Torrecampo v. MWSS Doctrine: Despite the presence of judicial power under Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, a review of Executive policy is not under the jurisdiction of the courts for such policies lies only within the wisdom of the Executive branch. Petition: Petition for Injunction in the Supreme Court Plaintiff & Appellees: Barangay Captain Beda Torrecampo Defendant & Appellant: Manila Waterworks and Sewerage System Date: May 30, 2011 Ponente: Justice Carpio Summary: Barangay Captain Beda Torrecampo filed a petition for inju injunc ncti tion on in the the Supr Suprem eme e Cour Courtt regard regarding ing the C5 Road Road Extens Extension ion Projec Projectt for the said said projec projectt would would result to injury to the petitioner and eigh eightt mill millio ion n resi reside dent nts s of Metr Metro o Manila. The project would endanger the the heal health th of the the resi reside dent nts s for for aque aquedu duct cts s resp respon onsi sibl ble e for for the the water supply in the area could be dama damag ged. ed. The Suprem preme e Cour ourt ruled, however, that Torrecampo is not entitled to an injunction for he seeks judicial review of an Executive policy which is outside of the wisdom of the courts. Facts: 1. Torrecampo filed the petition for injunction pursuant to Sec. 3 of R.A 8975 on July 1, 2009, a day after DPWH entered a portion of Bara Barang ngay ay Mata Matand ndan ang g Bala Balara ra to implement the C-5 Road Extension Project. Torrecampo insists that the RI-PADA area is a better alternative to subject lots for the project. 2. Atty Atty.. Ag Agra ra for for MWSS MWSS find finds s the the peti petiti tion on imma immatu ture re for for the the road road project has yet to be implemented. The entry of DPWH in the area is done to conduct study on the area and on the location of the aqueducts. 3. Through RA 6234, MWSS explains its participation in the C5
Road Expansion Project. The MWSS explains that they have jurisdiction, super supervis vision ion,, and contro controll over over all the the sewer ewerag age e and water aterw works system systems s locate located d in Metro Metro Manila Manila,, Riza Rizall prov provin ince ce,, and and a port portio ion n of Cavite province. 4. MWSS issued Board Resolutio Resolution n No. 2009-052 2009-052 on March March 12, 2009 that allowed DPWH to use the 60meter Right-of-Way for preliminary studi tudies es of the road oad exp expans nsio ion n project. 5. DPWH entered the Right-of-Way on June 30, 2009 to conduct necessary studies for the project. 6. The court issued that Torrecampo is not entitled to an inju injunc ncti tion on.. Thus Thus,, Torr Torrec ecam ampo po’s ’s petition is denied.
Issue: 1. WON WON resp respon onde dent nts s sh shou ould ld be enjoin enjoined ed from from commen commencin cing g with with and and impl implem emen enti ting ng the the C-5 C-5 Road Road Extens Extension ion Projec Projectt along along Tandan Tandang g Sora Road, affecting MWSS’ properties. Held: 1. The court rules that Torrecampo is not entitled to an injunction for judicial review does not apply to matters matters concernin concerning g the Executive Executive branch.
Ratio: Torrecampo’s Contention Supreme Court Access to clean and potable water for The Court determined that residents of Metro Manila is at risk Torrecampo wants the Court to find with the C5 Road Expansion Project out whether the Tandang Sora area and Section 16, Article II and Section for the project is a much better 6, Article XII of the Constitution would alternative to the RIPADA area for the be violated by DPWH and MWSS project. should the road expansion project proceed using MWSS’s properties Despite the definition of judicial instead of the RIPADA area. power, as present in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, an inquiry on the issues raised by Torrecampo would mean delving into matters that are solely within the wisdom of the Executive branch. There is also the possibility of committing judicial interference. The determination of where to construct a road extension project is not within the jurisdiction of the Court but rather that of the Executive branch. No dissenting opinions presented. Nachura, Peralta, Abad, Mendoza, JJ. concur.