bayan muna petition vs. purisima on water rate hike

92
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila NERI COLMENARES and CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, Representatives of BAYAN MUNA PARTYLIST Petitioners, - versus - G.R. No. ____________ For: CERTIORARI and PROHIBITION under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. CESAR V. PURISIMA, in his capacity as the Secretary of Finance, METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS), GERARDO A.I. ESQUIVEL, in his capacity as the Administrator and Acting Chairman of the MWSS, JOEL YU, in his capacity as the Chief Regulator of the MWSS Regulatory Office (MWSS- RO), MANILA WATER COMPANY, 1 | Page

Upload: tonyo-cruz

Post on 18-Aug-2015

32 views

Category:

Documents


4 download

DESCRIPTION

Full text of the Supreme Court case filed by Bayan Muna Reps. Neri Colmenares and Carlos Isagani Zarate seeking a TRO, certiorari and prohibition against a water rate hike and "sovereign guarantees" by Finance Sec. Cesar Purisima, Manila Water, Maynilad and MWSS.

TRANSCRIPT

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaNERI COLMENARES andCARLOS ISAGANI ZARATERep!esentati"es of #A$ANMUNAPART$LIST Petitioners, - versus -G%R% No% &&&&&&&&&&&&'o!: CERTIORARI andPROHIBITIONunder Rule65 of the Rules of Courtwth a!!l"aton for aTe#!orar$ Restrann%Order and&or 'rt ofPrel#nar$ In(un"ton)CESAR (% PURISIMA in his capacit)as the Sec!eta!) of 'inanceMETROPOLITAN *ATER*OR+SAN, SE*ERAGE S$STEM-M*SS. GERAR,O A%I%ES/UI(EL in his capacit) as theAd0inist!ato!andActin1Chai!0anof the M*SS 2OEL $U in hiscapacit) as the Chief Re1ulato! of theM*SS Re1ulato!) Office -M*SS3RO. MANILA *ATERCOMPAN$INC% -M*CI. and MA$NILA,*ATERSER(ICES INC% -M*SI.andPRES%#ENIGNOSIMEONC%A/UINO III P!esident of theRepublic%Respondents)*---------------------------------------------*PETITION fo! CERTIORARI and PRO4I#ITION-5ith Application fo! a Te0po!a!) Rest!ainin1 O!de! and6o! *!it of P!eli0ina!) In7unction.1 | P a g ePetitione!s +$ "ounsel, res!e"tfull$ state: PRE'ATOR$8O' A#SUR,ITIES AN, IN2USTICE9I0a1ine this $ou! 4ono!s% TheRe1ulato!inacco!dance5ithits!e1ulato!)functionunde! the la5 denies a !ate inc!ease application b)Concessionai!es% ,espite the fact that the denial is a!e1ulato!) issue Concessionai!es 1o to a p!i"ate a!bit!ationpanel on the basis of a Concession A1!ee0ent% Thea!bit!ation panel !e"e!ses the Re1ulato! a 0e!e concessiona1!ee0ent a0ends na) TRUMPS the la5% T4E 4APLESSPU#LIC PA$S%This is an absu!dit) and an in7ustice% *hat 5ould be fa! 5o!se than this absu!dit) and in7ustice: *ell if b) a st!o;e of luc; the a!bit!ation panel affi!0s theRe1ulato! and denies the !ate inc!ease application theConcessionai!es1otothe1o"e!n0entandas;sthatitbeco0pensated th!ou1h