Torrecampo vs. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System

The choice of route for a government road extension project is a question of Executive policy that falls outside the scope of judicial review, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Executive branch.

Barangay Captain Beda Torrecampo of Barangay Matandang Balara, Quezon City, filed suit in his capacity as taxpayer and on behalf of his barangay constituents and eight million Metro Manila residents against the MWSS (and its Administrator, Diosdado Jose Allado) and the DPWH (and its Secretary, Hermogenes Ebdane). The MWSS, under its charter (Republic Act No. 6234), owns and has jurisdiction over waterworks and sewerage systems within the expanding Metro Manila area, and had installed three sub-terrain aqueducts connecting raw water from the La Mesa Dam to the Balara Filtration Plant. The C-5 Road Extension Project, intended to connect the South Luzon Expressway (SLEX) to the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX), had two proposed alignments: one traversing MWSS-owned lots along Tandang Sora (the DPWH alignment), and another traversing the RIPADA area within the University of the Philippines campus (the MMDA alignment, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 1395). Republic Act No. 8975 prohibits lower courts from issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against government infrastructure projects, with an exception allowing the Supreme Court to issue such orders.

On June 30, 2009, personnel and heavy equipment from the DPWH entered a portion of Barangay Matandang Balara, Quezon City, to implement the C-5 Road Extension Project over Lot Nos. 42-A-4, 42-A-6, and 42-B-2-A, all owned by the MWSS. The C-5 Road Extension Project is intended to connect the South Luzon Expressway (SLEX) to the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX). Torrecampo alleged that if the project proceeded over the MWSS lots, three sub-terrain aqueducts supplying water to eight million Metro Manila residents would be put at great risk. He insisted that the RIPADA area — consisting of Pook Ricarte, Pook Polaris, and Pook Dagohoy in Barangay UP, Diliman, Quezon City — was a better alternative.

Torrecampo filed the petition on July 1, 2009, the day after the DPWH's entry. The Supreme Court issued a status quo order effective the same day and set the urgent application for ex parte TRO and writ of preliminary injunction for hearing on July 6, 2009. During the hearing, counsel for MWSS explained that the DPWH's entry was solely for the purpose of conducting studies — including test pitting and geothermal profiling — to determine the condition and location of the aqueducts and the requirements to protect them. No road construction design had yet been submitted to or approved by the MWSS. Counsel for DPWH clarified that the project would not be undertaken pending completion of studies and tests on safety concerns.

The MWSS's involvement with the C-5 Road Extension Project had a longer history. Presidential Proclamation No. 1395, issued on September 25, 2007, had reserved certain parcels in the RIPADA area for the C-5 Road Extension Project alignment and for housing facilities for affected families, and directed the MMDA to coordinate with the DPWH. At the time of the proclamation, the MWSS had no participation. On December 3, 2007, MMDA Chairperson Bayani Fernando proposed to MWSS Administrator Lorenzo Jamora the utilization of certain MWSS properties for constructing Medium Rise Buildings for families displaced by the project. The MWSS Board of Trustees, in Resolution No. 2008-120 dated June 19, 2008, refused to accede to the segregation of MWSS lots for the housing program, citing that three main aqueducts ran underneath the subject areas and that the integrity of the pipes would be compromised by heavy loadings. On March 12, 2009, the MWSS Board issued Resolution No. 2009-052, allowing the DPWH to use the 60-meter right-of-way for preliminary studies, subject to prior review by MWSS management of the road construction design and an OGCC opinion approving the use of the right-of-way. The DPWH entered the MWSS properties on June 30, 2009 to conduct the necessary studies.

During oral arguments, Torrecampo's counsel acknowledged that it was possible the DPWH had made plans for remedial measures to protect the aqueducts, and that he had not approached the President to request that the DPWH Secretary redirect the project to the RIPADA area. The MWSS, through the OGCC, clarified that its objections in Administrator Allado's June 20, 2008 letter pertained to the proposed construction of medium-rise buildings on top of the aqueducts — not to any road extension project — and that the MWSS could not yet object to or concur with any road project since no comprehensive study had been submitted for its approval.

• Legal Standing: Torrecampo maintained that he had legal standing to file the suit as a taxpayer and on behalf of his barangay constituents and eight million Metro Manila residents.
• Jurisdiction under R.A. 8975: Petitioner argued that only the Supreme Court may issue a restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction against government projects, according to the exception in Section 3 of R.A. 8975.
• Prematurity: Petitioner contended that the present suit was not premature.
• Violation of R.A. 8975: Petitioner argued that the implementation of the C-5 Road Extension Project violated and defeated the purpose of R.A. 8975 unless enjoined.
• Constitutional Rights: Petitioner alleged that the MWSS and DPWH would violate Section 16, Article II and Section 6, Article XII of the Constitution if they proceeded with the project using MWSS properties instead of the RIPADA area, asserting that the right of eight million Metro Manila residents to clean and potable water was put at risk.

• Justiciability (MWSS): Respondent MWSS argued that the petition did not present a justiciable matter requiring the exercise of judicial review, and that there was as yet no road expansion project to be implemented since no study had been submitted to or approved by the MWSS.
• Entitlement to Injunction (MWSS): MWSS contended that the petition failed to allege Torrecampo's right that warrants the issuance of an injunction under R.A. 8975.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (MWSS): MWSS argued that Torrecampo failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Hierarchy of Courts (DPWH): Respondent DPWH argued that Torrecampo violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, as the petition should have been filed with the Regional Trial Court.
• No MWSS Objection to Road Project (DPWH): DPWH maintained that the MWSS did not object to the proposed project on the ground that it would destroy the aqueducts; the MWSS's objections were confined to the proposed construction of medium-rise buildings on top of the aqueducts.
• No Project in RIPADA Area (DPWH): DPWH argued that there was no credible proof that the project was implemented in the RIPADA area, and that the alignment in the RIPADA area was more difficult to undertake compared to the DPWH alignment.
• Invalid Class Suit (DPWH): DPWH contended that the petition could not be a valid class suit because Torrecampo failed to show proof that he represented the interest of eight million residents of Metro Manila.
• Invalid Taxpayer's Suit (DPWH): DPWH argued that the petition was not a valid taxpayer's suit as there was yet no project to speak of.
• Executive Expertise (DPWH): DPWH maintained that its determination of the location of the project in accordance with its specialized skills and technical expertise should be accorded finality and respect.
• No Cause of Action (DPWH): DPWH argued that Torrecampo had no cause of action.

• Judicial Review of Executive Policy: Whether the Court may review and enjoin the choice of route for the C-5 Road Extension Project, which is a question of Executive policy.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction warranting the exercise of the Court's extraordinary certiorari power.

• Judicial Review of Executive Policy: No. The determination of where, as between two possible routes, to construct a road extension is a matter within the wisdom of the Executive branch, not the province of the Court.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The DPWH had not yet completed its engineering study, and the MWSS had not yet approved any road construction design; absent such study and decision, no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to respondents.

• Judicial Review of Executive Policy: Torrecampo sought judicial review of a question of Executive policy, using the Constitution as a thin veil for his arguments. The issues he raised — whether the Tandang Sora area is a better alternative to the RIPADA area for the C-5 Road Extension Project — are dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. Under the definition of judicial power in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, an inquiry into such issues would delve into matters exclusively within the wisdom of the Executive branch. During oral arguments, Torrecampo's own counsel conceded that it was not the province of the Court to direct the DPWH to construct the road in one area rather than another, and that such a duty belonged to the President. The determination of which route to use for a road extension obviously belongs to the Executive branch, not the judiciary.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The DPWH still had to conduct the proper study to determine whether a road could be safely constructed on land beneath which the aqueducts run. Without such a study, the MWSS — which owns the land — could not decide whether to allow the DPWH to construct the road. The MWSS Board's Resolution No. 2009-052 allowed the DPWH to use the right-of-way for preliminary studies only, subject to two conditions precedent: (1) prior review by MWSS management of the road construction design, and (2) an OGCC opinion approving the use of the right-of-way. Neither condition had been complied with because no road construction design had been prepared or submitted. The MWSS's objections, as clarified during oral arguments, pertained to the proposed construction of medium-rise buildings on top of the aqueducts, not to any road extension project. It would be erroneous to assume that any road above the aqueducts would necessarily impair their integrity, since portions of the aqueducts already run under Commonwealth Avenue, Luzon Avenue, and Tandang Sora and remain intact. Absent a DPWH study and an MWSS decision, no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction could be alleged against respondents.

• Political Question Doctrine — A question of policy, as distinguished from a question of legality, is a political question that is not subject to judicial review. The term "political question" connotes a question of policy — one that is to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. In this case, the choice between two road alignment routes for a government infrastructure project was held to be a question of Executive policy outside the Court's jurisdiction. The Court relied on Tañada and Macapagal vs. Cuenco for this formulation.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion as Standard for Judicial Review of Executive Action — Under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, judicial power includes the duty to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. In this case, because the DPWH had not yet completed its engineering study and the MWSS had not yet approved any road construction design, no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to respondents, and the exercise of the Court's extraordinary certiorari power was unwarranted.

• "The determination of where, as between two possible routes, to construct a road extension is obviously not within the province of this Court. Such determination belongs to the Executive branch." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Executive on matters of infrastructure policy.

• "Without such study, the MWSS, which owns the land, cannot decide whether to allow the DPWH to construct the road. Absent such DPWH study and MWSS decision, no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction can be alleged against or attributed to respondents warranting the exercise of this Court's extraordinary certiorari power." — This passage defines the factual predicate for the absence of grave abuse of discretion and explains why the petition was dismissed.

• "Torrecampo seeks judicial review of a question of Executive policy, and quotes the Constitution as a thin veil for his weak arguments." — This passage frames the essential character of the petition and signals the Court's refusal to entertain policy questions dressed in constitutional language.

• Tañada and Macapagal vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957) — Cited for the definition of "political question" as a question of policy dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the choice of road alignment route is a political question outside judicial review.

• Section 1, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Defines judicial power as including the duty to settle actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights, and to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court applied this provision to conclude that no grave abuse of discretion was shown.
• Section 16, Article II, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the State shall protect the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. Petitioner invoked this provision, but the Court held the issues raised were matters of Executive policy, not justiciable questions.
• Section 6, Article XII, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the use of property bears a social function and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good. Petitioner invoked this provision, but the Court found it did not render the dispute justiciable.
• Section 3, Republic Act No. 8975 — Prohibits lower courts from issuing TROs, preliminary injunctions, or preliminary mandatory injunctions against government infrastructure projects, with an exception for the Supreme Court. Petitioner invoked this provision to justify filing directly with the Supreme Court.
• Republic Act No. 6234 (MWSS Charter) — Grants the MWSS ownership and jurisdiction, supervision, and control over all waterworks and sewerage systems within the development path of the expanding Metro Manila area. The Court noted this provision as the statutory basis for MWSS's ownership of the subject lots and its authority over the aqueducts.
• Presidential Proclamation No. 1395 — Issued September 25, 2007, reserving certain parcels of land in the RIPADA area for the C-5 Road Extension Project alignment and for housing facilities, and directing the MMDA to coordinate with the DPWH. The Court examined this proclamation to distinguish the MMDA-aligned project from the DPWH-aligned project over MWSS properties.

Nachura, A.E.B.; Peralta, D.M.; Abad, R.A.; Mendoza, J.C. — All concurred in the decision. No separate concurring opinions were noted.