A bit cold yet on his chair, Mayor Joe Espinosa III has shown how hot he is and will be in making decisions for Iloilo City.
When Councilor Joshua Alim put up a sensationalized war path against Panay Electric Company (PECO) and its franchise renewal, the new mayor simply dismissed the claims of Alim and said he wanted continuity so that the development of the city will not be hampered. He added that it will cost more to rectify the problems of PECO.
The mayor then archived the proposal to put up a multi-million smart traffic system saying that he is not cancelling the whole project but only the contract to implement it so that he can have more time to study it.
The Yuletide Season approached and Joe III declared that there will be no more fire works display to be initiated by the city during the New Year’s welcome as it only burns the people’s money. He said, instead, spend time with your family as the new year comes in.
Because of the latest murder in Smallville Complex, the good mayor immediately issued an order closing all establishments by 2:00m o’clock in the morning as if crimes happen only after that time
Now, the Mayor has suddenly issued a cease and desist order to the board of directors of Metro Iloilo Water District (MIWD) from executing a P12.349 -billion water distribution joint-venture with MetroPac Water Investments Corporation claiming that he no longer recognizes the appointments of the directors citing a Supreme Court decision on the Metropolitan Cebu Water District which for him is similar with MIWD.
The MIWD Board is not about to recognise the order of Espinosa. Expectedly, athis will soon develop into a major court battle and a setback in the efforts of both to secure a stable supply of water in the city.
Atty. Rodolfo Cabado, a former columnist of IMT in his FB account cited the following:
This is what the Supreme Court said in that case of Spouses Benzonan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97973, January 27, 1992:
x x x But while our decisions form part of the law of the land, they are also subject to Article 4 of the Civil Code which provides that ‘laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided.’ This is expressed in the familiar legal maxim lex prospicit, non respicit, the law looks forward not backward. The rationale against retroactivity is easy to perceive. The retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have already become vested or impairs the obligations of contract hence, is unconstitutional (Francisco v. Certeza, 3 SCRA 565 ).
It seems the new city mayor is an impulsive decision-maker. Time however has proven that impulses often lead to disasters. We don’t want that to happen, Joe.