A seemingly straightforward water rights dispute between two towns in Bohol province has spiraled into a complex case, raising fundamental questions about water resource management and the delicate balance between local interests and national development priorities.
In a landmark decision that could set a precedent for future water rights disputes in the Philippines, the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) has dismissed a petition filed by the Local Government Unit (LGU) of Sevilla, Bohol, against the LGU of Balilihan, Bohol.
The dispute centered around the extraction of water from Bugwak Spring, located at Magsaysay, Sevilla, Bohol.
LGU of Sevilla filed the petition on January 18, 2023, seeking to restrain the LGU Balilihan from extracting water from Bugwak Spring.
LGU Sevilla, represented by Municipal Mayor Juliet B. Dano, holds a Water Permit (WP No. 021076) allowing the extraction of groundwater from Bugwak Spring.
On the other hand, LGU Balilihan, represented by Municipal Mayor Maria Pureza Veloso-Chatto, is a water permit applicant (WPA No. VII-BOH-2019-11-054) and holder of a Conditional Water Permit (CWP No. 01-22-20-008), issued on January 22, 2022, allowing it to extract groundwater from Bugwac Spring.
LGU Sevilla alleged that there was a clear misrepresentation on the part of LGU Balilihan.
It claimed that LGU Balilihan misled the Board by stating that the diversion point is located in Balilihan when it is actually in Magsaysay, Sevilla, Bohol. It also argued that the issuance of CWP No. 01-22-20-008 in favor of LGU Balilihan was tainted with a grave defect as there was no notice to the Punong Barangay of Magsaysay, Sevilla and the Municipal Secretary of the Municipality of Sevilla where the actual diversion site is located.
In response, LGU Balilihan countered that the issue regarding the lack of posting in Sevilla, Bohol was already resolved by the Board in a previous case (Richli Case).
It argued that there was neither misrepresentation in its application nor grave defect in the issuance of CWP No. 01-22-20-008, as the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), an agent of the Board, was the one which designated and assigned the coordinates of the diversion point of the water source.
The Board ruled in the affirmative for both issues.
It stressed that the instant Petition should not have been given due course as it was filed beyond the reglementary period.
Under Section 10(B) of the Amended IRR of the Water Code, any person who may be adversely affected by the proposed appropriation may file a verified protest with the Board within fifteen (15) days after the last day of posting.
The Board also referred to the Richli Case, where it affirmed the Decision dated September 14, 2021 setting aside the question on the CWP of LGU Balilihan and settled the issue regarding the posting of notices.
The Board stated that notices for posting would not have been sent to LGU Sevilla when LGU Balilihan filed its water permit application because there was an inadvertent mistake on the coordinates provided by NIA stating that Bugwak Spring’s location is in Sto. Niño, Balilihan, Bohol.
Requiring compliance with the posting requirement in Brgy. Magsaysay, Sevilla, Bohol based on an ocular inspection conducted after the permit was already issued would be to impose an impossible condition, the NWRB said.
The Board further ruled that the mistake in the coordinates discovered subsequent to the issuance of CWP No. 01-22-20-008 is not a ground to summarily cancel such permit.
The Board resolved that to summarily revoke or cancel LGU Balilihan’s CWP based on a mistake it did not commit in the first place would result in grave injustice and inequity.
“The permits already issued by the Board after undergoing the procedures and requirements provided by the Water Code and the Amended IRR of the Water Code are presumed valid and regular,” the Resolution said.
They cannot be attacked indirectly if the period for filing protests has already lapsed, according to the NWRB.
The Board concluded that the underlying issues involved in the Richli Case and the present case are substantially the same, questioning the validity of the CWP issued to respondent LGU Balilihan.
“Therefore, the instant Petition should have been dismissed outright due to procedural laps,” the NWRB wrote in its resolution.
THE CONFLICT AT A GLANCE
In this recent NWRB decision, the Philippines’ Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) dismissed the petition filed by the Sevilla local government unit (LGU) to stop the water extraction project by the Balilihan LGU.
The decision ended a lengthy conflict centered around water rights and procedural issues.
Roots of the Conflict
Sevilla holds a valid water permit for Bugwak Spring, a crucial water source.
Balilihan was granted a permit to extract water from what they believed to be the same spring.
However, a later inspection revealed the water source was actually within Sevilla’s borders.
Sevilla argued this error meant Balilihan’s permit was invalid.
LGU Sevilla claimed they were not properly notified of the other government’s application, a violation of legal procedures.
DENR’s Rationale
DENR acknowledged procedural errors may have occurred when Balilihan’s permit was granted.
However, they deemed these errors insufficient to justify canceling the permit.
Crucially, LGU Sevilla missed the legal deadline to file a formal objection during the initial application process.
Furthermore, a previous, similar case had also been decided in Balilihan’s favor.
This established a legal precedent supporting DENR’s current decision.
Outcome and Implications
Balilihan’s water extraction project can proceed, though DENR’s decision hints that other factors could still derail the project’s final approval.
The case highlights the complexities of water rights disputes and the importance of timely action within the legal framework governing water use in the Philippines.
Full Details of NWRB Case Decision
Republic of the Philippines
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD
Floor NIA Bldg. EDSA, Diliman, Quezon City Philippines 1100
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT
OF SEVILLA, BOHOL,
Petitioner,
-versus-
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT
OF BALILIHAN, BOHOL,
Respondent.
WATER USE CONFLICT
CASE NO. 2022-156
WPA No. VII-BOH-2019-11-054
CWP No. 01-22-20-008
DECISION
Before this Board is a Petition’, dated 18 January 2023, filed by the Local Government Unit of Sevilla, Bohol (Petitioner LGU Sevilla), to restrain the Local Government Unit of Balilihan, Bohol (Respondent LGU Balilihan) from extracting water from Bugwak Spring, alternately spelled Bugwac in the records, located at Magsaysay, Sevilla, Bohol.
Petitioner LGU Sevilla is a local government unit in the Province of Bohol and holder of Water Permit (WP) No. 021076², allowing the extraction of groundwater from Bugwak Spring with diversion point located at Magsaysay, Sevilla, Bohol, and is represented by its Local Chief Executive, Municipal Mayor Juliet B. Dano³.
On the other hand, Respondent LGU Balilihan is likewise a local government unit in the Province of Bohol, an applicant with a Water Permit Application (WPA) No. VII-BOH-2019-11-054 and holder of Conditional Water Permit (CWP) No. 01-22-20-008, issued on 22 January 2022 allowing it to extract groundwater from Bugwac Spring, with a point of diversion at Barangay Sto. Niño, Balilihan Bohol, and is represented by its Local Chief Executive, Municipal Mayor Maria Puresa V. Chatto³.
Resolution No. 2022-162 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sevilla authorizing Mayor Dano to represent the former and protect its interest in relation to Magsaysay Water Source (Bugwak Spring), marked as Annex “K-1”.
ANTECEDENT FACTS:
On 27 April 2022, this Board received an electronic mail letter, dated 23 April 2022, from the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Sevilla endorsing Resolution No. 10, Series of 2022 adopted by the Sangguniang Barangay of Magsaysay, Municipality of Sevilla, Bohol expressing strong opposition against the hauling and extraction of water from Bugwak Spring without proper legal permit from the said Barangay or Municipality.
To appropriately act on the matter, this Board advised the Mayor Dano, through a letter dated 17 May 2022, that the same be formalized and detailed further, in accordance with Section 65 of the Amended Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Presidential Decree No. 1067, otherwise known as the Water Code of the Philippines (Water Code).
On 06 June 2022, this Board received the physical copy of the 23 April 2022 letter accompanied by the payment of the protest fee. The instant Petition was subsequently filed on 24 January 2023.
In its Petition, LGU Sevilla sought to restrain LGU Balilihan from extracting water from Bugwak Spring at Magsaysay, Sevilla, Bohol as the latter does not have a valid permit to appropriate water from said source. The former alleged that:
1. The WPA of LGU Balilihan and the ensuing CWP No. 01-22-20-008 state that the diversion point is located at Sto. Niño, Balilihan, Bohol. However, the actual diversion point is located at Magsaysay, Sevilla, Bohol, as evidenced by the installations made by the Department of Public Works and Highways Bohol 1st Engineering District Office.
2. It did not receive any notice from this Board as regards the application of LGU Balilihan for water permit, which is required under Section 9 of the Amended IRR of the Water Code, viz:
Section 9. Processing, Posting and Sending of Notices of Applications/Petitions – Upon receipt of an application or a petition, the Board shall process the same to determine completeness of the requirements prescribed in Section 5 hereof. Once completed, and upon payment of the filing fee, notices of the application/petition shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the office of the Board for a period of thirty (30) days. The Board shall also send notices to the following offices for posting in conspicuous places for the same period: 4G¹ 60%
a) Barangay Chairman of the place where the point of diversion is located;
b) City or Municipal Secretary of the city or town where the point of diversion is located;
3. There was clear misrepresentation on the part of LGU Balilihan. It misled the Board when it stated that the diversion point is located in Balilihan when the actual diversion point is located in Magsaysay, Sevilla, Bohol;
4. The issuance of CWP No. 01-22-20-008 in favor of LGU Balilihan was tainted with a grave defect as there was no notice to the Chairman of Barangay Magsaysay, Sevilla and the Municipal Secretary of the Municipality of Sevilla where the actual diversion site is located; and
5. Due to such lack of notice, it was not able to file any protest to the application of LGU Balilihan. Its right to timely file a protest/ opposition against the said application was clearly violated.
As a matter of procedure, this Board issued an Order”, dated 06 February 2023, directing Respondent LGU Balilihan to file an Answer, pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedure Before the NWRB (Rules), which the latter complied on 21 March 2023.
In its Answer, LGU Balilihan countered that:
1. The issue with regard to the lack of posting in Sevilla, Bohol was already resolved by the Board in Richli Corporation vs. Local Government Unit of Balilihan (Richli Case), docketed as National Water Resources Board Water Use Conflict (WUC) Case No. 2021-011. It quoted a portion of the Resolution”, dated 20 January 2023, to wit:
It is within logic and common sense that notices for posting will not be sent to LGU Sevilla when LGU Balilihan filed its water permit application because, at that time, there was an inadvertent mistake on the coordinates provided by [National Irrigation Administration] NIA stating that Bugwak Spring’s location is in Sto. Niño, Balilihan, Bohol. Therefore, to require compliance with the posting requirement in Brgy. Magsaysay, Sevilla, Bohol based on an ocular inspection conducted after the permit was already issued would be to impose an impossible condition.
2. There was neither misrepresentation in its application nor grave defect in the issuance of CWP No. 01-22-20-008, since NIA, an agent of the Board, was the one which designated and assigned the coordinates of the diversion point of Respondent/Protestee’s water source. Corollary, the notice of water permit application was sent to the Barangay Chairperson of Sto. Niño and the Municipal Secretary of Balilihan;
3. The instant Petition cannot prosper and should be dismissed on the ground that LGU Sevilla has no cause of action against the Respondent LGU Balilihan.
4. The posting of the notice is the obligation of the Board, citing Section 9 of the Amended IRR of the Water Code. The Respondent/Protestee, on its part, sent a letter to LGU Sevilla regarding its water supply project.
Corollary, in accordance with Section 1, Rule IV of the Rules, this Board issued a Notice of Electronic Preliminary Conference”, dated 30 March 2023, setting the hearing for 31 May 2023.
On 18 May 2023, the Respondent LGU Balilihan moved to reset the 31 May 2023 Preliminary Conference to 15 June 2023. This Board, in its 22 May 2023 Order”, granted the motion and set such hearing for 27 June 2023.
On the said date, the Parties were encouraged to negotiate to find mutually acceptable terms to end the dispute. However, the Preliminary Conference was terminated as the Parties failed to settle the case amicably.
In the interest of expediency, the Parties were directed to submit their respective Position Papers. LGU Balilihan submitted its Position Paper on 27 July 2023, while LGU Sevilla submitted its Position Paper on 30 August 2023.
In addition to its earlier allegations, Petitioner LGU Sevilla averred, in its Position Paper, that:
1. It is not a party to the Richli Case. Thus, not bound by any resolution in the same; and
2. The sole reason for the failure of the Board to comply with the sending of notice and posting requirement was the misrepresentation made by LGU Balilihan in its application for water permit. The letter which was sent by Mayor Chatto to Mayor Dano is not the notice contemplated under Section 9 of the Amended IRR of the Water Code.
As for LGU Balilihan’s Position Paper, it merely reiterated the arguments in its responsive pleading.
In the interim, this Board acting through its Board members, in a Petition to Cancel the CWP issued to LGU Balilihan filed by Richli Corporation docketed as NWRB WUC Case No. 2021-011 issued Resolution” dated 20 January 2023 affirming the Decision dated 14 September 2021 dismissing the Petition to Cancel Water Permit issued to LGU Balilihan. Pertinent ruling of the Board in the Richli Case, held that:
The issuance of CWP in favor of LGU Balilihan is presumed valid and regular absent any clear and convincing evidence from Richli that the issuance of CWP is done with grave abuse of discretion, malice, or undue favor in spite of existing irregularities. No such proof was forwarded by Richli when it filed its petition or protest because the mistake or defect in the application was found after the conduct of the ocular inspection long after the issuance of CWP. Hence, the permits already issued by the Board after undergoing the procedures and requirements provided by the Water Code and the Amended IRR of the Water Code are presumed valid and regular. They cannot therefore be attacked indirectly if the period for filing protests have already lapsed.
Subsequently, the Board issued Resolution No. 10-102320, dated 24 October 2023, directing the Executive Director to “…[r]esolve within reasonable time, the issue regarding the Petition to Restrain LGU Balilihan from Extracting Water from Bugwak Spring in accordance with the Resolution of the Board dated 20 January 2023…”, among others.
With the filing of the Parties’ respective Position Papers, the case is deemed ripe for resolution.
ISSUE/S:
Whether CWP No. 01-22-20-008 was validly issued in favor of Respondent LGU Balilihan.
Whether, Petitioner LGU Sevilla is bound by the finding and declaration of the Board in the Richli Case
DISCUSSION:
We rule in the affirmative.
At the outset, it must be stressed that the instant Petition should not have been given due course as the same was filed beyond the reglementary period.
Under Section 10(B) of the Amended IRR of the Water Code, “[alny person who may be adversely affected by the proposed appropriation may file a verified protest with the Board within fifteen (15) days after the last day of posting.” to wit:
Likewise instructive are Articles 16 and 17 of the Water Code,
Article 16. Any person who desires to obtain a water permit shall file an application with the Council [now Board] who shall make known said application to the public for any protests. In determining whether to grant or deny an application, the Council [now Board] shall consider the following: protests filed, if any; prior permits granted; the availability of water; the water supply needed for beneficial use; possible adverse effects; land-use economics; and other relevant factors….
Article 17. The right to the use of water is deemed acquired as of the date of filing of the application for a water permit in case of approved permits, or as of the date of actual use in a case where no permit is required.
Records of the case are bereft of any indication that LGU Sevilla registered an opposition to contest the Respondent LGU Balilihan’s water permit application within the reglementary period. In fact, CWP No. 01-22-20-008 was already issued in favor of the latter on 22 January 2020 when the former filed the instant Petition on 24 January 2023. It’s issuance was even affirmed by this Board in its resolution dated 20 January 2023.
In Buendia vs. City of Iligan”, the Supreme Court, in applying the above cited provisions, explained that “after an application to obtain a water permit has been made known to the public, any interested party must file his protest thereto, in order that the application may be properly evaluated. Otherwise, after the application for a water permit has been approved, the grantee of the permit now acquires an exclusive right to use the water source, reckoned from the date of the filing of the applications. Thus, after petitioner’s right to the water permit has been properly adjudicated, respondent may no longer belatedly question said grant.”
On this score alone, the instant Petition should have been dismissed outright. The procedural lapses notwithstanding, this Board resolves to delve into the validity of the issuance of the assailed CWP.
It is worth to note that in the Richli Corporation versus Local Government Unit of Balilihan, Bohol, docketed as NWRB WUC Case No 2021-011 (Richli Case), this Board, through its Board members, issued Resolution” dated 20 January 2023 affirming the Decision dated 14 September 2021 setting aside the question on the CWP of LGU Balilihan and settled the issue regarding the posting of notices. Pertinent provision of the resolution, stated to wit::
“[N]otices for posting will not be sent to LGU Sevilla when LGU Balilihan filed its water permit application because, at the time, there was an inadvertent mistake on the coordinates provided by NIA stating that Bugwak Spring’s location is in Sto. Niño, Balilihan, Bohol. Therefore, to require compliance with the posting requirement in Brgy. Magsaysay, Sevilla, Bohol based on an ocular inspection conducted after the permit was already issued would be to impose an impossible condition….
The issuance of CWP in favor of LGU Balilihan is presumed valid and regular absent any clear and convincing evidence… that the issuance of CWP is done with grave abuse of discretion, malice, or undue favor in spite of existing irregularities. No such proof was forwarded by Richli when it filed its petition or protest because the mistake or defect in the application was found after the conduct of the ocular inspection long after the issuance of CWP. Hence, the permits already issued by the Board after undergoing the procedures and requirements provided by the Water Code and the Amended IRR of the Water Code are presumed valid and regular. They cannot therefore be attacked indirectly if the period for filing protests has already lapsed.”
The Board further ruled that the mistake in the coordinates discovered subsequent to the issuance of CWP No. 01-22-20-008 is not a ground to summarily cancel such permit, resolved that:
“… mistake in the coordinates provided by NIA is not the willful and deliberate non-observance of or non-compliance with the rules, order or regulations deserving of a summary revocation/ cancellation contemplated [in Section 89 of the Amended IRR of the Water Code]. To summarily revoke or cancel LGU Balilihan’s CWP based on a mistake it did not commit in the first place would result in grave injustice and inequity…”
The discussion above clearly shows that the underlying issues involved in the Richli Case and the present case are substantially the same, questioning the validity of the CWP issued to respondent LGUBalilihan.
In the Richli Case, the Board resolved the appeal on its original decision, made a ruling on the validity of the CWP and that the “mistake” is not attributable to the action of LGU Balilihan. Thereafter, it directed the Executive Director of the Board to “…Ir]esolve within reasonable time, the issue regarding the Petition to Restrain LGU Balilihan from Extracting Water from Bugwak Spring in accordance with the Resolution of the Board dated 20 January 2023.
Under the doctrine of the law of the case, when an appellate court has once declared the law in a case, such declaration continues to be the law of that case even on a subsequent appeal. The rule made by an appellate court, while it may be reversed in other cases, cannot be departed from in subsequent proceedings in the same case.
The law of the case doctrine applies in a situation where an appellate court has made a ruling on a question on appeal and thereafter remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings; the question settled by the appellate court becomes the law of the case at the lower court and in any subsequent appeal. It means that whatever is irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which the legal rule or decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.
Based on the above discussion, the Decision of the Board, through its members, validating the CWP issued to Respondent LGU Balilihan is considered the controlling legal rule or decision on the matter. This is in observance of the fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment of adjudicating bodies must become final and executory on some definite date fixed by law. If it is a judgment otherwise valid even if erroneous in content, then it is a judgment that should thereafter be followed.
It means that the matter in the Richli Case involving the CWP issued in favor of Respondent LGU Balilihan has been established and thus is considered by this Board in resolving the instant petition as the controlling legal rule of decision and continues to be the law ofthe case whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before this Board’s consideration in the instant petition.
Otherwise stated, questions of law that have been previously raised and disposed of in the proceedings shall be controlling in succeeding instances where the same legal question is raised, provided that the facts on which the legal issue was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.” This is necessary as a matter of policy to end litigation. There would be no end to a suit if every obstinate litigant could, by repeated appeals, compel a court to listen to criticisms on their opinions, or speculate of chances from changes in its members.
Thus, sans proof fortifying the purported misrepresentation in the application for, or in securing, the subject water permit, this Board does not see any reason to depart from its previous resolution upholding the validity and regularity of the issuance of CWP No. 01-22-20-008 in favor of LGU Balilihan.
In fact, a perusal of the records would show that the Respondent LGU Balilihan was able to offer evidence proving that the coordinates reflected in the subject water permit application were determined and accomplished by a certain Eustaquio N. Luayon, Jr., a NIA hydrologist.
Evidently, not only did LGU Sevilla fail to establish, by substantial evidence that LGU Balilihan intentionally and purposely made false statements when it filed WPA No. VII-BOH-2019-11-054, the latter successfully negated such allegations. Accordingly, this Board cannot, without offending the principle of justice and fair play, attribute or impute such erroneous entry to herein Respondent LGU Balilihan.
The claim of Petitioner LGU Sevilla that since it is not a party to the Richi Case, then it is not bound to the declaration ofthe Board on the said case cannot be given weight. The findings and opinion of the Board, through its members in the Richi Case has been established and is thus the controlling legal rule of decision in as much as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before this Board. For the satisfactory and efficient performance of its duties, unless with valid order for higher Courts, ‘matters that have been considered and decided upon by the Board on the process of appropriation and disposition on the use of water resources shall be respected and observed and should not be litigated anew to put an end in litigation.
Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that absolute identity of parties is not required but only substantial identity, and there is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case. A shared identity of interest is sufficient to invoke the coverage of the principle of resjudicata”.
Moreover, an administrative act, in this case, the issuance of ‘CWP in favor of Respondent LGU Balilihan, is presumed valid absent proof that the same was done arbitrarily and capriciously, The presumption of regularity of official acts prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive.”
The foregoing notwithstanding, it is worth noting that other factors are similarly taken into account when granting water rights Article 16 of the Water Code is explicit:
“… in determining whether to grant or deny an application, the Council shall consider the following: protests filed, if any; prior permits granted; the availability of water; the water supply needed for beneficial use; possible adverse effects; land-use economics; and other relevant factor…”
Corollary, this Board does not grant water rights without considering the above stated,
In addition, this Board is guided by Resolution No, 003-0607 entitled “Policy Guidelines on the Processing and Issuance of Water permits and Conditional Water Permits’, issued on 20 June 2007, as amended by Resolution No. 003-0607 (as amended) and Resolution No. 15-0921, issued on 22 October 2008 and 22 September 2021, respectively, when it provided to wit:
NWRB Resolution No, 003-0607, as amended.
1. Water Permits and CWPs shall be processed in accordance with Sections 9 & 10 of the ‘Amended Implementing Rules and Regulations (ORR) of the Water Code of the Philippines.
2. Upon compliance with Sections 9 & 10 and the review and evaluation of the water permit application, the Board Secretariat shall make 3 recommendation to the Board for the grant of cur.
3. Upon approval or confirmation of the Board, the CWP shall be issued for the to use/development of a water source and remain valid for a period of one (1) year from the date ‘of approval.
4. The water permit shall be issued if the conditions set forth in the CWP are complied ‘within the prescribed period
5. I, after the lapse of the one-year period, the applicant fails to show compliance with the ‘conditions set forth in the CWP, the same will, be cancelled and the closure of the well and other similar diversion structures for surface water source will ensue…
6. All holders of CWP for municipal use shall secure a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) and maintain the same in good standing, otherwise, the CWP will be cancelled of revoked…
Thereunder, a conditional water permit shall be issued after thorough evaluation of the water permit application and compliance with Sections 9 and 10 of the IRR of the Water Code. A water permit shall then be issued once the conditions set forth in the conditional water permit have been fully complied with within the prescribed Period. It goes without saying that this Board exercises due diligence and prudence in the disposition of application filed before it. It must ‘be noted that a CWP is different from a permanent WP as the former ‘may still be subject to changes pending the applicant’s compliance or ‘non-compliance with the conditions set forth in the same.
Consequently, the determination whether to grant the subject WPA rests on the final evaluation of other relevant factors, including, availability of water, the presence or absence of beneficial use as well as LGU Balilihan’s compliance with the conditions set forth in its Conditional Water Permit.
WHEREFORE, premises considered the Petition, dated 18 January 2023, filed by the Local Government Unit of Sevilla, Bohol is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Metro Manila, 15 FEB 2024
BY AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD:
SGD. ATTY. RICKY A. ARZADON, CESO IV