Where’s Yu’s delicadeza?
Who paid for the ad? Did he personally pay for it or he used MCWD money to pay for the ad? Was he representing the other four members of the board?
B“aga’g nawong.” (Thick-faced.) This is how I described Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) chairman of the board Joel Mari Yu, who said he (and the other board members) won’t step down from their posts despite being terminated by Cebu City Mayor Edgardo Labella for “cause.”
In his reply to the “notice of termination” issued by the mayor on Oct. 15, 2019, Yu described Labella’s order as illegal and invalid.
He said “it is with deepest regret that the MCWD board of directors, with full support from the entire MCWD as an organization, cannot imprudently accede or comply to the same.”
Yu’s claim is that the order “is in direct contravention of no less than the Philippine Constitution, Presidential Decree No. 198, existing relevant circulars and issuances, including jurisprudential guidelines.”
However, he added: “Despite the illegal order, MCWD remains steadfast in performing its mandate given all the fortuitous circumstances that hinder it from doing its job. It shall continue to cooperate with the local government units within its service area to find ways and solutions to serve the people.”
Okay, first things first. I have just simple questions to Mr. Yu. His letter was published in the local papers, especially SunStar Cebu.
Who paid for the ad? Did he personally pay for it or he used MCWD money to pay for the ad? Was he representing the other four members of the board?
Why did only the signature of MCWD general manager Jose Eugenio Singson Jr. appear in the letter? Why did he not let the other board members: Agustus Pe Jr., Ralph Sevilla, Procopio Fernandez and Cecille Adlawan sign the letter?
I don’t know if Yu was the one who personally drafted the letter or he requested a lawyer to draft it. If it was a lawyer who drafted it, the writer missed his legal argument.
“Contravention to the Philippines Constitution; Presidential Decree No. 198, existing relevant circulars and issuances including jurisprudential guidelines.” For me, these are generic statements that even lawyers cannot understand, much more for non-lawyers like me.
Yu or whoever drafted it should have cited specific provisions of the Constitution, the specific section of PD 198 or the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973 and any circular and issuance and particularly a Supreme Court ruling that forms part of jurisprudence, if there is any, to back up his claim.
So any lawyer for that matter or even non-lawyers can easily research on his legal arguments and possibly agree with his claims.
Labella, who is a lawyer, cited a very specific provision of PD No. 198 which gives him the power to appoint and at the same time to remove or discipline, when he ordered the termination of the board’s services.
He cited section 11 of PD 198 as amended which states, “Directors may be removed for cause only.” And the cause was the dissatisfaction of the water firm’s customers.
Yu should have countered Labella’s order by presenting another provision of PD 198 defending their positions instead of by just generally claiming that Labella’s order was illegal and invalid.
Besides, Labella’s move had prior clearance and was supported by Jeci Lapus, administrator of the Local Water Utilities Administration which has jurisdiction of all water utilities.
No due process? Before Labella issued the termination, he already sent communication to the board expressing his dismay over the water utility’s poor service.
He warned them that unless they acted on the water shortage, he would remove them from office.
Wasn’t Labella’s letter similar to giving them “due process?”
This is just an administrative matter and there is no need for Labella to go to court to prove his accusation “beyond reasonable doubt.”
It is his discretion, considering that he is also the appointing authority.
Under the law, the mayor of the local government unit that has majority of the water firm’s clientele is the appointing authority of the board of directors. In the case of MCWD, it is the mayor of Cebu City.
Aside from Labella, other local chief executives and their respective councils, whose local government units are under the service areas of MCWD, also castigated the MCWD board.
Most of these politicians also called for the MCWD board’s resignation. Are these not enough messages for Yu and the others, especially those appointed by “has-been” mayor Tomas Osmeña, to pack up?
If Yu wants to question Labella’s order, then he should go to court and ask for an injunction. It’s only the court that can interpret if the termination order was illegal and invalid.
But, in the meantime, if he has delicadeza, he should accede to the order. Kung magpa-ugat siya diha, baga na gyud siyag nawong.
Cebu City’s current crown jewel is the SRP and investments are bound to pour there under a new administration. I just hope that the City would be forward-looking and consider traffic as an important aspect in efforts to develop the SRP.