Bayan Muna asks SC to direct Maynilad, Manila Water to refund consumers

Bayan Muna party-list on Thursday filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to direct Manila Water Co. and the Maynilad Water Services Inc. to refund the corporate income taxes previously passed on to their consumers.

The SC earlier ruled that both Maynilad and Manila Water are public utilities, which prohibits them from including their corporate income taxes as part of their operating expenses.

In its ruling, however, the court said that the right of consumers to refund had lapsed after they failed to file a protest with the National Water Resources Board (NRWB) within the prescribed 30-day period.

“Sana kumpletuhin ng Korte ang panalo ng taumbayan (I hope the court will complete the people's victory),” Bayan Muna chairman Neri Colmenares said in an ambush interview at the Supreme Court.

“Kasi ang refund na ‘yan malaking tulong ‘yan sa taumbayan na naghihikahos ngayon sa taas ng presyo ng bilihin, walang trabaho, mababa ang sahod. Kasi kung bilyon-bilyon ang na-refund sa taumbayan, malilibre siguro ‘yan ng ilang buwang konsumo natin,” he added.

(Because this refund will be a big help to the people who are having a hard time with the increasing prices, the lack of employment, or low wages. Because if the amount to be refunded is in billions, it will cover several months of consumption.)

In their 13-page partial motion for reconsideration, the petitioners also urged the SC to direct the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) to account for all the corporate income taxes that Maynilad and Manila Water allowed to be included in fixing applicable rates from 2002 to 2012.

GMA News Online has reached out to Manila Water for its comment but it has yet to receive a response as of posting time.

Maynilad, meanwhile, said there is nothing for them to refund.

“Maynilad's existing tariff does not include recovery of income taxes in future and past expenditures. This principle has already been established in our past rate rebasing exercises,” it said.

According to the petitioners, it is beyond the capacity of normal consumers to know that they were supposed to appeal to the NWRB as mentioned by the high court.

Colmenares  said there was no mention of NWRB in the concession agreement between the two water concessionaires and the MWSS.

“At sa concession agreement, walang banggit doon ng NWRB. Kaya ang tao dati-rati pa, ang dulog nila sa MWSS at sa regulatory office ng MWSS. Dahil ‘yun ang nakasaad sa concession agreement,” he said.

(There was no mention of the NWRB in the concession agreement. So back then, the people complained to the MWSS and the regulatory office of the MWSS. Because that was what was stated in the concession agreement.)

In their motion, the petitioners said, “The water consumers merely ask, however, that this be not retroactively applied as to deprive them of the billions of pesos that were forcibly taken from them through this unjust imposition.”

“We ask the honorable court not to deprive us of the right to file with the NWRB a petition for the refund of previously imposed excessive rates resulting from the imposition of corporate income tax,” they added. —KBK, GMA Integrated News