CA boosts Ormoc's protest against water extraction by LMC

by Felix N. Codilla III

THE Court of Appeals (CA) 19^th Division annulled the order of the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) to deny the opposition of the local government unit (LGU) of Ormoc on the Water Permit Application (WPA) of Lide Management Corp. (LMC) on technical grounds.

In a 14-page order decision handed down on Dec. 15 and signed by Chairperson Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, and concurred by Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Socorro B. Inting, the CA lambasted the NWRB for abusing its discretion “in blindly adhering to technical rules of procedure by dismissing outright said petition (of the LGU).”

The case began when LMC filed WPA Nos. 38108-38111 on Jul. 3, 2003. The application seeks to draw an additional 262 liters per second (lps) of water from Ormoc on top of the 254 lps it already extracts or a total of 516 lps. As the administrator of Leyte Industrial Development Estate (Lide), LMC supplies water to the industrial locators of Lide in Isabel town 47 kms. away.

The Ormoc LGU opposed the WPA based on environmental concerns through Resolution No. 2003-111 which the 9^th Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP). However, the NWRB took more than a year to answer the SP resolution and advised Mayor Eric C. Codilla to file a formal complaint.

The LGU sought three extensions of time to file the complaint. It also requested for copies of WPA Nos. 38018-38111 along with supporting documents so it could prepare an intelligent complaint. But instead of granting the LGU’s request for copies of the WPA, the NWRB issued an order on June 6, 2005 denying the opposition.

The NWRB cited sec. 9 of the Water Code’s Implementing Rules and Regulations which grants 60 days to a protestant of a WPA to file the protest. “Worthy to note is the fact that two years had elapsed since the filing thereof and no formal opposition was filed on the subject applications,” the order read.

The LGU filed a motion for reconsideration which the NWRB denied on Oct. 10, 2005 saying the LGU did not present new. The case consequently reached the CA. According to the CA, the NWRB erred in saying that the LGU did not file a timely protest, considering it disregarded Resolution No. 2003-111 of the 9^th SP.

It further criticized NWRB for ignoring the LGU’s request for a copy of the WPA with supporting documents and for that, the “petitioner was denied its fundamental right to due process.” The CA also enjoined NWRB from issuing WPA nos. 38108-38111.

(West Leyte Weekly Express, Jan. 10-16, 2011)