apart of the natural resources of the country and are the subject of ordinary commerce ....

Opinion No. 14, S. 1995

The nationality requirement imposed by the Water Code refers to the privilege "to appropriate and use water." This, we have consistently interpreted to mean the extraction of water directly from its natural source. Once removed from its natural source the water ceases to be a part of the natural resources of the country and may be subject of ordinary commerce and may even be acquired by foreigners. (Secretary of Justice Op. No. 173, s. 1984; No. 24, s. 1989; No. 100, s. 1994)

. . . .

Opinion No. 122, s. 1998

. . . .

. . . "Natural" is defined as that which is produced without aid of stop, valves, slides, or other supplementary means (see Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, p. 1630). The water that is used by the power plant could not enter the intake gate without the dam, which is a man-made structure. Such being the case, the source of the water that enters the power plant is of artificial character rather than natural. This Department is consistent in ruling, that once water is removed from its natural source, it ceases to be a part of the natural resources of the country and may be the subject of ordinary commerce and may even be acquired by foreigners. . . .

. . . .

The latest executive interpretation is stated in DOJ Opinion No. 52, s. 2005 . . .

. . . .
. . . as ruled in one case by a U.S. court:

Where the State of New York took its natural resources consisting of Saratoga Spring and, through a bottling process, put those resources into preserved condition where they could be sold to the public in competition with private waters, the state agencies were not immune from federal taxes imposed upon bottled waters on the theory that state was engaged in the sale of "natural resources."
Applied to the instant case, and construed in relation to the earlier-mentioned constitutional inhibition, it would appear clear that while both waters and geothermal steam are, undoubtedly "natural resources", within the meaning of Section 2 Article XII of the present Constitution, hence, their exploitation, development and utilization should be limited to Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by Filipino citizens, the utilization thereof can be opened even to foreign nationals, after the same have been extracted from the source by qualified persons or entities. The rationale is because, since they no longer form part of the natural resources of the country, they become subject to ordinary commerce. . . .[82] (Italics supplied.)
Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa shared the same view that dam water is appropriated water, already collected, and no longer part of a natural resource. He expounds:
Following the Court's ruling in the IDEALS case, the water, flowing into Angat Dam, is deemed appropriated once collected, that is, at the point it flows into the man-made structure through artificial means. At this point, the water ceases to be a "natural resource" within the contemplation of the Water Code. Simply stated, once water is diverted and captured through the use of man-made structures or other artificial means, it ceases to become a natural resource. Necessarily, the use of water stored in Angat Dam, whether for the purpose of power generation[,] or distribution (in the case of MWSS through its concessionaires), no longer constitutes the "utilization and development of national wealth", as the source of water is artificial, rather than natural in character.[83]
In sum, IDEALS definitively characterizes dam water as appropriated water that is already removed from a natural source. Hence, for purposes of claiming national wealth tax, dam water is beyond the reach of respondent's entitlement under Section 7, Article X of the 1987 Constitution. 
 
Petitioner is not engaged in the utilization and development of water.
 

Aside from the fact that dam water is appropriated water already removed from natural resource, petitioner cannot be held liable for national wealth tax because respondent failed to prove that petitioner is engaged in utilization and development of water.

As specified in its Charter, petitioner is tasked with the operation and maintenance of waterworks system to ensure an uninterrupted and sufficient supply and distribution of potable water for the consuming public.[84] Its attributes, powers, and functions include:
(f)
To construct, maintain, and operate dams, reservoirs, conduits, aqueducts, tunnels, purification plants, water mains, pipes, fire hydrants, pumping stations, machineries and other waterworks for the purpose of supplying water to the inhabitants of its territory, for domestic and other purposes; and to purify, regulate and control the use, as well as prevent the wastage of water;


(g)
To construct, maintain, and operate such sanitary sewerages as may be necessary for the proper sanitation and other uses of the cities and towns comprising the System;


(h)
To fix periodically water rates and sewerage service fees as the System may deem just and equitable in accordance with the standards outlined in Section 12 of this Act;


(i)
To construct, develop, maintain and operate such artesian wells and springs as may be needed in its operation within its territory;


(j)
To acquire, purchase, hold, transfer, sell, lease, rent, mortgage, encumber, and otherwise dispose of real and personal property, including rights and franchises, consistent with the purpose for which the System is created and reasonably required for the transaction of the lawful business of the same;


(k)
To construct works across, over, through and/or alongside, any stream, water-course, canal, ditch, flume, street, avenue, highway or railway, whether public or private, as the location of said works may require . . .;


....



(n)
To approve, regulate, and supervise the establishment, operation and maintenance of waterworks and deepwells within its jurisdiction operated for commercial, industrial and governmental purposes and to fix just and equitable rates or fees that may be charged to customers thereof;


(o)
To assist in the establishment, operation and maintenance of waterworks and sewerage systems within its jurisdiction under cooperative basis;


(p)
To approve and regulate the establishment and construction of waterworks and sewerage systems in privately owned subdivisions within its jurisdiction;


(q)
To have exclusive and sole right to test, mount, dismount and remount water meters within its jurisdiction[.][85]
The enumeration above readily shows that petitioner was created for regulatory functions. It does not make use of the water in Angat Dam to gain profit, and from which profit an LGU may share. While petitioner converts to good use the water in Angat Dam, it is solely for the purpose of operating and maintaining waterworks system for the supply and distribution of potable water to the consuming public. To give respondent a share in the proceeds from the utilization and development of dam water is illogical because petitioner does not derive proceeds by the mere operation of the dam.

Further, in Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals,[86] the Court ruled that petitioner is created to render public service and that petitioner is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers pursuant to Executive Order No. 596[87] and RA 10149:[88]
[EO No. 596]

Section 1. The Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) shall be the principal law office of all GOCCs, except as may otherwise be provided by their respective charter or authorized by the President, their subsidiaries, corporate offsprings, and government acquired asset corporations. The OGCC shall likewise be the principal law office of "government instrumentality vested with corporate powers" or "government corporate entity[,"] as defined by the Supreme Court in the case of "MIAA vs. Court of Appeals, City of Para aque, et al.[,"] [supra], notable examples of which are: Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), Mactan International Airport Authority, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Services (MWSS), Philippine Rice Research Institute (PRRI), Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), Fisheries Development Authority (FDA), Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA), Cebu Port Authority (CPA), Cagayan de Oro Port Authority, and San Fernando Port Authority.

[RA No. 10149]

Section 3. Definition of Terms -  . . .

(n) Government Instrumentalities with Corporate Powers (GICP)/Government Corporate Entities (GCE) refer to instrumentalities or agencies of the government, which are neither corporations nor agencies integrated within the departmental framework, but vested by law with special functions or jurisdiction, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy usually through a charter including, but not limited to, the following: the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority (PFDA), the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), the Cebu Port Authority (CPA), the Cagayan de Oro Port Authority, the San Fernando Port Authority, the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and the Asian Productivity Organization (APO).
Further, in Republic v. City of Para aque,[89] the Court differentiated a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers from a GOCC in that a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers is created in order to perform essential governmental or public functions and does not need to be economically viable:
[T]he government-owned or controlled corporations created through special charters are those that meet the two conditions prescribed in Section 16, Article XII of the Constitution. The first condition is that the government-owned or controlled corporation must be established for the common good. The second condition is that the government-owned or controlled corporation must meet the test of economic viability. . . .

. . . .

. . . The test of economic viability applies only to government-owned or controlled corporations that perform economic or commercial activities and need to compete in the market place. Being essentially economic vehicles of the State for the common good - meaning for economic development purposes - these government- owned or controlled corporations with special charters are usually organized as stock corporations just like ordinary private corporations.

In contrast, government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers and performing governmental or public functions need not meet the test of economic viability. These instrumentalities perform essential public services for the common good, services that every modern State must provide its citizens. These instrumentalities need not be economically viable since the government may even subsidize their entire operations. These instrumentalities are not the "government-owned or controlled corporations" referred to in Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

Thus, the Constitution imposes no limitation when the legislature creates government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers but performing essential governmental or public functions. Congress has plenary authority to create government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers provided these instrumentalities perform essential government functions or public services. . . .[90]
The powers and functions of petitioner are for public use and welfare rather than profit, and are governmental and not commercial in nature.[91] Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa explained that the maintenance, and operation of the Angat Dam and reservoir are being undertaken by [petitioner] (through its concessionaires) in furtherance of its mandate to provide an essential public service within its jurisdiction. The provision of essential public services does not constitute exploration and development of national wealth so as to entitle [respondent] to a portion of proceeds resulting therefrom.[92] At the same time, Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo underscored that the petitioner's powers and functions relate to public needs and that its operation and maintenance of waterworks and sewerage systems are essential public services vital to public health and safety. Meanwhile, "utilization and development of national wealth" contemplates a commercial undertaking which generates income which is not the undertaking of petitioner given that it is not a profit-oriented entity.[93]

Petitioner's Charter also specifies the manner on how it shall dispose of its "income." While termed as income, Section 13 of RA 6234 reveals that the money being referred therein is that which petitioner receives and which it shall use for its operation, expansion and maintenance:
SECTION 13. Disposition of Income. - The income of the System shall be dispose of according to the following priorities:

First, to pay its contractual and statutory obligations and to meet its essential current operating expenses;

Second, to serve at least fifty per cent (50%) of the balance exclusively for the expansion, development and improvement of the System; and

Third, to allocate the residue enhancing the efficient operation and maintenance of the System which include increases of administrative expenses or increases or adjustment of salaries and other benefits of the employees.
Further, a careful examination of the concession agreements[94] presently in effect between petitioner and its private concessionaires (Manila Water Services, Inc.[95] and Manila Water, Inc.[96] ) also lends veracity to petitioner's averment that it does not derive profit from the concession agreements.

Primarily, the concession fees payable to petitioner represent, among others: (a) portions of the outstanding balances of petitioner's loan obligations and (b) annual budget requirement for petitioner's operating expenses.

That monies flowed into (cash inflows) an entity does not automatically characterize such proceeds as revenues or income. To be sure, petitioner did not earn these amounts in exchange for a sale of goods or services. The concession fees have been intended to approximate the amounts needed by petitioner to meet its financial obligations and defray the costs of operations. In other words, petitioner's cash receipts are capital and not revenue in nature or, much less, income. In this light, the concession fees are not gross receipts or proceeds in the hands of petitioner within the meaning of Section 291 of the LGC, to which the LGU is entitled to a share.

Conclusion

Water in a natural resource is national wealth. When water is utilized and developed directly from a natural source, the concerned government entity must abide by the constitutional requirement to give the concerned LGU its equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of national wealth. However, such circumstance is wanting here because respondent asserts entitlement to a share arising from the use of dam water which is appropriated water already impounded in the Angat Dam, and no longer part of a natural resource. Being already appropriated, dam water is no longer subject of national wealth tax because appropriate tax is to be determined and imposed upon the extraction of water from a natural resource and accordingly, prior to the impounding and appropriation of water. More, petitioner is not liable to pay respondent a share in its use of dam water because petitioner is created for its regulatory governmental functions. It does not generate income and derives no profit from which respondent may share arising from the utilization and development of dam water.

All told, the Court finds that the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision which found petitioner liable to pay respondent a share in the utilization and development of national wealth.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 30, 2008 and the Resolution dated October 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 86701 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Complaint for Specific Performance/Payment of National Wealth Share is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Hernando, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concur.
Gesmundo, C.J., see concurring opinion.
Leonen, SAJ., concur. See separate opinion.
Caguioa, J., see concurring opinion.
Lazaro-Javier,* J., on official business but left her vote. Please see concurrence and dissent.
Dimaampao,** J., on official business.


* On official business.

** On official business.

[1] Rollo, pp. 12-48.

[2] Id. at 51-68. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Lucenito N. Tagle.

[3] Id. at 74-79. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Herminia V. Pasamba.

[4] Id. at 80-90.

[5] Id. at 69-73. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Amelita G. Tolentino.

[6] Id. at 118-122.

[7] Id. at 118.

[8] Id. at 119.

[9] Section 7, Article X, 1987 CONSTITUTION:
Section 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.
[10] Section 289 of the Local Government Code (LGC) provides:
SECTION 289. Share in the Proceeds from the Development and Utilization of the National Wealth. - Local government units shall have an equitable share in the proceeds derived from the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.
[11] Section 291 of the LGC provides:
SECTION 291. Share of the Local Governments from any Government Agency or Government-Owned or -Controlled Corporation. - Local government units shall have a share based on the preceding fiscal year from the proceeds derived by any government agency or government-owned or -controlled corporation engaged in the utilization and development of the national wealth based on the following formula whichever will produce a higher share for the local government unit

(a) One percent (1%) of the gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year; or (b) forty percent (40%) of the mining taxes, royalties, forestry and fishery charges and such other taxes, fees or charges, including related surcharges, interests, or fines the government agency or government-owned or -controlled corporation would have paid if it were not otherwise exempt.
[12] Section 292 of the LGC provides:
SECTION 292. Allocation of Shares. - The share in the preceding section shall be distributed in the following manner:

(a) Where the natural resources are located in the province:

(1) Province - Twenty percent (20%);
(2) Component City/Municipality - Forty-five percent (45%); and
(3) Barangay - Thirty-five percent (35%)

Provided, however, That where the natural resources are located in two (2) or more provinces, or in two (2) or more component cities or municipalities or in two (2) or more barangays, their respective shares shall be computed on the basis of:

(1) Population - Seventy percent (70%); and
(2) Land area - Thirty percent (30%)

(b) Where the natural resources are located in a highly urbanized or independent component city:
(1) City - Sixty-five percent (65%); and
(2) Barangay - Thirty-five percent (35%)

Provided, however, That where the natural resources are located in such two (2) or more cities, the allocation of shares shall be based on the formula on population and land area as specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
[13] Republic Act No. 7160, approved on October 10, 1991.

[14] Rollo, pp. 119-120.

[15] Id. at 120-121.

[16] Id. at 128-132.

[17] Id. at 129.

[18] Id. at 129-131.

[19] Id. at 129-131.

[20] Id. at 129-130.

[21] Id. at 74-79.

[22] Id. at 79.

[23] Article 386(b) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7160 provides:
Article 386. Share in the Proceeds from the Development and Utilization of the National Wealth. - x x x

(b) The term national wealth shall mean all natural resources situated within the Philippine territorial jurisdiction including lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, mineral oils, potential energy forces, gas and oil deposits, forest products, wildlife, flora and fauna, fishery and aquatic resources, and all quarry products.
[24] Rollo, p. 75.

[25] Id. at 139-141.

[26] Id. at 77.

[27] Id. at 76.

[28] Id.

[29] Id. at 80-90.

[30] Id. at 90.

[31] Id. at 51-68.

[32] Id. at 67.

[33] Id. at 62-63.

[34] Id. at 63.

[35] Id. at 65-66.

[36] Id. at 19-20.

[37] Id. at 24-26.

[38] Id. at 29-31.

[39] Id. at 38 and 40.

[40] Id. at 40-41 and 43.

[41] See Comment dated March 26, 2009, id. at 152-153.

[42] Id. at 154-158.

[43] Id. at 161-163.

[44] Id. at 378-382.

[45] Id. at 389-392.

[46] Id. at 390.

[47] Id.

[48] Id. at 390.

[49] Id. at 396-397.

[50] Id.

[51] Id. at 541-547.

[52] Id. at 542.

[53] Id.

[54] Id. at 563-564.

[55] Section 17, Rule III of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 17. Death or Separation of a Party Who is a Public Officer. - When a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard. (18a)
[56] As amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, approved on October 15, 2019.

[57] Rollo, pp. 572-574.

[58] Id. at 582-585.

[59] Id. at 624-628.

[60] Id. at 641-645. Erroneously delineated as Comment and Manifestation.

[61] Section 25, Article II, 1987 CONSTITUTION:
Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.
[62] See Congressman Mandanas v. Exec. Sec. Ochoa, Jr., 835 Phil. 97, 140 (2018).

[63] Id.

[64] Id. at 146-148.

[65] Id. at 147.

[66] Section 289 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7160:
SECTION 289. Share in the Proceeds from the Development and Utilization of the National Wealth. - Local government units shall have an equitable share in the proceeds derived from the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.
[67] Records of the Constitutional Commission No. 060, August 19, 1986; Emphases supplied.

[68] Approved on December 31, 1976.

[69] Article 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 reads:
ARTICLE 13. Except as otherwise herein provided, no person, including government instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations, shall appropriate water without a water right, which shall be evidenced by a document known as a water permit.
[70] Rollo, p. 542.

[71] Charnock v. Higuerra, 111 Cal. 473, 481 (Cal. 1896).

[72] Id. at 480-81.

[73] 696 Phil. 486 (2012).

[74] Id. at 542.

[75] Id. at 553-560.

[76] See Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. in IDEALS, Inc. v. PSALM, id. at 597-598.

[77] Id. at 528.

[78] Id. at 543 and 551.

[79] Approved on September 10, 1971.

[80] Rollo, p. 390.

[81] See 2021 Annual Report of the National Power Corporation, <https://www.napocor.gov.ph/images/Reports/annual_reports/2021_NPC_Annual_Report.pdf>, p. 61 (Last accessed on July 26, 2023.)

[82] Id. at 542-545.

[83] See Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, p. 18.

[84] Section 1, RA 6234 provides:
SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. - The proper operation and maintenance of waterworks system to insure an uninterrupted and adequate supply and distribution of potable water for domestic and other purposes and the proper operation and maintenance of sewerage systems are essential public services because they are vital to public health and safety. It is therefore declared a policy of the state that the establishment, operation and maintenance of such systems must be supervised and controlled by the state.
[85] Section 3, RA 6234.

[86] G.R. No. 215955, January 13, 2021.

[87] Entitled, "Defining and including 'Government Instrumentality Vested with Corporate Powers' or 'Government Corporate Entities' under the Jurisdiction of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) as Principal Law Office of Government-Owned or -Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) and for Other Purposes," dated December 29, 2006.

[88] Entitled, "An Act to Promote Financial Viability and Fiscal Discipline in Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations and to Strengthen the Role of the State In its Governance and Management to Make Them More Responsive to the Needs Of Public Interest And For Other Purposes," approved on June 6, 2011.

[89] 691 Phil. 476 (2012).
 
[90] Id. at 487-488, citing Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals, 528 Phil. 181 (2006).

[91] See Philippine Heart Center v. Local Government of Quezon City, 872 Phil. 930, 955 (2020).

[92] See Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, pp. 12-18.

[93] Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, p. 5.

[94] Available at https://ro.mwss.gov.ph/transparency-seal-2/ Last accessed: August 22, 2022.

[95] Available at https://ro.mwss.gov.ph/wp -content/uploads/2022/01/REVISED-CA-FOR-MAYNILAD-18-MAY-2021.pdf> (Last accessed: August 22, 2022).

[96] Available at https://ro.mwss.gov.ph/wp- content/uploads/2013/02/CA-MWCI.pdf> (Last accessed on August 22, 2022).




CONCURRING OPINION

GESMUNDO, C.J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) challenging the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed, with modification, the Decision of Branch 82 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan (RTC), upholding the position of the Province of Bulacan that it is entitled to receive its share in the proceeds derived by MWSS from the utilization and development of water in the Angat Dam pursuant to Article X, Section 7[1] of the Constitution, in relation to Sections 289, 291, and 292[2] of the Local Government Code.

The ponencia grants the Petition. Reversing the assailed rulings, the ponencia finds that the MWSS is not liable to pay the Province of Bulacan. It notes that the requisites for a local government unit (LGU) to be entitled to a share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of national wealth are as follows: (1) there must exist a national wealth forming part of a natural resource; (2) the national wealth must be located within the LGU's territory; and (3) the proceeds must have been generated from the utilization and development of national wealth. These requisites do not concur in this case.[3]

First, the ponencia holds that dam water is appropriated water. It ceased to be part of the State's natural resource from the moment that the water from the Angat River was appropriated and impounded into the Angat Dam. Therefore, it can no longer be subject to national wealth tax.[4] This is consistent with the Court's ruling in Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS) v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation[5] that water ceases to form part of a natural resource once removed therefrom. The ponencia also remarks that "it would be highly unreasonable if national wealth tax were to be imposed on dam water given that it is already appropriated water" and "the water from the Angat River is subjected to appropriate tax upon its extraction and prior to its impounding."[6]

Second, the ponencia holds that the MWSS is not engaged in the utilization and development of water. The MWSS does not derive proceeds by the mere operation of the dam. Based on its Charter, the MWSS was created to perform regulatory functions, specifically to operate and maintain waterworks systems to ensure uninterrupted and sufficient supply and distribution of potable water to the consuming public. While the MWSS converts water in Angat Dam to good use, it is solely for the purpose of performing its governmental functions.[7] Furthermore, the concession fees received by MWSS are not gross receipts or proceeds within the meaning of Section 291 of the Local Government Code, to which the LGU is entitled to a share.[8]

I concur.

As held in IDEALS, water sourced from Angat Dam does not constitute "national wealth" as contemplated in the Constitution. In that case, this Court cited several opinions of the Department of Justice, which consistently indicate that water ceases to be a "natural resource" once it is collected and extracted from its source, to wit:
The DOJ has consistently regarded hydropower generation by foreign entities as not constitutionally proscribed based on the definition of water appropriation under the Water Code, thus:

Opinion No. 173, 1984

This refers to your request for opinion on the possibility of granting water permits to foreign corporations authorized to do business in the Philippines[.]

[. . . .]

[W]hile the Water Code imposes a nationality requirement for the grant of water permits, the same refers to the privilege "to appropriate and use water." This should be interpreted to mean the extraction of water from its natural source (Art. 9, P.D. No. 1067). Once removed therefrom, they cease to be a part of the natural resources of the country and are the subject of ordinary commerce and may be acquired by foreigners (Op. No. 55, series of 1939) . . . in case of a contract of lease, the water permit shall be secured by the lessor and included in the lease as an improvement. The water so removed from the natural source may be appropriated/used by the foreign corporation leasing the property.[9] (Emphasis in the original)
What is then clear in IDEALS ruling is that once the water is removed from its natural source, it ceases to be part of the natural resources of the country-therefore, it no longer forms part of the national wealth and becomes subject to ordinary commerce.

Moreover, I share the stance of Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, as incorporated in the ponencia, that the operations of MWSS do not involve the utilization and development of water resources.[10] It is settled that MWSS is a government-owned and -controlled corporation (GOCC) with its own Charter, Republic Act No. 6234.[11] Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6234 grants the MWSS the following powers and functions, among others: 
[a.]
[C]onstruct, maintain, and operate dams, reservoirs, [and other facilities] for the purpose of supplying water to the inhabitants of its territory, for domestic and other purposes; and to purify, regulate and control the use, as well as prevent the wastage of water;


[b.]
[C]onstruct, maintain and operate sanitary sewerages[;]


[c.]
[F]ix periodically water rates and sewerage service fees[;]


[d.]
[C]onstruct, develop, maintain and operate such artesian wells and springs[;]


[e.]
[C]onstruct works across, over, through, and/or alongside any stream, water-course, canal, ditch, flume, street, avenue, highway or railway, whether public or private, as the location of said works may require[;]


[f.]
[A]pprove, regulate, and supervise the establishment, operation and maintenance of waterworks and deep wells within its jurisdiction operated for commercial, industrial and governmental purposes, and to fix just and equitable rates or fees that may be charged to customers thereof;


[g.]
[A]ssist in the establishment, operation and maintenance of waterworks and sewerage systems within its jurisdiction[; and]


[h.]
[A]pprove and regulate the establishment and construction of waterworks and sewerage systems in privately owned subdivisions within its jurisdiction[.]
MWSS was primarily created for the "proper operation and maintenance of waterworks system to insure an uninterrupted and adequate supply and distribution of potable water for domestic and other purposes and the proper maintenance of sewerage systems." Its main function is to provide basic services to the public.[12] It is empowered to fix water rates and approve, regulate, and supervise the establishment, operation, and maintenance of waterworks and deep wells-which are currently done through their concessionaires. A significant portion of the functions of MWSS is, thus, similar to that of a regulator.

The enumeration of its powers and functions above clearly show that the MWSS is "vested with functions relating to public needs."[13] Section 1 of Republic Act No. 6234 considers the operation and maintenance of waterworks and sewerage systems as essential public services because they are vital to public health and safety. Hence, the law declared it the policy of the state that the establishment, operation, and maintenance of waterworks systems be supervised and controlled by the State.[14] Notably, the Water Code acknowledged the increasing necessity for the government to intervene in improving the management of water resources.[15] These provisions are consistent with the State's constitutional mandate to promote the right to health of the people and to instill health consciousness among them.[16]

There is no question that the functions of MWSS are imbued with public interest and are geared towards public welfare. In the performance of its mandate, MWSS is not engaged in the utilization and development of national wealth. To my mind, these terms, as used in the pertinent provisions of the Constitution and the Local Government Code contemplate some kind of commercial endeavor that generates income or profit. This is not the thrust of the existence of MWSS, nor is it involved in such activities.

During the deliberations in this case, a position was raised that MWSS is responsible for harvesting, gathering, channeling, and impounding waters from their natural sources. Thus, the extraction of water from its natural source constitutes an act of utilization of a natural resource and national wealth as contemplated under Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution and Sections 289, 290, and 291 of the Local Government Code.

I respectfully disagree.

In the case of Republic v. Provincial Government of Palawan,[17] therein respondent Provincial Government of Palawan sought to claim its share in the proceeds of the Camago-Malampaya natural gas project on the basis of Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution. To resolve the issue, this Court examined the rationale behind Article X, Section 7-the same provision which the Provincial Government of Bulacan (Province of Bulacan), respondent in the present case, bases its claim:
MR. NATIVIDAD.
The history of local governments shows that the usual weaknesses of local governments are: 1) fiscal inability to support itself; 2) lack of sufficient authority to carry out its duties; and 3) lack of authority to appoint key officials.

Under this Article, are these traditional weaknesses of local governments addressed to [sic]?
MR. NOLLEDO.
Yes. The first question is on fiscal inability to support itself. It will be noticed that we widened the taxing powers of local governments. I explained that exhaustively yesterday unless the Gentleman wants me to explain again.
MR. NATIVIDAD.
No, that is all right with me.
MR. NOLLEDO.
There is a right of retention of local truces by local governments and according to the Natividad, Ople, Maambong, de los Reyes amendment, local government units shall share in the proceeds of the exploitation of the national wealth within the area or region, etc[.]
[....]

MR. OPLE.
In the hinterland regions of the Philippines, most municipalities receive an annual income of only about P200,000 so that after paying the salaries of local officials and employees, nothing is left to fund any local development project. This is a prescription for a self-perpetuating stagnation and backwardness, and numbing community frustrations, as well as a chronic disillusionment with the central government. The thrust towards local autonomy in this entire Article on Local Governments may suffer the fate of earlier heroic efforts of decentralization which, without innovative features for local income generation, remained a pious hope and a source of discontent. To prevent this, this amendment which Commissioner Davide and I jointly propose will open up a whole new source of local financial self-reliance by establishing a constitutional principle of local governments, and their populations, sharing in the proceeds of national wealth in their areas of jurisdiction. The sharing with the national government can be in the form of shares from revenues, fees and charges levied on the exploitation or development and utilization of natural resources such as mines, hydro-electric and geothermal facilities, timber, including rattan, fisheries, and processing industries based on indigenous raw materials.
But the sharing, Madam President, can also take the form of direct benefits to the population in terms of price advantages to the people where, say, cheaper electric power is sourced from a local hydroelectric or geothermal facility. For example, in the provinces reached by the power from the Maria Cristina hydro electric facility in Mindanao, the direct benefits to the population cited in this section can take the form of lower prices of electricity. The same benefit can be extended to the people of Albay, for example, where volcanic steam in Tiwi provides 55 megawatts of cheap power to the Luzon grid.
The existing policy of slapping uniform fuel adjustment taxes to equalize rates throughout the country in the name of price standardization will have to yield to a more rational pricing policy that recognizes the entitlement of local communities to the enjoyment of their own comparative advantage based on resources that God has given them. And so, Madam President, I ask that the Committee consider this proposed amendment.[18] (Emphasis supplied)
A reading of the deliberations of the Constitution quoted above reveals that the conjunctive term "utilization and development" was intended to mean more than how it is commonly used and understood. The framers repeatedly used the term "exploit" in explaining the rationale behind Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution. The term "exploit" or "exploitation" is generally defined as "to take advantage of" or to "make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage or profit."[19]

Evidently, it is necessary that raw water must be, to some extent, exploited by MWSS or used by MWSS to its advantage in order to fall within the purview of Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution, and consequently, Articles 289, 291, and 292 of the Local Government Code. However, MWSS does not exploit natural resources for its advantage. Rather, it delivers essential services that are so vital to public health and safety that it is required by law to be supervised and controlled by the State itself.[20] Justice Caguioa aptly pointed out that the provision of essential public services does not constitute utilization and development of national wealth.[21] It follows that the Province of Bulacan is not entitled to any proceeds from the activities of MWSS. To rule otherwise would be akin to charging or imposing a tax[22] on a government instrumentality for discharging public service in faithful compliance of its statutory mandate.

It is likewise my humble opinion that granting the Province of Bulacan a share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of water located within its territorial boundaries would inevitably diminish consumer welfare, as it will necessarily affect the concession fees received by MWSS, and by association, lead to the increase of the rates charged on consumers.

A perusal of the provisions of the concessionaire agreements of MWSS is necessary to fully comprehend the implications of the grant of proceeds from the utilization and development of the national wealth to the LGUs. The original Concession Agreement[23] of MWSS with Manila Water Company, Inc. (Manila Water) for the East Service Zone reveals that it has completely "contracted" out services to Manila Water (as its concessionaire) to provide uninterrupted and adequate supply and distribution of potable water in the designated service areas. Article 2.1 of the Concession Agreement provides:
2.1 Grant of Concession

On the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, MWSS hereby grants to the Concessionaire, as contractor to perform certain functions and as agent for the exercise of certain rights and powers under the Charter, the sole right to manage, operate, repair, decommission and refurbish the Facilities in the Service Area, including the right to bill and collect for water and sewerage services supplied in the Service Area (the "Concession"). (Emphasis supplied)
Meanwhile, the Revised Concession Agreement[24] explicitly outlines the scope of the rights and obligations granted to Manila Water as a concessionaire:
2.1.1 Scope of Grant

The MWSS, subject to its to [sic] authority under its Charter, hereby assigns to the Concessionaire, the following rights and obligations solely in relation to the Service Area:  
 
(a)
finance, design and construct the Facilities, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement;


(b)
undertake the operation and maintenance of the Facilities in the Service Area;


(c)
treat Raw Water and wastewater in the Service Area;


(d)
provide and manage the services to the Customers;


(e)
bill and collect payment from the Customers for the services;


(f)
source Raw Water from catchment areas, watersheds, springs, wells and reservoirs in the Service Area, subject to the applicable Authorizations from the relevant Government Authorities; and


(g)
provide connections to public sewer and septic and [sic] sanitation cleaning as sewerage services. (Emphasis supplied)
A concessionaire agreement is mutually beneficial to both parties involved. In the case of MWSS, it receives payment in the form of annual concession fees from its concessionaire, while the concessionaire is granted the rights to the operation and management of the facilities, and the right to bill and collect payment from the consumers.[25]

The annual concession fee under both the original and the Revised Concession Agreements consists of two main components: maturing payments on the existing loans of MWSS, and an annual budget to be determined on the first business day of every year.[26] This concession fee is likewise treated as an expenditure of the concession. Meanwhile, the standard rates that the concessionaire may bill and collect from the customers are generally defined in the Concession Agreement itself. However, these standard rates may be subject to several adjustments.

Adjustments may be made yearly based on the concessionaire's operational performance (i.e., when the agreed service obligation standards and targets have been met) and its historical cash flows.[27] An Extraordinary Price Adjustment may be made where the concessionaire has incurred significant additional costs as a result of an event of force majeure which are not covered by insurance.[28] The Concession Agreement likewise provides a policy for rate rebasing determination, which permits the concessionaire to recover the expenditures it incurred over the term of the concession, and to earn a reasonable rate of return.[29] It is clear then that the rates charged upon the consuming public are somewhat dependent on the cash flows of the concession and its expenditures.

Primarily a regulator, the primary source of income of MWSS comes in the form of concession fees from its various concessionaires, and the disposition of its income is limited to the payment of its contractual and statutory obligations, expansion and development, and enhancement of its efficient operation.[30] As correctly pointed out by Justice Caguioa, to suddenly ask MWSS to earmark portions of its concession fees as payment to several LGUs will necessitate an increase of the annual concession fees, insofar as the variable annual budget is concerned. This creates a ripple effect. Higher concession fees equate to higher expenditures, which under the Concession Agreement may justify increase in the standard rates chargeable to the consumers.[31]

The Court must exercise utmost caution in deciding this case, as a decision to uphold the national wealth tax against MWSS will undoubtedly encourage similarly-situated LGUs to claim their alleged share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of waters within their territory. It follows that the reallocation of portions of the concession fees of MWSS for payment to several LGUs will increase the chargeable water rates, to the ultimate detriment of the consumers. Thus, while the Court acknowledges the LGU's constitutionally-granted fiscal autonomy, its rights must be placed in perspective and not taken in isolation of our existing legal regimes. In any event, the promotion of public welfare remains an overriding consideration.

In gist, I have made the following points in the above discussion:
  1. As provided in IDEALS, water ceases to be a "natural resource" once it is collected and extracted from its source.

  2. Operations of the MWSS do not involve the utilization and development of water resources.

    1. Deliberations of the 1987 Constitution show that the framers repeatedly used the term "exploit" in explaining the rationale behind Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution. The term "exploit" or "exploitation" is generally defined as "to take advantage of" or to "make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage or profit."

    2. The MWSS is an instrumentality of the State that performs essential public services. In the performance of its duties, it cannot be considered as utilizing or exploiting the nation's wealth for its own advantage or profit.

  3. Affirming the national wealth tax will create a twin ripple effect: (a) it will influence and encourage similarly-situated LGUs to claim their alleged share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of waters in their territory as part of the nation's wealth, which, in turn, (b) will lead to the increase of the concession fees and water rates, to the ultimate detriment of the consuming public.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition.


[1] The provision reads:
Sec. 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.
[2] The provisions state:
Sec. 289. Share in the Proceeds from the Development and Utilization of the National Wealth. - Local government units shall have an equitable share in the proceeds derived from the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.

....

Sec. 291. Share of the Local Governments from any Government Agency or -Owned or -Controlled Corporation. - Local government units shall have a share based on the preceding fiscal year from the proceeds derived by any government agency or government-owned or -controlled corporation engaged in the utilization and development of the national wealth based on the following formula whichever will produce a higher share for the local government unit[.]
....

Sec. 292. Allocation of Shares. - The share in the preceding section shall be distributed in the following manner:
(a) Where the natural resources are located in the province:
(1) Province - Twenty percent (20%)[.]
[3] See ponencia, p. 13.

[4] See id. at 13-20.

[5] 696 Phil. 486 (2012) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., En Banc].

[6] Ponencia, p. 18.

[7] See id. at 22.

[8] Id. at 26.
 
[9] Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS) v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation, supra note 5, at 541-542.

[10] See ponencia, p. 20.

[11] Republic Act No. 6234 (1971), An Act Creating the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System and Dissolving the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority, and for Other Purposes.

[12] Lopez v. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, 501 Phil. 115, 132 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].

[13] GOCC Governance Act of 2011, sec. 3(o).

[14] Republic Act No. 6234 (1971), sec. 1 provides:
Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. The proper operation and maintenance of waterworks system to insure an uninterrupted and adequate supply and distribution of potable water for domestic and other purposes and the proper operation and maintenance of sewerage systems are essential public services because they are vital to public health and safety. It is therefore declared a policy of the state that the establishment, operation and maintenance of such systems must be supervised and controlled by the state.
[15] The Water Code of the Philippines (1976), 4th Whereas Clause.

[16] CONST., art. II, sec. 15.

[17] 844 Phil. 453 (2018) [Per J. Tijam, En Banc].

[18] Republic v. Provincial Government of Palawan, supra note 17, at 511-512.

[19] Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "exploiting," available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploiting (last accessed on September 18, 2023).

[20] Republic Act No. 6234 (1971), sec. 1.

[21] See J. Caguioa, Concurring Opinion, p. 27.

[22] LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, sec. 234(c) exempts from real property tax all machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or -controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power.

[23] See the original Concession Agreement (1997) available at https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private -partnership/sites/ppp.worldbank.org/files/documents/ManilaWater_ConcessionAgreement_EN.pdf (last accessed on September 18, 2023).

[24] The Revised Concession Agreement available at https://www.manilawater.com/storage/files/9/manila- water-enterprise/Shareholder Information/2021-03-31 - MWCI-MSS Revised Concession Agreement.pdf (last accessed on September 18, 2023).

[25] The [Original] Concession Agreement, arts. 2.1 and 6.4; The Revised Concession Agreement, arts. 2.1, 2.1.1, and 6.4.

[26] The [Original] Concession Agreement, art. 6.4; The Revised Concession Agreement, art. 6.4.

[27] The Revised Concession Agreement, art. 9.2.

[28] Id. at art. 9.3.

[29] Id. at art. 9.4.

[30] Republic Act No. 6234, sec. 13.

[31] J. Caguioa, Concurring Opinion, p. 11.




SEPARATE OPINION

LEONEN, SAJ.:


I concur in the ponencia.

This case originated from a Complaint filed by the Provincial Government of Bulacan, seeking to collect its national wealth share from the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) for its use and development of the waters of Angat Dam, citing Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution in relation to Section 289 of the Local Government Code. It argues that Angat Dam is within its territorial jurisdiction.[1]

MWSS contended that it was not liable for the national wealth share since Angat Dam is an artificial structure, thus excluding its waters from the national wealth. Furthermore, the dam water did not originate from the Provincial Government of Bulacan but is only stored there. MWSS also contended that it was not engaged in developing and using the dam water.[2]

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Provincial Government of Bulacan.[3]

In reversing the Court of Appeals' ruling, the ponencia found that petitioner MWSS is not liable to pay the demanded amounts to respondent Provincial Government of Bulacan.[4]

The ponencia held that not all the requisites are present for respondent to collect a share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth.[5] It ruled that a resource must originate from a natural source to be part of the national wealth.[6] Since dam water is water impounded in an artificial receptacle, diverted from its natural source, the ponencia declared that it is not part of the national wealth.[7]

The ponencia also found that petitioner is not engaged in the utilization and development of the national wealth because such activities contemplate a commercial undertaking that generates income.[8] Since petitioner is created for regulatory functions, not for profit,[9] and is intended to perform governmental functions for public welfare, it does not earn proceeds in which respondent may share.[10] Furthermore, the amounts that petitioner receives, while termed as income, is mandated for its operations, expansion, and maintenance.[11] Its fees from its concession agreements are not from sales of goods or services, but are intended to meet its financial obligations and defray the costs of operations.[12] Its cash receipts are capital in nature, not revenue.[13]

Finally, the ponencia noted that the National Power Corporation has confirmed that it has been paying national wealth tax to respondent for the extraction and diversion of the waters from the Angat River to the Angat Dam.[14]

I concur in the ponencia. Nonetheless, I emphasize the right of local government units to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth.

Article XII, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for the State's ownership of and authority over its waters:
SECTION 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.

The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large -scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution. (Emphasis supplied)
In this regard, the State has both dominium and imperium over its waters. It has ownership or proprietary rights, and it has governmental authority of regulation and control over it. It has the capacity, therefore, to control the exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources. However, it is still limited by other rights provided under the Constitution.

One of these rights is the right of local government units to an equitable share in the proceeds from the utilization and development of the national wealth. Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution reads:
SECTION 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.
This is echoed in Section 289 of the Local Government Code:
SECTION 289. Share in the Proceeds from the Development and Utilization of the National Wealth. - Local government units shall have an equitable share in the proceeds derived from the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.
This right is one of the ways local government units enjoy local autonomy. It is also a recognition of how the State holds its natural resources, not purely as an owner, but in trust for and for the benefit of its people.

In Maynilad Water Services, Inc. v. The Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,[15] this Court discussed the public trust doctrine in relation to the duty of the water industry:
Protruding from the basic tenet that water is a vital part of human existence, this Court introduces the Public Trust Doctrine. It aims to put an additional strain upon the duty of the water industry to comply with the laws and regulations of the land.

A number of doctrines already protect and sanctify public welfare and highlight the State's various roles relative thereto. Article XII, Section 2, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution elaborates on the ownership of the State over the nation's natural resources and its right and duty to regulate the same:
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
. . . .

The Public Trust Doctrine, while derived from English common law and American jurisprudence, has firm Constitutional and statutory moorings in our jurisdiction. The doctrine speaks of an imposed duty upon the State and its representative of continuing supervision over the taking and use of appropriated water. Thus, "[p]arties who acquired rights in trust property [only hold] these rights subject to the trust and, therefore, could assert no vested right to use those rights in a manner harmful to the trust." In National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, a California Supreme Court decision, it worded the doctrine as that which -
[T]he state had the power to reconsider past allocation decisions even though an agency had made those decisions after due consideration of their effect on the public trust. This conclusion reflected the view that water users could not acquire a vested property right in the water itself; they merely obtained a usufructuary right to the water.
Academic literature further imparts that "[p]art of this consciousness involves restoring the view of public and state ownership of certain natural resources that benefit all. [. . .]" The "doctrine further holds that certain natural resources belong to all and cannot be privately owned or controlled because of their inherent importance to each individual and society as a whole. A clear declaration of public ownership, the doctrine reaffirms the superiority of public rights over private rights for critical resources. It impresses upon states the affirmative duties of a trustee to manage these natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations and embodies key principles of environmental protection: stewardship, communal responsibility, and sustainability."

In this framework, a relationship is formed - "the [S]tate is the trustee, which manages specific natural resources - the trust principal - for the trust principal - for the benefit of the current and future generations - the beneficiaries." "[T]he [S]tate has an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible." But with the birth of privatization of many basic utilities, including the supply of water, this has proved to be quite challenging. The State is in a continuing battle against lurking evils that has afflicted even itself, such as the excessive pursuit of profit rather than purely the public's interest.

These exigencies forced the public trust doctrine to evolve from a mere principle to a resource management term and tool flexible enough to adapt to changing social priorities and address the correlative and consequent dangers thereof. The public is regarded as the beneficial owner of trust resources, and courts can enforce the public trust doctrine even against the government itself.[16] (Citations omitted)
Under the public trust doctrine, the State has a duty to hold and manage its natural resources for the good of the current and succeeding generations, as if the former is a trustee and the latter are the beneficiaries. As stated, it embodies the key principles of environmental protection: stewardship, communal responsibility, and sustainability.

In my separate concurring opinion in that case, I discussed that the concept of a trust in favor of the people is constitutionally recognized:
The concept of trust in a limited government is already real and implicit in the most fundamental concept articulated in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:
SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.
....

While the State's relationship with its natural resources is not as expressly stated to be a public trust, it also flows from the fundamental nature of a constitutional republican state.

The constitutional provisions on national economy and patrimony, as found in Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, emphasizes that the State's power is always subject to the common good, public welfare, and public interest or benefit. Many of its provisions put primacy in favor of the State's citizens:

....

These constitutional provisions on the State's national patrimony and economy, on which the public trust doctrine is anchored, highlight that the common good, public interest, public welfare - the people - are of primary consideration.[17]
In relation to natural resources, Article XII, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution state:
SECTION 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.

....

SECTION 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.

The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. (Emphasis supplied)
These provisions affirm the public trust doctrine-that the natural resources, though owned by the State, are ultimately meant to be managed to benefit the people:
The regalian doctrine emphasizes the State's ownership of all lands, irrespective of their ecology and the people who occupy them. The State acts as owner, exercising all rights of ownership over it, including the jus possidendi (right to possess), jus utendi (right to use), jus fruendi (right to its fruits), jus abutendi (right to consume), and jus disponendi (right to dispose). Cari o clarified, however, that after the Spanish occupation, all properties and rights of the State are now "to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants[.]"

This shift in perspective - from unquestionable State ownership to the consideration of the inhabitants' rights - is affirmed by the application of the public trust doctrine. Under the regalian doctrine, the natural resources simply belong to the State, no qualifications. Under the public trust doctrine, the State's resources exist and are tempered for the benefit of the community.

....

Finally, as in police power, the public trust doctrine acknowledges that the people, as a community, hold an independent right that may be superior to private individual rights. Its objective may be to prevent widespread public harm and injury. Thus, while it may be used to regulate private rights, all still benefit from its application:
The public trust doctrine, viewed in this light, is a communitarian doctrine, protecting the broader and longer-term community interests against private exploitation that eventually can destroy both the community and the exploiters.... [U]nder the public trust doctrine ... individual members of a community may have to endure shorter-term pain in order to ensure that both they and, more importantly, the community as a whole avoid long-term diminishment or disaster.
Nothing in the public trust doctrine sets the government apart from communities or individuals to be the sole repository of that trust. Indeed, as a democracy, and in recognition of the reality that we are all beings that depend on each other and on the web of life in this pale blue dot in a vast universe, we are all both trustees and beneficiaries of all natural resources, especially its waters - without which we will cease to exist.[18]
The public trust doctrine is thus anchored on social justice and equity. It prioritizes the people, the community, and in relation to natural resources, their ecologies. It acknowledges that natural resources "are part of a community and an ecosystem, interdependent with each other."[19] The State, therefore, cannot dispose of its lands and waters arbitrarily or willfully without these considerations.

The local government units' share in the proceeds from the utilization and development of the national wealth must be viewed in this light. Aside from encouraging local autonomy, it also recognizes that natural resources are expected to be managed and cared for so that their inhabitants benefit from them. While the State may derive proceeds from its use and development, its rights as "owner" are limited by the rights of the people to their ecologies. Thus, local government units-the communities in which the natural resources are found-are given a share in the proceeds earned by the State. The Constitution and the Local Government Code acknowledge that the benefit should redound to the community from which the natural resource was derived. It is yet again a constitutional recognition of the public trust between the State and the people.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition.


[1] Ponencia, p. 2.

[2] Id. at 3-4.

[3] Id. at 4-6.

[4] Id. at 9.

[5] Id. at 13.

[6] Id. at 14, 16.

[7] Id. at 13, 16.

[8] Id. at 24-25.

[9] Id. at 21.

[10] Id. at 22-24.

[11] Id. at 25.

[12] Id. at 25-26.

[13] Id. at 26.

[14] Id. at 18.

[15] 858 Phil. 765 (2019) [Per J. Hernando, En Banc].

[16] Id. at 808- 813.

[17] J. Leonen Separate Concurring Opinion in Maynilad Water Services, Inc. v. The Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 858 Phil. 765, 851-856 (2019) [Per J. Hernando, En Banc].

[18] Id. at 863-864.

[19] Id. at 856. (Citation omitted)



CONCURRING OPINION

CAGUIOA, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] (Petition) filed by petitioner Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) challenges the May 30, 2008 Decision[2] (assailed Decision) and October 24, 2008 Resolution[3] (assailed Resolution) of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 86701.[4] The assailed Decision and Resolution uphold the right of respondent Provincial Government of Bulacan (Province of Bulacan) to share in the proceeds derived from the supply and distribution of water sourced from Angat Dam on the basis of Article X, Section 7[5] of the Constitution.

The ponencia grants the Petition.

Foremost, the ponencia holds that the water sourced from Angat Dam does not form part of the national wealth of the State.[6] Further, even if such water is deemed part of the national wealth of the State, MWSS still cannot be held liable to pay the Province of Bulacan its claim for equitable share, as MWSS is not engaged in the "utilization and development" of water resources within the context of Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution.[7]

I concur with the ponencia and submit this Concurring Opinion to expound on the requirements that must be established to justify a claim for equitable share under Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution; specifically highlighting the reasons why the water sourced from Angat Dam does not constitute national wealth, why said water cannot be deemed situated or localized within the territory of the Province of Bulacan, and why the operations of MWSS do not qualify as "utilization and development" within the context of Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution.

To summarize:

First, the water sourced from Angat Dam does not constitute "national wealth" as contemplated under the Constitution, applicable law, and jurisprudence.

Second, even assuming for the sake of argument, that the water impounded in Angat Dam constitutes national wealth, this water cannot be deemed situated within a single territory. In this connection, the letter- certification[8] issued by the National Power Corporation (NPC) (NPC Certification) relied upon by the lower courts is wholly insufficient to support the finding that "71.9% to 88.5%" of the water in Angat Dam is exclusively sourced from the Province of Bulacan.

Third, assuming further that the water sourced from Angat Dam constitutes national wealth that is indigenous to the Province of Bulacan, the operations of MWSS constitute neither utilization nor development of water resources so as to give rise to the equitable share asserted. The conjunctive term "utilization and development," as used in Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution, denotes, as was intended by the framers to mean, exploitation, and therefore contemplates operations geared toward profit-generation. The operations of MWSS, which clearly involve only the providing of essential public services, do not qualify as profit-generating activities.

Finally, the water supplied and distributed by MWSS through its concessionaires is drawn from its water rights allocation from the State.[9] Granting the Province of Bulacan its alleged equitable share would, in effect, mandate MWSS to compensate the Province of Bulacan for the use of water over which it has no right. This subverts the State's exclusive authority to regulate the use of water, and renders nugatory the system of water allocation under the Water Code.[10]

Preliminary concerns

Before delving into the legal issues, it is important to understand the basic infrastructure of the water supply and distribution system of Metro Manila as this signals the far-reaching implications that any claim based on Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution will have.

(image supposed to be here)

As shown in the diagram,[11] Angat Dam is only one of several dams that form part of Metro Manila's water supply and sewerage system. These dams are located within the jurisdiction of different local government units (LGUs). The main sources of Metro Manila's water supply are the Angat, Ipo, and La Mesa dams.[12] While Angat and Ipo dams are located in the Province of Bulacan, La Mesa is located in Quezon City. A portion of the water funneled to the Angat and Ipo dams is further sourced from Umiray River, which is located in the Province of Quezon.[13] Moreover, as the Province of Bulacan acknowledges in its Comment,[14] portions of the water stored in Angat Dam similarly flow from watershed areas located in the provinces of Quezon, Nueva Ecija, and Rizal.[15]

A decision that upholds the right of the Province of Bulacan to share in the proceeds derived from the supply and distribution of water from Angat Dam will similarly entitle all the aforesaid LGUs to claim their respective shares therein. This will have the effect of significantly increasing the water rates chargeable against the end-consumes.

I expound.   
 
I.
Assignment of MWSS' functions via concession agreements
 

Under Republic Act No. 6234[16] (MWSS Charter), MWSS is mandated to undertake the operation, maintenance, expansion, development, and improvement of the Metro Manila waterworks system, thus:
SECTION 3. Attributes, Powers and Functions. - The System shall have the following attributes, powers and functions:
....


(f)
To construct, maintain, and operate dams, reservoirs, conduits, aqueducts, tunnels, purification plants, water mains, pipes, fire hydrants, pumping stations, machineries and other waterworks for the purpose of supplying water to the inhabitants of its territory, for domestic and other purposes; and to purify, regulate and control the use, as well as prevent the wastage of water;


(g)
To construct, maintain, and operate such sanitary sewerages as may be necessary for the proper sanitation and other uses of the cities and towns comprising the System;


....


(i)
To construct, develop, maintain and operate such artesian wells and springs as may be needed in its operation within its territory;


....


(k)
To construct works across, over, through and/or alongside, any stream, water-course, canal, ditch, flume, street, avenue, highway or railway, whether public or private, as the location of said works may require: Provided, That, such works be constructed in such manner as to afford security to life and property and so as not to obstruct traffic: Provided, further, That the stream, water-course, canal, ditch, flume, street, avenue, highway or railway so crossed or intersected be restored without unnecessary delay to its former state. Any person or entity whose right may be prejudice[d] by said works shall not obstruct the same; however, he shall be given reasonable notice before the construction and shall be paid just compensation. The System shall likewise have the right to locate, construct and maintain such works on, over arid/or through any street, avenue, or highway and land and/or real rights of the Republic of the Philippines or any of its branches, agencies and political subdivisions upon due notice to the office, or entity concerned, subject solely to the condition that the street, avenue, or highway in which said works are constructed be restored without unnecessary delay to its former state unless otherwise agreed upon by the System and the office or entity concerned;


....


(n)
To approve, regulate, and supervise the establishment, operation and maintenance of waterworks and deepwells within its jurisdiction operated for commercial, industrial and governmental purposes and to fix just and equitable rates or fees that may be charged to customers thereof;


(o)
To assist in the establishment, operation and maintenance of waterworks and sewerage systems within its jurisdiction under cooperative basis;


(p)
To approve and regulate the establishment and construction of waterworks and sewerage systems in privately owned subdivisions within its jurisdiction[.]
These functions have been passed on by MWSS to the concessionaires through their respective concession agreements. To illustrate, Sections 2.1 and 2.1.1 of the Revised Concession Agreement (RCA) between MWSS and its east zone concessionaire Manila Water Company, Inc. (MWCI)[17] and the RCA between MWSS and its west zone concessionaire Maynilad Water Services, Inc. (Maynilad)[18] similarly provide:
2.1 Grant of Concession

On the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, MWSS hereby grants to the Concessionaire, as a public utility to perform certain functions and as a public utility for the exercise of certain rights and powers under the Charter, the right to manage, operate, repair, decommission and refurbish the Facilities in the Service Area, including the right to bill and collect for water and sewerage services supplied in the Service Area (the "Concession"). The Concessionaire shall perform its functions and exercise its rights under this Agreement directly or, in respect of functions and rights delegated to the Common Purpose Facilities Agreement.

2.1.1 Scope of Grant

The MWSS, subject to its to [sic] authority under its Charter, hereby assigns to the Concessionaire, the following rights and obligations solely in relation to the Service Area:
(a)
finance, design and construct the Facilities, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement;


(b)
undertake the operation and maintenance of the Facilities in the Service Area;


(c)
treat Raw Water and wastewater in the Service Are;


(d)
provide and manage the services to the Customers;


(e)
bill and collect payment from the Customers for the services;


(f)
source Raw Water from catchment areas, watersheds, springs, wells and reservoirs in the Service Area, subject to the applicable Authorizations from the relevant Government Authorities; and


(g)
provide connections to public sewer and septic and sanitation cleaning as sewerage services.[19]
On May 10, 2023, MWSS reportedly signed amendments to the MWCI and Maynilad RCAs.[20] As of the time of this writing, however, signed copies thereof are not yet publicly available through online resources. Nevertheless, the grant and scope of grant of concession are not among the amendments identified by the Department of Finance, whose Secretary chairs the Water Concessions Review Committee.[21]

In consideration for the assignment of the rights and obligations detailed above, the concessionaires pay MWSS concession fees. In return, the concessionaires are permitted to bill and collect payment for the provision of their services to the general public. Through this mechanism, the concessionaires recover their respective investments and gain reasonable rates of return.   
 
II.
Determination of concession fees
 

The concession fees chargeable against MWSS' concessionaires are fixed by the relevant provisions of their respective concession agreements. To illustrate, Section 6.4 of the MWCI and Maynilad RCAs provides:
6.4 Concession Fee

By January 15 of each calendar year, MWSS shall provide the Concessionaire with a schedule of all anticipated amounts due in connection with the Concession Fee payable during that year, as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) below:
(a)
Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the date on which any scheduled payment of principal, interest, fees or other amount is due under a MWSS Loan, MWSS shall notify the Concessionaire in writing of the total amount due on that payment date and of the Peso equivalent thereof (the "Peso Equivalent") calculated at the then prevailing exchange rate. Not later than one (1) business day prior to each such payment date, the Concessionaire shall remit to such account as MWSS shall instruct an amount, in Pesos, exclusive of any penalties or default interest charges not attributable to a late payment of the Concession Fee by the Concessionaire (each such payment being referred to herein as a "Concession Fee"), equal to the sum of:




(i)
The percentage of the aggregate Peso Equivalent due under any MWSS Loan which has been disbursed during the Concession Period (including MWSS Loans for Existing Projects and the [Umiray-Angat Transbasin Project] on the relevant payment date set forth in Schedule 13, shall be agreed with MWSS on a case by case basis.



(b)
In addition, the Concessionaire shall pay to MWSS on the first business day of January 1998 and the succeeding years thereafter an amount equal to one-half (1/2) of the annual budget for MWSS for that year, provided that such annual budget shall not, for any year, exceed Two Hundred Million Pesos (Php 200,000,000.00), subject to annual [Consumer Price Index] adjustments.
As of January 2021, the fee set under this paragraph is Five Hundred Seventy-Six Million, Six Hundred Fifty-five Thousand, Six Hundred Twenty-three Pesos (Php576,655,623.00[).]

Each Concession Fee shall be treated as an Expenditure of the Concession and the Concessionaire's payment obligation in respect thereof shall rank at least pari passu with its unsecured payment obligations under all other debt instruments that may be executed by the Concessionaire.[22] (Emphasis supplied)
It is clear from Section 6.4 that the concession fees payable to MWSS consist of two components: (i) the amount of maturing payments on the existing loans of MWSS, which is fixed; and (ii) the amount of its annual budget, which is variable.   
 
III.
Determination of the concessionaires' rates
 

The standard rates that may be charged to the public or end-consumers by the concessionaires for the provision of water and sewerage services are also set by their respective concession agreements, and are subject to general adjustment at five-year intervals through the rate rebasing mechanism.[23]

During each rate rebasing exercise, the standard rates are determined on the basis of the information submitted by the concessionaires to the MWSS Regulatory Office.[24] It is the parties' ultimate intention that such rates be set at a level which would permit the concessionaires to earn a reasonable rate of return over the term of their respective concessions.[25]

To this end, the costs necessary for the operation, maintenance, expansion, development, and improvement of the waterworks system are factored into the standard rates chargeable against the end-consumers. Thus, the concessionaires are required to provide the following information prior to each rate rebasing date: (i) expenditures; (ii) receipts; (iii) cash flows; (iv) opening cash position; and (v) future cash flows.[26] "Expenditures" have a fixed definition under the concession agreements, thus:
"Expenditures" includes pre-operating and operating expenditures, capital maintenance and investments expenditures, working capital requirements, business taxes, and concession fees; but excludes: penalties, interest charges on late payments, financing costs, bad debt provisions, depreciation provisions and tax on income. Expenditures "efficiently and prudently incurred" does not include, among other things, payments for (X) Disapproved Assets or (Y) fees for management or consulting services required by the Concessionaire in order to carry out its obligations under this Agreement payable to any shareholder or affiliate of the Concessionaire to the extent, in the judgment of the Regulatory Office, that such fees do not represent the best value available in the market for such services.[27] (Emphasis supplied) 
IV.
The effect of the provision for equitable share
 

As stated, a decision that upholds the right of the Province of Bulacan to share in the proceeds derived from the supply and distribution of water from Angat Dam will similarly entitle all the aforesaid LGUs to claim their respective shares therein. Evidently, giving to each concerned LGU 1% of the annual gross receipts of MWSS will take up a significant portion of the concession fees intended to cover maturing payments due on the existing loans of MWSS, its statutory obligations, as well as its annual operating and administrative expenses.

It bears noting that at present, MWSS is already obligated to remit dividends to the national government pursuant to Republic Act No. 7656:[28]
SECTION 3. Dividends. - All government-owned or -controlled corporations shall declare and remit at least fifty percent (50%) of their annual net earnings as cash, stock or property dividends to the National Government. This section shall also apply to those government-owned or -controlled corporations whose profit distribution is provided by their respective charters or by special law, but shall exclude those enumerated in Section 4 hereof: Provided, That such dividends accruing to the National Government shall be received by the National Treasury and recorded as income of the General Fund.

SECTION 4. Exemptions. - The provisions of the preceding section notwithstanding, government-owned or -controlled corporations created or organized by law to administer real or personal properties or funds held in trust for the use and the benefit of its members, shall not be covered by this Act such as, but not limited to: the Government Service Insurance System, the Home Development Mutual Fund, the Employees Compensation Commission, the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration, and the Philippine Medical Care Commission.

SECTION 5. Flexible Clause. - In the interest of national economy and general welfare, the percentage of annual net earnings that shall be declared by a government-owned or -controlled corporation may be adjusted by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation by the Secretary of Finance.
However, recognizing the need to ensure the viability of MWSS, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo significantly reduced the dividend rate of MWSS for fiscal years 2001 to 2006[29] based on the authority granted by Section 5 above, thus:
Issuance
Dividend Rate
Year
Executive Order No. 167, series of 2003[30]
30%
2001
Executive Order No. 529, series of 2006[31]
11% or an equivalent amount of not less than PHP 65.31 Million
2002
Executive Order No. 529, series of 2006
10% or an equivalent amount of not less than PHP 109.97 Million
2003
Executive Order No. 529, series of 2006
10% or an equivalent amount of not less than PHP 66.20 Million
2004
Executive Order No. 591, series of 2006[32]
5% or an equivalent amount of not less than PHP 57.06 Million
2005
Executive Order No. 741, series of 2008[33]
5% or an equivalent amount of not less than PHP 130.80 Million
2006
The remittance of shares in favor of the LGUs will be in addition to the dividends required by Republic Act No. 7656. Accordingly, this will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the financial position of MWSS and resultantly, on the public or its end-consumers.

On this score, it bears noting that the concession fees serve as the only source of active income of MWSS, as confirmed by the Statement of Comprehensive Income incorporated in the latest annual audited financial statement of MWSS,[34] which is quoted here for reference:
PARTICULARS
2022
2021
(AS RESTATED)
INC/(DEC)
%
REVENUE
     
 
  SERVICE INCOME AND BUSINESS INCOME
       
    OTHER SERVICE INCOME - CONCESSION FEES
256,272,000.00
152,526,000.00
103,746,000.00
68%
    INTEREST INCOME
3,730,512.72
3,667,292.38
63,220.34
2%
  TOTAL SERVICE INCOME AND BUSINESS INCOME
260,002,512.72
156,193,292.38
103,809,220.34
66%
TOTAL REVENUE
260,002,512.72
156,193,292.38
103,809,220.34
66%

Thus, to create a buffer against the shortfall that will be caused by the diversion of a portion of the concession fees to the LGUs, MWSS will have to call for an increase in its annual budget for operating expenses, which is the only variable component of the concession fees. As a result, the increase in concession fees will trigger an increase in water supply and sewerage prices, as these fees are among the costs that are factored into the determination of standard rates chargeable against the end-consumers.

Notice should be taken of the fact that the Province of Bulacan has already benefited from the supply and distribution of water covered by its own water rights allocation through the Bulacan Bulk Water Supply Project undertaken by another concessionaire, Luzon Clean Water Development Corporation (LCWDC).[35] Through this project, the Province of Bulacan appears to have already received an upfront payment of PHP 350,000,000.00 from LCWDC[36] on account of the use of the Province of Bulacan's water rights allocation amounting to 1.9 CMS.[37] As will be explained in further detail below, there is no basis to similarly grant the Province of Bulacan additional compensation in the case, considering that the water rights allocation used for the supply and distribution of water from Angat Dam pertains solely to MWSS.[38]

This cautionary note is made with the recognition that the Province of Bulacan's claim is anchored on the Constitution. The desire to grant said claim is therefore understandable, as such grant ostensibly gives life to the policy of ensuring local autonomy. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that the autonomy of local governments cannot be hastily prioritized at the expense of the very systems which support them, particularly in cases where, as here, the LGU in question has failed to establish its claim by sufficient evidence.

To this end, I now proceed to address the central question raised in the Petition-whether or not, pursuant to the Constitution and the provisions of the Local Government Code[39] (LGC), the Province of Bulacan is entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds derived from the supply and distribution of water sourced from Angat Dam.

Right to equitable share

The right of LGUs to have an equitable share in the proceeds resulting from the utilization and development of national wealth is set forth in Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution, thus:
SECTION 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.
The law that implements the foregoing policy is Section 289 of the LGC. It reads:
SECTION 289. Share in the Proceeds from the Development and Utilization of the National Wealth. - Local government units shall have an equitable share in the proceeds derived from the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.
Hence, the right to equitable share under Article X, Section 7 is subject to the concurrence of the following requisites: (i) the proceeds subject of the equitable share must be derived from national wealth; (ii) the national wealth from which the proceeds are derived must be within the territory of the claimant-LGU; and (iii) the proceeds must result from the utilization and development, as contemplated under the Constitution.

Not one of these requisites obtains in this case.  
 
Water sourced from Angat Dam does not constitute national wealth.
 

The Constitution does not define "national wealth". Nevertheless, the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission suggest that "national wealth" pertains to natural resources, identified under Article XII[40] of the Constitution:
MR. OPLE. Madam President, the issue has to do with Section 8 on page 2 of Committee Report No. 21:
Local taxes shall belong exclusively to local governments and they shall likewise be entitled to share in the proceeds of the exploitation and development of the national wealth within their respective areas.
Just to cite specific examples, in the case of timberland within the area of jurisdiction of the Province of Quirino or the Province of Aurora, we feel that the local governments ought to share in whatever revenues are generated from this particular natural resource which is also considered a national resource in a proportion to be determined by Congress. This may mean sharing not with the local government but with the local population. The geothermal plant in the Macban, Makiling-Banahaw area in Laguna, the Tiwi Geothermal Plant in Albay, there is a sense in which the people in these areas, hosting the physical facility based on the resources found under the ground in their area which are considered national wealth, should participate in terms of reasonable rebates on the cost of power that they pay. This is true of the Maria Cristina area in Central Mindanao, for example. May I point out that in the previous government, this has always been a very nettlesome subject of Cabinet debates. Are the people in the locality, where God chose to locate His bounty, not entitled to some reasonable modest sharing of this with the national government? Why should the national government claim all the revenues arising from them? And the usual reply of the technocrats at that time is that there must be uniform treatment of all citizens regardless of where God's gifts are located, whether below the ground or above the ground. This, of course, has led to popular disenchantment. In Albay, for example, the government then promised a 20-percent rebate in power because of the contributions of the Tiwi plant to the Luzon grid. Although this was ordered, I remember that the Ministry of Finance, together with the National Power Corporation, refused to implement it. There is a bigger economic principle behind this, the principle of equity. If God chose to locate the great rivers and sources of hydroelectric power in Iligan, in Central Mindanao, for example, or in the Cordillera, why should the national government impose fuel adjustment taxes in order to cancel out the comparative advantage given to the people in these localities through these resources? So, it is in that sense that under Section 8, the local populations, if not the local governments, should have a share of whatever national proceeds may be realized from this natural wealth of the nation located within their jurisdictions.[41]
The foregoing intent is reflected in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the LGC which defines "national wealth" as "all natural resources situated within the Philippine territorial jurisdiction including lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, mineral oils, potential energy forces, gas and oil deposits, forest products, wildlife, flora and fauna, fishery and aquatic resources, and all quarry products."[42]

In asserting its claim, the Province of Bulacan takes this definition to mean that all waters, regardless of source, necessarily form part of the national wealth.[43] However, the Court's ruling in IDEALS, Inc. v. PSALM[44] (IDEALS case) already declared otherwise.

In the IDEALS case, petitioner Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment Through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS) sought to enjoin the sale of the Angat Hydro-Electric Power Plant (AHEPP) to Korea Water Resources Corporation (K-Water), a foreign corporation which won the public bidding conducted by respondent Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM).[45] There, IDEALS argued, among others, that the bidding and award of the disputed contract to K-Water violated the constitutional provisions on the exploration, development, and utilization of water as a natural resource. According to IDEALS, these activities can only be done by Filipino citizens and/or corporations which are at least 60% Filipino-owned.[46]

Resolving this particular issue, the Court held that the generation of electric power by using the dam water which enters the AHEPP does not amount to the appropriation of a natural resource as contemplated under the Constitution and the Water Code. The Court's discussion on the matter ts insightful:
It is the position of PSALM that as the new owner only of the hydroelectric power plant, K-Water will be a mere operator of the Angat Dam. In the power generation activity, K-Water will have to utilize the waters already extracted from the river and impounded on the dam. This process of generating electric power from the dam water entering the power plant thus does not constitute appropriation within the meaning of natural resource utilization in the Constitution and the Water Code.

The operation of a typical hydroelectric power plant has been described as follows:
Hydroelectric energy is produced by the force of falling water. The capacity to produce this energy is dependent on both the available flow and the height from which it falls. Building up behind a high dam, water accumulates potential energy. This is transformed into mechanical energy when the water rushes down the sluice and strikes the rotary blades of turbine. The turbine's rotation spins electromagnets which generate current in stationary coils of wire. Finally, the current is put through a transformer where the voltage is increased for long distance transmission over power lines.

....
The DOJ has consistently regarded hydropower generation by foreign entities as not constitutionally proscribed based on the definition of water appropriation under the Water Code, thus:
Opinion No. 173, 1984

This refers to your request for opinion on the possibility of granting water permits to foreign corporations authorized to do business in the Philippines[.]

....

... while the Water Code imposes a nationality requirement for the grant of water permits, the same refers to the privilege "to appropriate and use water." This should be interpreted to mean the extraction of water from its natural source (Art. 9, P.D. No. 1067). Once removed therefrom, they cease to be a part of the natural resources of the country and are the subject of ordinary commerce and may be acquired by foreigners (Op. No. 55, series of 1939) .... in case of a contract of lease, the water permit shall be secured by the lessor and included in the lease as an improvement. The water so removed from the natural source may be appropriated/used by the foreign corporation leasing the property.

Opinion No. 14, S. 1995

The nationality requirement imposed by the Water Code refers to the privilege "to appropriate and use water." This, we have consistently interpreted to mean the extraction of water directly from its natural source. Once removed from its natural source the water ceases to be a part of the natural resources of the country and may be subject of ordinary commerce and may even be acquired by foreigners. (Secretary of Justice Op. No. 173, s. 1984; No. 24, s. 1989; No. 100, s. 1994)

In fine, we reiterate our earlier view that a foreign entity may legally process or treat water after its removal from a natural source by a qualified person, natural or juridical.

Opinion No. 122, s. 1998

The crucial issue at hand is the determination of whether the utilization of water by the power plant to be owned and operated by a foreign-owned corporation (SRPC) will violate the provisions of the Water Code.

As proposed, the participation of SRPC to the arrangement commences upon construction of the power station, consisting of a dam and a power plant. After the completion of the said station, its ownership and control shall be turned over to NPC. However, SRPC shall remain the owner of the power plant and shall operate it for a period of twenty-five (25) years.

It appears that the dam, which will be owned and controlled by NPC, will block the natural flow of the river. The power plant, which is situated next to it, will entirely depend upon the dam for its water supply which will pass through an intake gate situated one hundred (100) meters above the riverbed. Due to the distance from the riverbed, water could not enter the power plant absent the dam that traps the flow of the river. It appears further that no water shall enter the power tunnel without specific dispatch instructions from NPC, and such supplied water shall be used only by SRPC for power generation and not for any other purpose. When electricity is generated therein, the same shall be supplied to NPC for distribution to the public. These facts ... viewed in relation to the Water Code, specifically Article 9 thereof, ... clearly show that there is no circumvention of the law.

This Department has declared that the nationality requirement imposed by the Water Code refers to the privilege "to appropriate and use water" and has interpreted this phrase to mean the extraction of water directly from its natural source (Secretary of Justice Opinion No. 14, s. 1995). "Natural" is defined as that which is produced without aid of stop, valves, slides, or other supplementary means (see Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, p. 1630). The water that is used by the power plant could not enter the intake gate without the dam, which is a man-made structure. Such being the case, the source of the water that enters the power plant is of artificial character rather than natural. This Department is consistent in ruling, that once water is removed from its natural source, it ceases to be a part of the natural resources of the country and may be the subject of ordinary commerce and may even be acquired by foreigners.

....
The latest executive interpretation is stated in DOJ Opinion No. 52, s. 2005 which was rendered upon the request of PSALM in connection with the proposed sale structure for the privatization of hydroelectric and geothermal generation assets (Gencos) of NPC. PSALM sought a ruling on the legality of its proposed privatization scheme whereby the non-power components (dam, reservoir and appurtenant structures and watershed area) shall be owned by the State through government entities like NPC or [the National Irrigation Administration (NIA)] which shall exercise control over the release of water, while the ownership of the power components (power plant and related facilities) is open to both Filipino citizens/corporations and 100% foreign-owned corporations.

Sustaining the position of PSALM, then Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez opined:
Premised on the condition that only the power components shall be transferred to the foreign bidders while the non-power components/structures shall be retained by state agencies concerned, we find that both PSALM's proposal and position are tenable.

....

Applied to the instant case, and construed in relation to the earlier-mentioned constitutional inhibition, it would appear clear that while both waters and geothermal steam are, undoubtedly "natural resources", within the meaning of Section 2[,] Article XII of the present Constitution, hence, their exploitation, development and utilization should be limited to Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by Filipino citizens, the utilization thereof can be opened even to foreign nationals, after the same have been extracted from the source by qualified persons or entities. The rationale is because, since they no longer form part of the natural resources of the country, they become subject to ordinary commerce.

A contrary interpretation, i.e., that the removed or extracted natural resources would remain inalienable especially to foreign nationals, can lead to absurd consequences, e.g., that said waters and geothermal steam, and any other extracted natural resources, cannot be acquired by foreign nationals for sale within or outside the country, which could not [have] been intended by the framers of the Constitution.

....
Appropriation of water, as used in the Water Code refers to the "acquisition of rights over the use of waters or the taking or diverting of waters from a natural source in the manner and for any purpose allowed by law."

....

On the other hand, "water right" is defined in the Water Code as the privilege granted by the government to appropriate and use water. Black's Law Dictionary defined "water rights" as "[a] legal right, in the nature of a corporeal hereditament, to use the water of a natural stream or water furnished through a ditch or canal for general or specific purposes, such as irrigation, mining, power, or domestic use, either to its full capacity or to a measured extent or during a defined portion of the time," or "the right to have the water flow so that some portion of it may be reduced to possession and be made private property of individual, and it is therefore the right to divert water from natural stream by artificial means and apply the same to beneficial use."

Under the Water Code concept of appropriation, a foreign company may not be said to be "appropriating" our natural resources if it utilizes the waters collected in the dam and converts the same into electricity through artificial devices. Since the NPC remains in control of the operation of the dam by virtue of water rights granted to it, as determined under DOJ Opinion No. 122, s. 1998, there is no legal impediment to foreign-owned companies undertaking the generation of electric power using waters already appropriated by NPC, the holder of water permit. Such was the situation of hydropower projects under the BOT contractual arrangements whereby foreign investors are allowed to finance or undertake construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure projects and/or own and operate the facility constructed. However, in case the facility requires a public utility franchise, the facility operator must be a Filipino corporation or at least 60% owned by Filipino.[47] (Emphasis supplied; some citations omitted)
Following the Court's ruling in the IDEALS case, the water flowing into Angat Dam is deemed appropriated once collected, that is, at the point it flows into the man-made structure through artificial means. At this point, the water ceases to be a "natural resource" within the contemplation of the Water Code. Simply stated, once water is diverted and captured through the use of man-made structures or other artificial means, it ceases to become a natural resource. Necessarily, the use of water stored in Angat Dam, whether for the purpose of power generation (in the case of K-Water), or distribution (in the case of MWSS through its concessionaires), no longer constitutes the "utilization and development of national wealth," as the source of water is artificial, rather than natural in character.   
 
The water impounded in Angat Dam cannot be deemed situated within a single territory.

 
Even if it be assumed arguendo that the water in Angat Dam forms part of the national wealth of the State, I find that such water cannot be deemed situated solely within the territory of the Province of Bulacan.

The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission confirm that the right to equitable share granted to LGUs under Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution was crafted as a mechanism to enhance local autonomy:
MR. MAAMBONG. Let me put it this way, Mr. Presiding Officer.

The flagship provision of local government, from our standpoint, is the provision that local governments will be given local autonomy.

MR. NOLLEDO. I agree, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. MAAMBONG. Because of that, right after Section 1 when we talk about territorial and political subdivisions, we immediately place the flagship provisions on local autonomy in Section 2. In view of this concept of local autonomy, it necessarily follows that we have to put after Section 2, Sections 12, 13 and 14 because when the local government units have local autonomy, we give them the power to create sources of revenue, which is Section 12. We give them the power to have a just share in national taxes, which is Section 13, and we give them the power to have a share in the proceeds of the national wealth. That is precisely the concept that we have tried to present, Mr. Presiding Officer.[48] (Emphasis supplied)
The location of the resource is therefore crucial in determining whether the right to equitable share accrues in favor of the claimant-LGU. As the constitutional provision clearly states, the national wealth in question must be within the area of the LGU for the latter to be entitled to share in the proceeds resulting therefrom.

In fact, a close reading of the deliberations shows the framers' intent to limit the application of Article X, Section 7 to those resources the origins of which can be determined with certainty or simply, "localized". To reiterate:
MR. OPLE....

....

Just to cite specific examples, in the case of timberland within the area of jurisdiction of the Province of Quirino or the Province of Aurora, we feel that the local governments ought to share in whatever revenues are generated from this particular natural resource which is also considered a national resource in a proportion to be determined by Congress. This may mean sharing not with the local government but with the local population. The geothermal plant in the Macban, Makiling-Banahaw area in Laguna, the Tiwi Geothermal Plant in Albay, there is a sense in which the people in these areas, hosting the physical facility based on the resources found under the ground in their area which are considered national wealth, should participate in terms of reasonable rebates on the cost of power that they pay. This is true of the Maria Cristina area in Central Mindanao, for example. May I point out that in the previous government, this has always been a very nettlesome subject of Cabinet debates. Are the people in the locality, where God chose to locate His bounty, not entitled to some reasonable modest sharing of this with the national government? Why should the national government claim all the revenues arising from them? And the usual reply of the technocrats at that time is that there must be uniform treatment of all citizens regardless of where God's gifts are located, whether below the ground or above the ground. This, of course, has led to popular disenchantment. In Albay, for example, the government then promised a 20-percent rebate in power because of the contributions of the Tiwi plant to the Luzon grid. Although this was ordered, I remember that the Ministry of Finance, together with the National Power Corporation, refused to implement it. There is a bigger economic principle behind this, the principle of equity. If God chose to locate the great rivers and sources of hydroelectric power in Iligan, in Central Mindanao, for example, or in the Cordillera, why should the national government impose fuel adjustment taxes in order to cancel out the comparative advantage given to the people in these localities through these resources? So, it is in that sense that under Section 8, the local populations, if not the local governments, should have a share of whatever national proceeds may be realized from this natural wealth of the nation located within their jurisdictions.[49] (Emphasis supplied)
Here, the water stored in Angat Dam consists of surface water, that is, water flowing over lands, water from rainfall, and water from agriculture runoff, seepage and drainage.[50] The water that flows into Angat Dam therefore originates from multiple sources and accumulates as it passes through its natural course. The water in Angat Dam cannot therefore be deemed situated within a single territory (that is, the Province of Bulacan), considering that such water is sourced from multiple jurisdictions.[51] Undoubtedly, such water is not indigenous to the Province of Bulacan.

In this connection, the Province of Bulacan attempts to establish that a significant portion of the water in Angat Dam is sourced from its territory and should therefore be deemed situated or located within its boundaries. However, the evidence on record is manifestly insufficient to support such finding.

To recall, the lower courts made a finding that 88.5% of the water that flows into Angat Dam is sourced from Bulacan. This percentage allegedly went down to 71.9% after the Umiray Transbasin began operating in July 2000. These findings, however, are anchored principally on the NPC Certification issued in favor of the Province of Bulacan. It reads, in part:
Based on the NAMRIA Topographic Map with a scale of 1:50,000, our calculations on the watershed areas of Angat dam/reservoir showed the following:  
 
Angat Dam Watershed Area under Quezon Province
39 Sq.km.
6.9%
Angat Dam Watershed Area under N. Ecija Province
2 Sq.km.
0.3%
Angat Dam Watershed Area under Rizal Province
24 Sq.km.
4.3%
Angat Dam Watershed Area under Bulacan Province
499 Sq.km.
88.5%
Total Watershed Area [o]f Angat Dam
564 Sq.km.
100.0%

....

On the other hand, considering the trans-basin inflows from Umiray River Basin to Angat dam/reservoir since July 2000 resulted in the watershed area distribution as follows:  
 
Umiray Watershed Area
130 Sq.km.
18.7%
Angat Dam Watershed Area under Quezon Province
39 Sq.km.
5.6%
Angat Dam Watershed Area under N. Ecija Province
2 Sq.km.
0.3%
Angat Dam Watershed Area under Rizal Province
24 Sq.km.
3.5%
Angat Dam Watershed Area under Bulacan Province
499 Sq.km.
71.9%
Total Watershed Area [o]f Angat Dam + Umiray
694 Sq.km.
100.0%[52]
The NPC Certification further states:
The average monthly contributions in Million Cubic Meters (MCM) of water exclusively sourced from the Province of Bulacan based on the 88.5% watershed area [without the Umiray River Basin] under the province are as follows:   
 
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
MCM
94.7
56.3
44.2
32.9
53.2
95.0
168.8
195.0
169.7
274.8
259.7
213.2

....

Therefore, the average monthly contributions in Million Cubic Meters (MCM) of water exclusively sourced from the Province of Bulacan based on the 71.9% watershed area [with the Umiray Basin] under the province are tabulated as follows:   
 
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
MCM
56.2
74.5
43.2
25.1
63.5
54.8
221.5
165.4
120.0
126.5
226.8
207.3[53]
I submit that the lower courts erred in relying on the foregoing NPC Certification as basis to hold that 71.9% to 88.5% of the water in Angat Dam is exclusively sourced from the territory of the Province of Bulacan.

Foremost, it is apparent that the NPC Certification only indicates the size of the watershed areas that are geographically located within the respective jurisdictions of Nueva Ecija, Rizal, Quezon Province, and Bulacan, and that the average MCM monthly contributions tabulated therein are merely approximations made on the basis only of the total land area of the watershed within an LGU's territory.

A watershed is defined as "a region or area bounded peripherally by a divide, and draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water."[54] Verily, the land area of the watershed pertaining to each LGU is not indicative of the amount of water sourced therefrom. The amount of water diverted by each watershed depends on the amount of rain which happens to fall on these watershed areas, as well as the environmental conditions which vary from one territory to the other. To my mind, the NPC Certification miserably fails to provide sufficient basis to support the conclusion that "71.9% to 88.5%" of the water in Angat Dam is exclusively sourced from or "localized" in the Province of Bulacan.

Moreover, for the purpose of presentation of evidence, documents are classified as either public or private. As stated in Rule 32, Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, public documents consist of: (i) the written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; (ii) documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and (iii) public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein. All other writings are classified as private documents.

In Republic v. Galeno[55] (Galeno), respondent therein filed a petition to correct the lot area reflected on her Torrens title. The Court ultimately resolved to dismiss said petition due to respondent's failure to present, as witnesses, the public officers who issued the certifications which she presented in support of her petition. In its Decision, the Court expounded on the nature of certifications issued by government officials, thus:
A scrutiny of the evidence marked and formally offered by respondent before the court a quo shows that the former failed to prove that there was sufficient basis to allow the correction of the area of the subject property in OCT No. 46417 from 20,948 square meters to 21,248 square meters.

Records reveal that respondent offered in evidence the following documents: (a) the Certification issued by a certain Althea C. Acevedo (Acevedo), Engineer IV, Chief of the Technical Services Section of the Office of the Regional Technical Director, Land Management Services of the DENR in Iloilo City, which states that "the true and correct area of [L]ot 2285, Cad. 246 Dingle Cadastre is 21,928 square meters;" (b) the technical description of Lot No. 2285, a copy of which was certified by Ameto Caballero (Caballero), Chief of the Surveys Division, while another copy was certified correct by Acevedo; and (c) the approved subdivision plan of Lot No. 2258, certified by Rogelio M. Santome (Santome), Geodetic Engineer; Alfredo Muyarsas (Muyarsas), Chief of the Regional Surveys Division, and Edgardo R. Gerobin (Gerobin), OIC, Regional Technical Director of the Land Management Services, DENR. On the strength of these pieces of evidence, respondent sought a reconciliation of the area of the subject property with the records of the DENR.

Unfortunately, the foregoing documentary evidence are not sufficient to warrant the correction prayed for. The Court cannot accord probative weight upon them in view of the fact that the public officers who issued the same did not testify in court to prove the facts stated therein.

In Republic v. Medida, the Court held that certifications of the Regional Technical Director, DENR cannot be considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, holding that:
Public documents are defined under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence as follows:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;

(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and

(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.

Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents referred to in Section 19(a), when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy.

Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

"Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence. - Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter."

The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications (do) not fall within the class of public documents contemplated in the first sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The certifications do not reflect "entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer," such as entries made by the Civil Registrar in the books of registries, or by a ship captain in the ship's logbook. The certifications are not the certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official records in the legal custody of a government office. The certifications are not even records of public documents.
As such, sans the testimonies of Acevedo, Caballero, and the other public officers who issued respondent's documentary evidence to confirm the veracity of its contents, the same are bereft of probative value and cannot, by their mere issuance, prove the facts stated therein. At best, they may be considered only as prima facie evidence of their due execution and date of issuance but do not constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

In fact, the contents of the certifications are hearsay because respondent's sole witness and attorney-in-fact, Lea Galeno Barraca, was incompetent to testify on the veracity of their contents, as she did not prepare any of the certifications nor was she a public officer of the concerned government agencies. Notably, while it is true that the public prosecutor who represented petitioner interposed no objection to the admission of the foregoing evidence in the proceedings in the court below, it should be borne in mind that "hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence falls within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule," which do not, however, obtain in this case. Verily, while respondent's documentary evidence may have been admitted due to the opposing party's lack of objection, it does not, however, mean that they should be accorded any probative weight.[56] (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
The pronouncements of the Court in Galeno apply in this case. The NPC Certification is not a public document under Rule 32, Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. It is neither a written official act nor a record thereof. It was not acknowledged before a notary public. It is also not a public record made in the performance of a duty of a public officer.[57] Thus, the NPC Certification is a private document.

Since the NPC Certification is a private document, its due execution and authenticity must first be proved before it can be considered as evidence of the matters stated therein. The manner of proof is governed by Rule 132, Section 20 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. To reiterate:
SECTION 20. Proof of private document. - Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
The Province of Bulacan admits that no witness was presented to testify as to the due execution and authenticity of the NPC Certification. Nevertheless, it insists that the lower courts properly relied thereon because the parties agreed during the preliminary conference that no witnesses would be presented, and that the case would be decided on the basis of position papers filed with the RTC.[58]

To my mind, this justification does not suffice considering that MWSS was not aware of the existence of the NPC Certification during the preliminary conference. This fact is confirmed by no less than the RTC Order[59] :
The legal issues cannot be resolved without associating them to the facts. The facts can not be distanced from the issues. This [c]ourt is not unmindful that only those evidence formally offered can be considered (Sec. 34, Rule 132 of the Rules) but it takes note that to prove its point, [the Province of Bulacan] identified, marked and formally offered the assailed document, Exhibit "L". [The Province of Bulacan's] Pre-trial Brief contains a reservation for additional evidence. The document [was] evidently not available during the preliminary conference of [p]re-trial as could be read from its date of request (March 14, 2005) and reply (April 4, 2005)[. I]n relation to the held preliminary conference[, this document] may be allowed for good cause shown under the . . . Guidelines by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-trial Conference. [MWSS'] arguments are not persuasive [to the effect] that there was a denial of its right to confront the pleader (of Exhibit "L"). Counsels during the preliminary conference have agreed that witnesses need not be presented ... Counsels went further by mutually agreeing to submit issues determinative of the main case through position papers.... MWSS could not now be heard to complain of the procedure taken. This, notwithstanding, ... MWSS has not totally foreclosed its right as [it] strongly opposed the conclusions given in the NAMRIA Topographical Map of the [NPC].[60] (Emphasis supplied)
Further, it is a well-settled rule that hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence for it has no probative value.[61]

In this regard, I wish to stress that the document that I find insufficient, as explained above, is the NPC Certification. Lest there be any confusion, I do not propose that the Court rule upon the admissibility of the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) Topographic Map referred to in the NPC Certification precisely because it was not presented during the proceedings below. Because of this, the Court does not have sufficient information to make any determination with respect to its nature and contents. To be clear, the NAMRIA Topographic Map is different from the NPC Certification.

Here, the lower courts' findings rest on the contents of the NPC Certification, which, as stated, was not offered and authenticated in accordance with the Revised Rules on Evidence. Further, the figures in the NPC Certification are based on a supposed NAMRIA Topographic Map which was not presented during the course of the proceedings. These facts, taken together, render the NPC Certification bereft of probative value, and leave the lower courts' findings with absolutely no basis.   
 
The operations of MWSS do not involve utilization and development so as to entitle the Province of Bulacan to a share in the proceeds derived therefrom.
 

Finally, I find that the operations of MWSS do not constitute "utilization and development" so as to trigger the application of Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution.

MWSS was created for the purpose of providing two essential public services-the operation and maintenance of waterworks and sewerage systems.[62] To fulfill these purposes, MWSS is vested with several functions that are outlined in the MWSS Charter. To reiterate:
SECTION 3. Attributes, Powers and Functions. - The System shall have the following attributes, powers and functions:

....


(f)
To construct, maintain, and operate dams, reservoirs, conduits, aqueducts, tunnels, purification plants, water mains, pipes, fire hydrants, pumping stations, machineries and other waterworks for the purpose of supplying water to the inhabitants of its territory, for domestic and other purposes; and to purify, regulate and control the use, as well as prevent the wastage, of water;


(g)
To construct, maintain, and operate such sanitary sewerages as may be necessary for the proper sanitation and other uses of the cities and towns comprising the System;


(h)
To fix periodically water rates and sewerage service fees as the System may deem just and equitable in accordance with the standards outlined in Section 12 of this Act;


(i)
To construct, develop, maintain and operate such artesian wells and springs as may be needed in its operation within its territory;


(j)
To acquire, purchase, hold, transfer, sell, lease, rent, mortgage, encumber, and otherwise dispose of real and personal property, including rights and franchises, consistent with the purpose for which the System is created and reasonably required for the transaction of the lawful business of the same;


(k)
To construct works across, over, through and/or alongside, any stream, water-course, canal, ditch, flume, street, avenue, highway or railway, whether public or private, as the location of said works may require; Provided, That, such works be constructed in such manner as to afford security to life and property and so as not to obstruct traffic: Provided, further, That the stream, water-course, canal, ditch, flume, street, avenue, highway or railway so crossed or intersected be restored without unnecessary delay to its former state. Any person or entity whose right may be prejudice by said works shall not obstruct the same; however, he shall be given reasonable notice before the construction and shall be paid just compensation. The System shall likewise have the right to locate, construct and maintain such works on, over and/or through any street, avenue, or highway and land and/or real rights of the Republic of the Philippines or any of its branches, agencies and political subdivisions upon due notice to the office, or entity concerned, subject solely to the condition that the street, avenue, or highway in which said works are constructed be restored without unnecessary delay to its former state unless otherwise agreed upon by the System and the office or entity concerned;


....


(n)
To approve, regulate, and supervise the establishment, operation and maintenance of waterworks and deepwells within its jurisdiction operated for commercial, industrial and governmental purposes and to fix just and equitable rates or fees that may be charged to customers thereof;


(o)
To assist in the establishment, operation and maintenance of waterworks and sewerage systems within its jurisdiction under cooperative basis;


(p)
To approve and regulate the establishment and construction of waterworks and sewerage systems in privately owned subdivisions within its jurisdiction;


(q)
To have exclusive and sole right to test, mount, dismount and remount water meters within its jurisdiction[.]
At present, MWSS, through its concessionaires, provides essential public services within its jurisdiction-the uninterrupted and adequate supply and distribution of potable water for domestic and other purposes, and the operation and maintenance of sewerage services. The act of providing essential public services does not constitute utilization and development of national wealth so as to entitle the Province of Bulacan to a portion of proceeds resulting therefrom.

As keenly observed by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo (Chief Justice Gesmundo), the conjunctive term "utilization and development" under Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution should be understood to mean "exploitation," that is, to use for one's own advantage or profit. In Republic v. Provincial Government of Palawan[63] where the respondent LGU sought to claim its share in the proceeds of the Camago-Malampaya natural gas project, this Court examined the rationale behind Article X, Section 7 on which the Province of Bulacan also bases its claim:
MR. NATIVIDAD. The history of local governments shows that the usual weaknesses of local governments are: 1) fiscal inability to support itself; 2) lack of sufficient authority to carry out its duties; and 3) lack of authority to appoint key officials.

Under this Article, are these traditional weaknesses of local governments addressed to [sic]?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. The first question is on fiscal inability to support itself. It will be noticed that we widened the taxing powers [o]f local governments. I explained that exhaustively yesterday unless the Gentleman wants me to explain again.

MR. NATIVIDAD. No, that is all right with me.

MR. NOLLEDO. There is a right of retention of local taxes by local governments and according to the Natividad, Ople, Maambong, de los Reyes amendment, local government units shall share in the proceeds of the exploitation of the national wealth within the area or region, etc.

....

MR. OPLE....

In the hinterland regions of the Philippines, most municipalities receive an annual income of only about [PHP 200,000.00] so that after paying the salaries of local officials and employees, nothing is left to fund any local development project. This is a prescription for a self-perpetuating stagnation and backwardness, and numbing community frustrations, as well as a chronic disillusionment with the central government. The thrust towards local autonomy in this entire Article on Local Governments may suffer the fate of earlier heroic efforts of decentralization which, without innovative features for local income generation, remained a pious hope and a source of discontent. To prevent this, this amendment which Commissioner Davide and I jointly propose will open up a whole new source of local financial self-reliance by establishing a constitutional principle of local governments, and their populations, sharing in the proceeds of national wealth in their areas of jurisdiction. The sharing with the national government can be in the form of shares from revenues, fees and charges levied on the exploitation or development and utilization of natural resources such as mines, hydro-electric and geothermal facilities, timber, including rattan, fisheries, and processing industries based on indigenous raw materials.[64] (Emphasis supplied)
A reading of the deliberations on the 1987 Constitution quoted above reveals that the conjunctive term "utilization and development" was intended to mean more than how it is commonly used and understood. The framers repeatedly used the term "exploit" in explaining the rationale behind Article X, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution. The term "exploit" or "exploitation" is generally defined as "to take advantage of" or to "make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage or profit."[65]

It is significant to note that the term "exploitation" was in fact used in the initial version of the provision in question. However, "exploitation" was replaced with the term "utilization" upon the suggestion of Commissioner Bennagen to merely "temper the unsavory connotation"[66] inherent in the term. Nevertheless, this formal change did not change the framers' intent of confining the application of Article X, Section 7 to cases involving the exploitation of national wealth for profit-generating purposes.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.

MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you, Madam President.

On Section 13, page 3, I propose to change the word "exploitation" to UTILIZATION in order to temper the unsavory connotation of the word "exploitation," which, incidentally, has already been deleted in the other provisions for consistency.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD. I agree with Commissioner Bennagen. As a matter of fact, in the interest of harmonizing the words with the wording of the Article on National Economy and Patrimony, we are already avoiding the word "exploitation" and instead we are using the words "UTILIZATION and development." So, is it all right if we harmonize it that way, Madam President?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

MR. NOLLEDO. The Committee accepts the amendment.

MR. MONSOD. Thank you.

MR. OPLE. I also support the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. What is the word to be used?

MR. BENNAGEN. "UTILIZATION and development" and delete the word "exploitation."

THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, may I ask that the Chairman, Commissioner Nolledo, read the whole of Section 13 before we vote on it.

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, Section 13, as amended, now reads as follows: "Local governments shall be entitled to EQUITABLY share in the proceeds of the UTILIZATION and development of the national wealth within their respective areas IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW, INCLUDING THEIR SHARING WITH THE INHABITANTS BY WAY OF DIRECT BENEFITS TO THEM."

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD. Can we delete the words "TO THEM" in the last sentence of the Section?

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection?

MR. OPLE. I support the amendment, Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized. Is it still on Section 13?

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, Madam President. This is just to transpose the Guingona amendment. Instead of the phrase "to EQUITABLY share in," I propose TO AN EQUITABLE SHARE so that it will harmonize with the just share in the national taxes.

MR. NOLLEDO. I accept the amendment, Madam President.

MR. OPLE. I support the amendment.

MR. SARMIENTO. May I ask the Chairman of the Committee to read the whole of Section 13, as amended, so we can vote on it?

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, Section 13, as amended very recently, now reads as follows: "Local governments shall be entitled TO AN EQUITABLE SHARE in the proceeds of the UTILIZATION and development of the national wealth within their respective areas IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW, INCLUDING THEIR SHARING WITH THE INHABITANTS BY WAY OF DIRECT BENEFITS."

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of this Section 13, as read by the Chairman, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his hand.)

The results show 31 votes in favor and 1 against; the amendment is approved.[67] (Emphasis in the original)
Thus, consistent with the observations of Chief Justice Gesmundo, I find merit in the assertions of MWSS, thus:
[MWSS] is thus not engaged in the "utilization and development of national wealth" but in the operation and maintenance of waterworks and sewerage systems. It is clear that the equitable share referred to in Section 18 of the LGC is the direct result of the development and utilization of a natural resource (in this case, water) within the local government's boundaries or territories.

... Indeed, there is a significant, quantitative difference between "utilization and development of national wealth," on the one hand, and "operation and maintenance of waterworks and sewerage system," on the other. The former contemplates a situation where the government utilizes or exploits the country's resources primarily to generate income or derive profits. The use of the term "national wealth" in Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution suggests that the said provision applies in cases where the utilization of the country's wealth begets more wealth. Since the government profits from such wealth, the framers of the Constitution deemed it fair for the government to share profits with the LGUs where the national wealth is situated.

... In contrast, the government's "operation and maintenance of waterworks and sewerage systems" (through the defendant) is not primarily intended to generate income or derive profits. The primary purpose is to provide a basic necessity - adequate supply of clean water and a sanitary sewerage system. In fact, even if the operation and maintenance of waterworks and sewerage systems do not bring profits to the government, the latter would still have to engage in them, for they are essential to the proper operation of society. As [MWSS'] Charter states, "the proper operation and maintenance of waterworks system to insure an uninterrupted and adequate supply and distribution of potable water for domestic and other purposes and the proper operation and maintenance of sewerage systems are essential public services because they are vital to public health and safety." This is not the activity contemplated by the clause "development and utilization of national wealth" in Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution.[68] (Emphasis supplied)
As aptly explained by Chief Justice Gesmundo, the conjunctive term "utilization and development" under Article X, Section 7 should be properly understood as "exploitation". It follows that the "proceeds" meant to serve as the base for the equitable share granted to the LGUs pertain only to proceeds derived for the purpose of gaining profit, i.e., gains resulting from an excess of returns over expenditures.

The term "proceeds" is more akin to the term "income," which is generally defined as "money that is earned from doing work or received from investments."[69] The nature of "income" as a general term is further highlighted by the qualifiers often used in relation thereto, such as gross and net.

Hence, while I recognize that MWSS receives income in the form of concession fees, this inflow of income does not automatically render the operations of MWSS into an endeavor that is profit-driven. A cursory reading of Section 13 of the MWSS Charter shows that the priorities for which this income is earmarked pertain exclusively to debt servicing, operational costs, and administrative expenses. The provision reads:
SECTION 13. Disposition of Income. - The income of the System shall be dispose[d] of according to the following priorities:

First, to pay its contractual and statutory obligations and to meet its essential current operating expenses;

Second, to serve at least fifty [percent] (50%) of the balance exclusively for the expansion, development and improvement of the System; and

Third, to allocate the residue enhancing the efficient operation and maintenance of the System which include increases of administrative expenses or increases or adjustment of salaries and other benefits of the employees.
As previously discussed, MWSS sources its active income solely from the fees it receives from its concessionaires. In turn, the amount of annual concession fees is determined by the sum of two components-the amount of maturing payments on MWSS' existing loans, which is fixed; and (ii) the amount of its annual budget, which is variable.

A reading of the disclosure report of MWSS on its "Loans and Foreign & Domestic Borrowing Ceiling" as of June 30, 2019[70] shows that its outstanding loans relate exclusively to expansion, optimization, distribution, and rehabilitation projects, namely: (i) Umiray-Angat Transbasih Project; (ii) Angat Water Utilization and Aqueduct Improvement Project Phase II; (iii) Angat Water Transmission Improvement Project; (iv) Angat Water Supply Optimization Project; (v) Manila South Water Distribution Project; (vi) Metro Manila Sewerage and Sanitation Project; (vii) Manila Water Supply Rehabilitation Project II; and (viii) Pasig Rehabilitation Project.[71] Hence, the first component of the concession fees covers the first and second priorities under Section 13 of the MWSS Charter.

On the other hand, the amount of the annual budget, which determines the variable component of the concession fees, is subject to the parameters set in the relevant issuances of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). In fact, in the corporate budget call for fiscal year 2020, DBM Corporate Budget Memorandum No. 41[72] required the total budget of GOCCs to be based on the total cash requirements for (a) ongoing programs, activities, and projects; and (b) new and expanded spending. Verily, the items that make up the annual budget of MWSS correspond to pre-determined expenses identified prior to any given fiscal year. For MWSS, these correspond to the operation, maintenance, and administrative expenses referred to in the third paragraph of Section 13 above.

From the foregoing, it becomes clear that the income which MWSS receives is meant only to sustain its own operations and ensure its continued stability and viability so that it may continue to fulfill its mandate-"[t]he proper operation and maintenance of waterworks system to insure an uninterrupted and adequate supply and distribution of potable water for domestic and other purposes and the proper operation and maintenance of sewerage systems"[73] which are, by law, characterized as essential public services.[74]

At this juncture, it is useful to distinguish between the income which accrues in favor of MWSS in the form of concession fees and that which accrues in favor of the concessionaires in the form of service fees collected directly from the consumers. As explained, the amount of the concession fees paid to MWSS is determined by the amount of its maturing payments and the annual budget necessary for its continued operations.

On the other hand, the service fees paid by the consumers to the concessionaires is determined by the expenses incurred by the latter in the fulfillment of their respective concession agreements and the amount necessary to allow a reasonable rate of return on the concessionaires' respective investments. As stated in the RCAs:
9.4 General Rates Setting Policy/Rate Rebasing Determination

The maximum rates chargeable by the Concessionaire for water and sewage services hereunder applicable to the period through the Second Rate Rebasing Date (subject to interim adjustment's as described in this Article 9) are set out in Schedule 6 to this Agreement.

It is the intention of the parties that, from and after the Second Rate Rebasing Date, the rates for water and sewerage services provided by the Concessionaire shall be set at level that will permit the Concessionaire to recover over the term of the Concession (net of any grants from third parties and any possible Expiration Payment) Expenditures efficiently and prudently incurred and to earn a reasonable rate of return (referred to herein as the "Appropriate Discount Rate").

The Expenditures are those connected with the provision of water and wastewater being provided by the Concessionaire.[75] (Emphasis supplied)
It is clear that the reasonable rate of return that the concessionaires are permitted to recover during the term of their concessions pertains solely to these concessionaires. No part of such return accrues in favor of MWSS.   
 
The grant of Province of Bulacan's claim subverts the State's exclusive authority to regulate the use of surface water.
 

As stated, the water stored in Angat Dam consists of surface water that is owned by the State for the benefit of all its inhabitants. As owner of all surface water, the State, through the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) regulates its use through the grant of water rights, that is, the privilege to appropriate and use water.[76] No person, including government instrumentalities or GOCCs, shall appropriate water without a water right.[77]

The issuance of a water right entitles the grantee to appropriate water, that is, to use, take, or divert water from a natural source in the manner and for any purpose allowed by law.[78] Once the grantee appropriates water pursuant to a water permit, either by the grantee's own acts or through the acts of another pursuant to an agreement approved by the NWRB, such water shall be subject to the control of the grantee "from the moment it reaches the [grantee's] canal or aqueduct leading to the place where the water will be used or stored and, thereafter, so long as it is being beneficially used for the purposes for which it was appropriated."[79]

The water supplied by MWSS to Metro Manila is taken from the total 46 CMS[80] of raw water currently allocated by NWRB in its favor. The grant of the Province of Bulacan's alleged share in the proceeds derived by MWSS from its operations would therefore permit the former to profit from the water allocated by NWRB solely in favor of MWSS-water which the Province of Bulacan has no right to use under the explicit provisions of the Water Code. In my view, to grant the claim of the Province of Bulacan would effectively subvert the State's exclusive right to regulate the use of surface water, violate the exclusive right to the beneficial use of the water allocated in its favor, and render nugatory the prohibition against the appropriation and use of water without water rights.

Final Note

To close, I find it appropriate to stress that "legal issues are raised and decided not in a vacuum but within the context of existing social, economic, and political conditions, law being merely a brick in the up-building of the social edifice."[81] When the issues raised are imbued with public interest, the Court must necessarily resolve the case with the interest of the general public in mind.

On this note, in voting to grant the Petition and holding to dismiss the complaint of the Province of Bulacan, I do not propose that the Court negate the right of LGUs to share in the proceeds derived from the utilization and development of national wealth within their respective areas, as this right is clearly provided under Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution. I merely propose that the Court recognize the explicit limitations that the Constitution itself imposes upon this right.

The language of the Constitution is clear-the right of LGUs to their respective equitable shares arises only when there is utilization and development of national wealth within their respective areas. Thus, for this right to be recognized, the LGU must establish that: (i) the proceeds subject of the equitable share must be derived from national wealth; (ii) the national wealth from which the proceeds are derived must be situated within the territory of the claimant-LGU; and (iii) the proceeds must result from the utilization and development, as contemplated under the Constitution.

As exhaustively discussed, not one of these requisites was established by the Province of Bulacan. Accordingly, the Court is duty-bound to dismiss its claim against MWSS.

Based on these premises, I vote to GRANT the Petition and REVERSE the May 30, 2008 Decision and October 24, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 86701.


[1] Rollo, pp. 12-49.

[2] Id. at 51-68. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Lucenito N. Tagle.

[3] Id. at 69-73. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Amelita G. Tolentino.

[4] Id. at 12.

[5] SECTION 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.

[6] See ponencia, pp. 13-20.

[7] See id. at 21-26.

[8] Rollo, pp. 139-141.

[9] Increased to 50 cubic meters per second (CMS) for September 2023. See MWSS allocation for Sept. raised to 50 cms, September 4, 2023, available at https://www.bworldonline.com/economy/2023/09/04/543511/mwss-allocation-for-sept-raised-to-50-cms/ (last accessed on October 3, 2023).

[10] Presidential Decree No. 1067 (1976), A Decree Instituting a Water Code, Thereby Revising and Consolidating the Laws Governing Ownership, Appropriation, Utilization, Exploitation, Development, Conservation and Protection of Water Resources, otherwise known as "The Water Code of the Philippines" (WATER CODE).

[11] Metro Manila Water Supply System, available at https://mwss.gov.ph/learn/metro-manila-water-supply- system/ (last accessed on October 3, 2023).

[12] Id.

[13] MWSS 2016 Annual Report, p. 10, available at https://mwss.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/MWSS-AR2016-6th-Final.pdf (last accessed on October 3, 2023).

[14] Rollo, pp. 147-174.

[15] See id. at 156-157.

[16] An Act Creating the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System and Dissolving the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority; and for Other Purposes (1971) (MWSS Charter).

[17] "MWCI RCA", available at https://mwss.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/MWCI-THE-REVISED-CONCESSION-AGREEMENT-2021-compressed.pdf (last accessed on October 3, 2023).

[18] "Maynilad RCA", available at https://ro.mwss.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/REVISED-CA-FOR-MAYNILAD-18-MAY-2021.pdf (last accessed on October 3, 2023).

[19] Id. at 7-8.

[20] Revised agreement of water concessionaires to balance consumer protection and viability of investments - DOF, May 16, 2023, available at https://www.dof.gov.ph/revised-agreement-of-water -concessionaires-to-balance-consumer-protection-and-viability-of-investments-dof/ (last accessed on October 3, 2023).

[21] Id.

[22] MWCI and Maynilad RCAs, supra notes 17 and 18, at 17-18.

[23] See MWCI and Maynilad RCAs, sec. 9.4, id. at 27.

[24] See MWCI and Maynilad RCAs, sec. 9.4.1, id.

[25] See MWCI and Maynilad RCAs, sec. 9.4, id.

[26] See MWCI and Maynilad RCAs, sec. 9.4.1, id.

[27] See MWCI and Maynilad RCAs, art. I, id. at 4.

[28] An Act Requiring Government-Owned or -Controlled Corporations to Declare Dividends Under Certain Conditions to the National Government, and for Other Purposes (1993).

[29] See Executive Order No. 167, series of 2003; Executive Order No. 529, series of 2006; Executive Order No. 591, series of 2006; and Executive Order No. 741, series of 2008.

[30] Adjusting the Dividend Rates of Selected Government-Owned and/or Controlled Corporations on Their 2001 Net Earnings Pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7656.

[31] Adjusting the Dividend Rates of Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System on Its 2002, 2003 and 2004 Net Earnings Pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7656.

[32] Adjusting the Dividend Rate of Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System on Its 2005 Net Earnings Pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7656.

[33] Adjusting the Dividend Rate of Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System on Its 2006 Net Earnings Pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7656.

[34] MWSS-Regulatory Office Detailed Statement of Comprehensive Income for the Year Ended December 31, 2022 (Post-Closing), available at https://ro:mwss.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/MWSS-RO-Financial-Statement_December-31-2022-Post-Closing.pdf (last accessed on October 3, 2023).

[35] MWSS 2016 Annual Report, supra note 13, at 18.

[36] Bulacan Bulk Water project agreement inked, available at https://ppp.gov.ph/in_the_news/bulacan-bulk-water-project-agreement-inked/ (last accessed on October 3, 2023).

[37] MWSS 2016 Annual Report, supra note 13, at 18.

[38] The LCWDC Concession Agreement is not available online. Nevertheless, the upfront payment mentioned above is confirmed by Ramon Ang via press release (LCWDC is a consortium formed by San Miguel Corporation and Korea Water Resources Corp.), see Bulacan Bulk Water project agreement inked, supra note 36.

[39] Republic Act No. 7160 (1991), An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991.

[40] Article XII, Section 2 of the Constitution states that "[a]ll lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State."

[41] III Record, Constitutional Commission 178 (August 11, 1986).

[42] Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, art. 386(b).

[43] See Comment filed by the Province of Bulacan, rollo, pp. 154-155.

[44] 696 Phil. 486 (2012) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., En Banc].

[45] Id. at 502.

[46] Id. at 506.

[47] Id. at 540-546.

[48] V Record, Constitutional Commission 903 (October 12, 1986).

[49] III Record, Constitutional Commission 178 (August 11, 1986).

[50] See WATER CODE, art. 5(d).

[51] See Comment filed by the Province of Bulacan, rollo, pp. 156-157.

[52] Rollo, pp 139-140.

[53] Id. at 140. See also id. at 157, as quoted by the Province of Bulacan in its Comment.

[54] MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, "watershed," available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/watershed (last accessed on October 3, 2023).

[55] 803 Phil. 742 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].

[56] Id. at 747-750.

[57] See REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 132, sec. 23.

[58] See Comment file by the Province of Bulacan, rollo, pp. 152-154.

[59] RTC Order dated January 31, 2006, id. at 80-90.

[60] Id. at 89-90.

[61] See Arjonillo v. Pagulayan, 819 Phil. 256, 265 (2017) [Per J. Martires, Third Division].

[62] See MWSS Charter, sec. 1.

[63] 844 Phil. 453 (2018) [Per J. Tijam, En Banc].

[64] Id. at 511-512.

[65] WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (1976 ed.).

[66] III Record, Constitutional Commission 484 (August 19, 1986).

[67] Id. at 484-485.

[68] See Petition, rollo, pp. 38-39.

[69] CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY, "income", available at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/income (last accessed on October 3, 2023).

[70] Available at https://mwss.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/BORROWINGS-062019.pdf (last accessed on October 3, 2023).

[71] Id.

[72] Dated March 5, 2019.

[73] See MWSS Charter, sec. 1.

[74] Id.

[75] MWCI and Maynilad RCAs, supra notes 17 and 18, at 26-27.

[76] See WATER CODE, art. 13.

[77] Id.

[78] See WATER CODE, art. 9.

[79] WATER CODE, art. 8.

[80] Consisting of 31 CMS directly allocated to MWSS, and 15 CMS conditionally re-allocated to MWSS from NIA. See MWSS, NIA team up to aid gov't infra projects, December 24, 2018, citing NWRB Resolution No. 03-0188, available at https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1057406 (last accessed on October 3, 2023).

[81] See Philippine National Bank v. Office of the President, 322 Phil. 6, 20 (1996) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
 


CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

The ponencia granted the Petition, dismissing the complaint for specific performance/payment of national wealth share filed by respondent Government of Bulacan (respondent local government unit [LGU]) against petitioner Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) for the latter's alleged utilization and development of national wealth within its area, specifically, water from the Angat Dam which sources most of its reserve from respondent LGU.

To settle the issue, the ponencia laid down the following requisites before an LGU may demand its share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of national wealth within its territorial jurisdiction pursuant to Section 7, Article X of the 1987 Constitution:[1] first, there must exist a national wealth forming part of a natural resource; second, the national wealth must be located within the LGU's territory; and third, the proceeds must have been generated from the utilization and development of national wealth. Prescinding from these standards, it then ordained that the first and third requisites are wanting since dam water is already considered appropriated water, having been diverted from its natural source; and MWSS is not engaged in the utilization and development of national wealth as it does not operate for profit but performs regulatory functions to ensure the delivery of public services in Metro Manila.

In sum, the ponencia ordained that water as a natural resource is national wealth. Consequently, when water is utilized and developed directly from a natural source, the concerned government entity must abide by the constitutional requirement to give the concerned LGU its equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of national wealth. Here, however, since the ponencia classified dam water as appropriated water, it was held that the same is no longer a natural resource that is subject to national wealth tax. Appropriate tax ought to be determined and imposed upon the extraction of water from a natural resource and accordingly, prior to impounding and appropriation of the water.[2]

I fully agree to grant the Petition, albeit, on a different, simpler, and more rudimentary ground. The complaint for specific performance must be dismissed simply because it lacks a cause of action. For MWSS is not the entity liable to pay the national wealth tax to respondent LGU.

It is elementary that every ordinary civil action, such as a complaint for specific performance, must be based on a cause of action,[3] which requires the following elements: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff.[4]

There is no question as regards the existence of the first element for respondent LGU has the right to share in the proceeds pertinent to the utilization and development of national wealth within its area. This is clearly enshrined under Section 7, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and Sections 289,[5] 290[6] and 291[7] of the Local Government Code (LGC).

I thus focus on the second and third elements.

It is clear from the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution and the LGC that the obligation to pay national wealth share rests with the entity which utilized and developed the national wealth found within respondent LGU's territory, i.e., the waters from the Angat River which were subsequently diverted and stored in the Angat Dam.

On this score, I agree that "utilization and development" of the subject waters stems from "appropriation" thereof, which requires the issuance of the necessary water permit by the National Water Resources Board (NWRB). As defined under the Water Code of the Philippines,[8] "appropriation of water" is the "acquisition of rights over the use of waters or the taking or diverting of waters from a natural source in the manner and for any purpose allowed by law."[9] It has been established, however, that MWSS is not the entity which controls the diversion of waters from their respective natural sources to the Angat Dam.

Quite clearly, in IDEALS, Inc., et al v. PSALM, et al.,[10] we already identified the National Power Corporation (NPC) as the appropriator of the waters that are subsequently impounded in the Angat Dam, viz.:
Under the Water Code concept of appropriation, a foreign company may not be said to be "appropriating" our natural resources if it utilizes the waters collected in the dam and converts the same into electricity through artificial devices. Since the NPC remains in control of the operation of the dam by virtue of the water rights granted to it, as determined under DOJ Opinion No. 122, s. 1998, there is no legal impediment to foreign -owned companies undertaking the generation of electric power using waters already appropriated by NPC, the holder of water permit. x x x (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted).
Consequently, it is NPC, not MWSS, which respondent LGU ought to have impleaded as the defendant in its complaint. As it stands, therefore, the Court may already grant the Petition on this score alone. Whether dam water is identified as national wealth or otherwise, the fact that respondent LGU has no cause of action against MWSS remains.

On the merits, however, I respectfully voice my dissent. For I am of the humble view that water does not cease to be part of the national wealth just because it is removed from its natural source. This interpretation, I believe, is more consistent with the intention of no ordinary provision of law but of an important and innovative aspect of the highest law of the land, the Constitution.

I elucidate.

First. The interpretation of the ponencia that for a water resource to be considered as national wealth, it is and must remain part of its natural source finds no basis in law. Allow me quote the relevant portions of the ponencia which demonstrated this inference, thus:[11]
That national wealth refers to "natural resources" is echoed in Article 386(b) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the LGC as follows:
Article 386(b) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7160 provides:

Article 386. Share in the Proceeds from the Development and Utilization of the National Wealth. -

x x x

(b) The term national wealth shall mean all natural resources situated within the Philippine territorial jurisdiction including lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, mineral oils, potential energy forces, gas and oil deposits, forest products, wildlife, flora and fauna, fishery and aquatic resources, and all quarry products.
There is therefore no question that water, being a natural resource, is national wealth. However, water is deemed "appropriated water" when taken or diverted from a natural resource. As explicitly provided under the Water Code of the Philippines, as amended (Water Code), appropriation of water is the "acquisition of rights over the use of waters or the taking or diverting of waters from [natural resources]." These natural resources are enumerated in Articles 5 and 6 of the Water Code: x x x (Emphases supplied)
Foremost, the quoted Article 386(b) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the LGC, on which the ponencia anchored its interpretation, merely identified waters as natural resources. On this score, I agree with the initial inference of the ponencia that based on this legal provision, to be considered national wealth, the subject matter must exist in a natural source. Nowhere, however, did Article 386(b) qualify that the same, to be considered as such, must remain in its natural source.


To be sure, "to exist" in a natural source, is obviously different and non sequitur to "remaining part" of an organic source. For one could have existed at a certain place but ceases to remain there, yet, retains its original nature until transformed.

Neither do I subscribe to the inference that followed which prescinded from the definition of "appropriation" under the Water Code. As established under the earlier discussion, "appropriation" more properly refers to the "utilization and development" of national wealth rather than identifying what comprises national wealth. It simply meant to say that water is appropriated once it is diverted from where it is naturally found, but did not, in any categorical manner, state that once it is diverted, it is no longer a natural resource.

Second. We need not go further to define what is meant by national wealth under the Constitution to aid us in determining whether dam water can be classified as such. For it is quite apparent from the Constitutional Commission's deliberations, which the ponencia itself quoted, that "remaining part" of the natural source is not a qualification to being a natural resource. Consider:
MR. OPLE: x x x

In association with Commissioner Davide, I propose the amendment which reads as follows: "Local governments shall be entitled to share in the proceeds of the exploitation and development of the national wealth within their respective areas x x x In view of the significance of this new section, may I ask the Committee's leave to give a brief explanation, Madam President.

x x x

In the hinterland regions of the Philippines, most municipalities receive an annual income of only about P200,000 so that after paying the salaries of local officials and employees, nothing is left to fund any local development project. This is a prescription for a self-perpetuating stagnation and backwardness, and numbing community frustrations, as well as a chronic disillusionment with the central government. The thrust towards local autonomy in this entire Article on Local Governments may suffer the fate of earlier heroic efforts of decentralization which, without innovative features for local income generation, remained a pious hope and a source of discontent. To prevent this, this amendment which Commissioner Davide and I jointly propose will open up a whole new source of local financial self-reliance by establishing a constitutional principle of local governments, and their populations, sharing in the proceeds of national wealth in their areas of jurisdiction. The sharing with the national government can be in the form of shares from revenues, fees and charges levied on the exploitation or development and utilization of natural resources such as mines, hydroelectric and geothermal facilities, timber, including rattan, fisheries, and processing industries based on indigenous raw materials. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Note that the Constitutional Commission, and the proponent of the subject Constitutional provision himself, cited hydroelectric facilities as an example of exploitation or development and utilization of natural resources. This mention of hydroelectric facilities is most telling. For hydroelectric facilities typically use waters impounded in dams or other diversion facilities to generate hydroelectric power. Clearly, dam water, albeit removed from its original and natural source, does not necessarily cease to be a natural resource.
 
Third. The reliance on IDEALS, Inc., et al v. PSALM, et al[12] to justify their non-classification of dam water as natural resource is tragically misplaced. To recall, one of the bone of contention in IDEALS is whether the transfer of ownership and operations of the Angat Hydroelectric Power Plant (AHEPP) to Korea Water Resources Corporation (K-Water), a foreign company, violates the Constitution insofar as it allegedly allows said non- Filipino entity to utilize our natural resources, including the waters in Angat Dam to operate the power plant.

The Court ruled in the negative. More than the nature of dam water as its basis, the Court anchored its ruling especially on the fact that while K -Water shall operate the hydroelectric power plant, control of the Angat Dam and the flow of the waters therein into the tunnels of the power plant remains with the NPC, a government-owned and controlled corporation, viz.:
Opinion No. 122, s. 1988

It is also significant to note that NPC, a government-owned and controlled corporation, has the effective control over all elements of the extraction process, including the amount and timing thereof considering that x xx the water will flow out of the power tunnel and through the power plant, to be used for the generation of electricity, only when the Downstream Gates are opened, which occur only upon the specific water release instructions given by NPC to SRPC. This specific feature of the agreement, taken together with the above-stated analysis of the source of water that enters the plant, support the view that the nationality requirement embodied in Article XII, Section 2 of the present Constitution and in Article 15 of the Water Code, is not violated.

x x x

Since the NPC remains in control of the operation of the dam by virtue of water rights granted to it, as determined under DOJ Opinion No. 122, s. 1998, there is no legal. impediment to foreign-owned companies undertaking the generation of electric power using waters already appropriated by NPC, the holder of water permit. Such was the situation of hydropower' projects under the BOT contractual arrangements whereby foreign investors are allowed to finance or undertake construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure projects and/or own arid operate the facility constructed. However, in case the facility requires a public utility franchise, the facility operator must be a Filipino corporation or at least 60% owned by Filipino. (Emphasis supplied)
If, as the ponencia posits, dam water is not a natural resource, there would have been no issue whether K-Water or NPC controls the Angat Dam. For a foreign corporation could have freely maintained the same if the impounded waters therein did not constitute national wealth as the same would not run counter to the Constitution.

Fourth. The quandary at hand is clearly caused by the silence of the law as to the exact nature of dam water vis- -vis national wealth. I humbly maintain, however, that whenever the law is silent, obscure, or ambiguous, the same must be interpreted, first, in a manner consistent with the intent of the lawmakers; and second, with sound practicality as to render the same fully operational.

With due respect, the interpretation endorsed by the ponencia runs counter to these two precepts: first, as discussed, the framers of the Constitution considered the generation of electricity by hydroelectric powerplants using waters, such as dam waters, as utilization and development of national wealth; and second, declaring that waters cease to be natural resources once removed from their natural source means that there will never be an occasion when water, as a natural resource, may be utilized and developed.

I expound on the second point.

The ponencia itself admitted that appropriation of waters is a primordial requirement in concluding that there is utilization and development of national wealth. In other words, water may only be used and developed if it is first appropriated. This is but natural. For how can anyone make use of water if they do not first seize it from the rivers, lakes, or ocean? Yet, if we follow the reasoning of the ponencia, any use and development of such appropriated water will always merely amount to utilization and development of water, as an object of commerce, but never as a natural resource. Consequently, there will never be any occasion when LGUs may be entitled to their national wealth share pursuant to such activity.

It bears stress that this innovative feature of the Constitution was introduced to fortify the LGUs' self-sustainability and grant them additional means to fund the development of their respective communities. To thus construe water as natural resource in the manner proposed by the ponencia would reduce the ingenious thrust of Section 7, Article X of the 1987 Constitution to a mere lip service to the Filipino people.

Lastly. Classifying dam water as natural resource is within the best interest of the public and in keeping with the mandate of the Constitution to conserve and develop our patrimony for the benefit of the Filipino people.

We cannot lose sight of the big picture here. When we speak of dam water in this case, we do not refer to a negligible man-made structure in the province of Bulacan. We speak of the Angat Dam on which the very heart and capital of our country depends. The significance of the Angat Dam cannot be overemphasized. Without its waters, the entire population of Metro Manila would be crippled as it would be drained, so to speak, of its primary source of water supply. Our agriculture would be imperiled without the irrigation water sourced therefrom while the supply of electricity produced by the AHEPP would fluctuate. It is all but clear that the waters in Angat Dam, if not natural resource, are, at the very least, imbued with the highest of public interest.

Verily, to declare the same as fair object of commerce would open the floodgates to future possible appropriation and exploitation by foreign entities of the same. Not only is this detrimental to the security of significant public utilities, it creates an absurd situation where Filipino entities divert the waters from their natural sources yet it is the foreign entities which may ultimately own, exploit, and develop the same without guarantee that beneficial use would pertain to the Filipino public.

Finally, I reiterate my view that for an act to be considered utilization and development of national wealth, it is not required that proceeds must be subsequently derived. There is simply no law which narrowly restricts the definition of utilization and development of national wealth or natural resource to the extraction of a valuable by-product or the presence of a commercial undertaking and the production of income. It is a dangerous precedent to introduce one now when the case records are scant of discussions on this matter and when the implication of this not-thoroughly-sorted-out definition is far and deep reaching. There is that obvious constitutional implication because activities not covered by the narrow definition could very well skirt the nationality requirement.

At this point, I sincerely believe it is unnecessary to delve into any kind of definition of utilization and development of national wealth and natural resource. For the present case may already be dismissed for lack of cause of action, as I have discussed.

ALL TOLD, I express my concurrence in the result, i.e., to dismiss the Complaint, but for a different ground - lack of cause of action. In the alternative, I respectfully reiterate my dissent to the ratio and vote to consider dam water in the Angat Dam as natural resource, regardless of its diversion from its natural source.


[1] Section 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.

[2] Ponencia, p. 26.

[3] Section 1, Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of Court.

[4] China Banking Corporation v. CA, 499 Phil. 770 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].

[5] SECTION 289. Share in the Proceeds from the Development and Utilization of the National Wealth. - Local government units shall have an equitable share in the proceeds derived from the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.

[6] SECTION 290. Amount of Share of Local Government Units. - Local government units shall, in addition to the internal revenue allotment, have a share of forty percent (40%) of the gross collection derived by the national government from the preceding fiscal year from mining taxes, royalties, forestry and fishery charges and such other taxes, fees or charges, including related surcharges, interests, or fines, and from its share in any co-production, joint venture or production sharing agreement in the utilization and development of the national wealth within their territorial jurisdiction.

[7] SECTION 291. Share of the Local Governments from any Government Agency or Government-Owned or Controlled Corporation. - Local government units shall have a share based on the preceding fiscal year for the proceeds derived by any government agency or government-owned or -controlled corporation engaged in the utilization and development of the national wealth based on the following formula whichever will produce a higher share for the local government unit:
(a) One percent (1%) of the gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year; or
(b) Forty percent (40%) of the mining taxes, royalties, forestry and fishery charges and such other taxes, fees or charges, including related surcharges, interests, or fines the government agency or government-owned or -controlled corporation would have paid if it were not otherwise exempt.
[8] Presidential Decree No. 1067, Series of 1976.

[9] Article 9, Water Code of the Philippines.

[10] 696 Phil. 486, 546 (2012) [Per J. Villarama, En Banc].

[11] Id.

[12] Supra note 10.


↑