Grandstanding

The Senate should know better than poke its nose in matters that are better left to those who are experts in them.

Take the case of the concession agreements inked by the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) with Maynilad Water Services and the Manila Water.

Sen. Antonio Trillanes has called for an investigation into said agreements, but for what purpose?

Senate Minority Leader Juan Ponce Enrile and House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II have both cautioned fellow lawmakers against poking their noses into the controversy.

Enrile said the investigation being initiated by Trillanes on the concession agreement would  prove to be an inutile one because Congress cannot pass any law  abrogating, or changing the terms of these now-controversial concessional agreements as this will violate the constitutional provision against impairing contractual obligations, such as those forged by the government with MWC and Maynilad.

Congress initiates inquiries supposedly in aid of legislation. What sort of new legislation can Congress propose if it investigates the concession agreement when Section 10 of the Philippine Constitution’s Bill of Rights explicitly states that “no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed”?

Gonzales has likewise expressed similar reservations over a proposed House probe by leftist solons disguised as consumer activists on the MWSS concession contracts with Maynilad and MWC to distribute water in Metro Manila.

He said that such calls [for terminating the contracts] would jeopardize the public-private partnership [PPP] program of the government which is the cornerstone of President Aquino’s administration, adding that  PPP’s success depends on the stability and sanctity of contracts entered into by government with private sector investors.

For many of us, the idea of reviewing the concession agreements forged with the MWC and Maynilad for the sake of “protecting the consumer” appears to be morally just, but involving Congress in the process would only be counterproductive because it will only heighten the long-festering perception that doing business in the Philippines is too risky owing to its  unstable or unpredictable investment policies.

Henry Schumacher, vice president for external affairs of the European Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines (ECCP), has pointed out to the contracts between MWSS and the two private water concessionaires in Metro Manila’s west and east zones as testaments to foreign and local investors’ gripe that “rules are threatened to be changed in midstream.”

In his most recent attack on the unstable business environment in the Philippines, Schumacher noted that the “lack of clarity and transparency in policy making and in the application and interpretation of rules and regulations has been identified [by the ECCP) as a key concern in the Philippines.”

He further  noted that transparency and predictability in policy making and the application of rules are “regarded as essential for a stable business environment in a modern economy.”

It is obvious that Trillanes, who insists that the water concession contract should be pried open by the Senate, is merely riding on the controversy involving this issue to score cheap political pogi points from the masa.

If his purpose is to merely look at the contract, then he can either ask MWSS for copies of the concession agreements so he can personally study them, or just grab a copy of the petition filed by the Water for All Reform Movement (WARM), which certainly discusses these contract provisions.

WARM, a coalition of leftist consumer groups in Metro Manila, has questioned certain provisions in the water concession agreement, which allows both MWC and Maynilad to include income taxes, donations and investments as among the operating costs that they can pass on to their consumers via their monthly bills.

Led by a certain Rodolfo Javellana,  WARM has asked the Supreme Court to order MWC and Maynilad to refund consumers because of these supposed “overbillings.” 

Wrongly thinking that he could  work this controversy to his advantage, Trillanes has parroted WARM’s leftwing line (which is rather odd for an ultra-rightist who has served jail time for leading two pathetic putsch attempts in downtown Makati).

But unfortunately for him,  he has had to contend with a brilliant legal mind in the person of Enrile.

In reply to Trillanes’ claim that the Supreme Court already ruled in the case of Meralco that the company cannot pass on incomes taxes to consumers in the form of expenses, Enrile said:  “That is correct because Meralco is the franchise holder and the power not to pay income tax must be spelled out in the franchise of Meralco. And this is why the first question that I asked is, who has the franchise to distribute water in metropolitan Manila because I know that the two companies mentioned are not franchise holders. And where do they draw their right to distribute water in Metro Manila?”

Trillanes lamely answered: “Once again, I will have to insist that that question is neither here nor there because the issue beforehand is whether they are authorized to pass on to consumers the corporate income taxes.”

We doubt whether Trillanes is aware that nowhere in the concession agreements were MWC and Maynilad identified as franchise holders. The two concessionaires were considered as “contractors and agents of the MWSS” under the Grant of Concession clause of the agreements.

We don’t know if Trillanes should be comforted by the fact that he has found an ally in Sen. Miriam Santiago in his call for a probe of the water-concession issue. Enrile  is correct in pointing out that she should perform her job of  attending Senate sessions and participating in the debates.

For comments, email at [email protected]