As Western Visayas reels with growing water insecurity amid rapid economic growth, Aboitiz InfraCapital Inc. (AIC) has called for immediate and coordinated action to boost infrastructure and attract long-term investments in the region’s water sector.

AIC, through its water subsidiary Apo Agua Infrastructura Inc., joined policymakers, business leaders, and civil society organizations at the Water Dialogue 2025 held recently in Iloilo City.

Conceptualized and spearheaded by the Iloilo Business Club with support from the Region VI Regional Development Council and co-presented by AIC, the event focused on integrated water resource management under the theme: “Water We Waiting For?”

During the first plenary, AIC president and CEO Cosette Canilao stressed the urgency of future-proofing Iloilo’s water systems: “Where water flows, progress follows. And if there’s one thing the present demands of us, it’s this — we must not wait.”

Canilao cited AIC’s flagship project in Davao — the Davao City Bulk Water Supply Project (DCBWSP) — as a model for sustainable, conflict-free delivery. Operated by Apo Agua, the project produces 300 million liters of potable water daily, serving over a million Davaoeños 24/7. The setup separates water production from distribution, enhancing transparency and performance.

Crucially, the project design separates bulk water production from distribution, where AIC handles the former while DCWD manages the latter. This clear division of responsibilities avoids conflicts of interest and enhances performance transparency in the country’s largest bulk water supply project, Canilao explained.

“This is not just innovation, this is governance,” Canilao said. “It’s a model that can work — not just in Davao, but in Iloilo, and beyond.”

She emphasized the need for redundancy and diversity in providers to avoid dependence and improve quality. She also praised the newly amended PPP law for encouraging private-sector partners to invest capital and assume risk, rather than act as intermediaries.

It opined that she did not qualify as a beneficiary since she married Leonardo only after he became disabled. The SSS cited the specific provision of the SSS law which mandates that the beneficiary must have been married to the pensioner at the time of his permanent disability. Clearly, her situation did not fall under that.

Despite her ardent pleas, SSS did not grant her request. This made her question SSS’ ruling before the Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, the appellate court did not side with her. It ruled that the provision of the law regarding beneficiaries was clear. Since she did not fall under the qualification of a beneficiary, the court could not give an interpretation to include her.

Determined to get a resolution in her favor, she pleaded her case before the Supreme Court. She argued her case based on equal protection and deprivation of property without due process of law. And the Supreme Court, in an en banc decision at that, ruled in Belinda’s favor.

It said: “The Court finds that the proviso ‘as of the date of disability’ under Section 13-A(c) is unfounded and inharmonious with the spirit behind the enactment of the Social Security Law. The unqualified denial of claims for benefits filed by surviving legitimate spouses who contracted their marriages to the pensioner-spouses after the latter’s disability evidently discriminates against common-law relationships which are common and even recognized by the Family Code as family units and unions.

“Evidently, the classification espoused by Section 13-A(c) does not rest on real and substantial distinctions and is not germane to the purpose of the Social Security Law. It is arbitrary and too sweeping as it considers all marriages contracted after the date of the pensioners’ disability as a sham, regardless of the circumstances of the case.

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the proviso ‘as of the date of disability’ violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.”

Concerning the deprivation of property without due process, the High Court said:

“Although the subject matter in Montesclaros involved retirement benefits under Presidential Decree No. 1146, or the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977, the pronouncement therein that retirement benefits are protected property interest of the retirees applies by analogy to workers covered by the Social Security Law, such as Leonardo.

“Considering his compulsory contributions to the SSS, Leonardo’s pension did not constitute a mere gratuity but formed part of his compensation. Corollary thereto, petitioner’s right to receive the survivorship pension was already established because surviving spouses of deceased pensioners are entitled to it. Thus, the unceremonious denial thereof is an outright confiscation of petitioner’s right in violation of the due process clause.

“As it appears, Section 13-A(c) creates a conclusive presumption: that marriages contracted after the SSS member already suffered a disability are for an illicit purpose. The presumption is dangerous as it assumes a fact which is not necessarily true. This amounts to a deprivation of property without being afforded the opportunity to be heard.

“All told, the Court strikes down the proviso ‘as of the date of disability’ in Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law for being an infringement on the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. it is incumbent upon the SSS to grant petitioner’s claim for survivorship pension, which accrued from the death of her husband, Leonardo.”

The facts and quoted redacted portions of the decision are from Belinda D.R. Dolera v. SSS (G.R. No. 253940, 24 October 2023).