From the huge take, both firms were able to distribute to their shareholders a combined P49 billion in cash dividends during the period.

Recent revelations of the excesses of the pair of water service providers are pushing the government to reconsider reversing the privatization in the sector, which was introduced in 1997 during the term of former President Fidel Ramos, considering that distribution of the life-giving liquid is critical.

Water rationing happens almost predictably during the dry season and whenever the two firms consider it appropriate to pursue business goals.

President Rody Duterte recounted that at the height of the supposed supply shortage last March, he learned that the problem was artificial at a time when both concessionaires were protesting a Supreme Court (SC) ruling of over P1.8 billion in penalties and their compliance to the provisions of the Clean Water Act.

Their financial records showed Manila Water Co. and Maynilad Water Services Inc. raked in an aggregate of P138 billion in net profits from 2006 to June 2019.

From the huge take, both firms were able to distribute to their shareholders a combined P49 billion in cash dividends during the period.

Despite the money that they raked in, the water companies still saw it fit to warn that rates could shoot up by 780 percent, or by as much P26.70 per cubic meter, if they are forced to connect all their customers to a sewage collection, treatment and disposal system, as mandated by Section 8 of the Clean Water Act as directed by the SC.

The problem with their argument is that the two opportunistic firms backed by the duopolistic conglomerates should have long invested on wastewater facilities since they collect charges for that purpose on consumers’ monthly bills.

A study by the Public Sector International (PSI) and the Transnational Institute (TNI) of Amsterdam showed that many governments are reassuming control over water services on similar problems that Rody is facing with Maynilad and Manila Water.

More than 235 cities in 37 countries have reacquired control of water services, affecting over 100 million people. In France, the united campaign by the citizens and local governments led to the return of the water service business in the cities of Paris, Nice and Grenoble into the hands of the government.

The study reported marked improvements in the reversal of privatization on top of significant savings for the people and the concerned cities.

Paris saved 35 million euros in the first year of remunicipalization in 2010 and was able to reduce the water tariffs by eight percent.

Another report, Spotlight on Sustainable Development 2018, said improvements in services are brought about not only by the change in the ownership structure from private to public, but also in the restoration of “public ethos” in the operation of the water business and the greater “transparency and accountability” to the citizens. There is a democratization of the system of water governance, with the workers and citizens being involved in making decisions on reforms, it added.

According to clean government advocate Freedom from Debt Coalition, the success of the remunicipalization movement is due to the increasing public awareness that an essential public service is a natural monopoly, which easily becomes a private monopoly when transferred to the private sector.

“Once in the saddle, the executives of a private company naturally do their damnedest primarily for the benefit of the company’s shareholders. Thus, the tendency of private water service providers to prioritize the development of water infrastructures for the rich and well-developed areas while neglecting their obligation to ensure the adequate flow of water in the poor low-income communities,” the group noted.

This also explains why in the Philippines today there is intense rivalry among the rich water companies on how they can acquire, via the so-called “privatization” route, the most developed water districts in different provinces, it said.

The privatization of water services was meant to address the inefficiency of government, which for the past years meant trading off public interest to the profit motive.

The abuses committed by the two water concessionaires require the review of the failed policy.