CATCH-22 SITUATION: ‘Bias’, media glare forced judge to drop expro case

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

Too much media attention and perceived bias prompted a Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge to distance himself from the controversial expropriation case filed by MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power) against Panay Electric Co. (PECO).

In his order dated Jan 15, 2020 on Civil Case No. 19-34158, RTC Branch 35 Presiding Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo S. Amular hinted that he was in “a catch-22 situation.”

In popular culture, a catch-22 situation is described “as a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.”

Judge Amular said that despite performing his duties “in accordance with the conscientious dictate” of his conscience and the applicable provisions of law, his judgment will be tainted in the eyes of all parties involved.

“It has come to a point that whatever judgment the presiding judge would render in the case would not be accepted by either the plaintiff or the defendant or maybe tainted with bias,” the order reads.

Judge Amular, who requested the transfer of the expropriation case outside Iloilo, also expressed concern with “the endless debates about the merits of the case in the print and broadcast media.”

“Since the court is the least understood as an institution in the discharge of its function, the lack of understanding of the rules and procedures in connection thereto would affect the integrity of our courts to uphold the rule of law.”

Upon consultation with Iloilo RTC Executive Judge Victor Gelvezon, Amular opted “to have this case re-raffled to whatever branch of this Court.”

On Jan 16, Judge Gelvezon ordered that the expropriation case records be forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of Court for re-raffle.

The re-raffle was conducted Monday and the case was assigned to RTC Branch 33 Presiding Judge Ma. Theresa Gaspar.

MORE Power and PECO have yet to react on this latest development.

MORE filed the expropriation case in March 2019 after securing its legislative franchise via Republic Act 11212 to distribute electricity in Iloilo City a month before.

PECO’s franchise expired in January 2019.

In a petition filed before the Iloilo Regional Trial Court, cited RA 11212 and Rule 67 in accordance with Sec. 2 of the Revised Rules of Court to assert its authority “to take possession of, exercise control over, and manage and operate” all the power distribution assets in Iloilo City.

MORE Power said the expropriation of PECO’s assets in its favor will allow it to “immediately address and correct poor services, overcharging, frequent brownouts, expensive rates, old and unsafe facilities and practices, and other service deficiencies that this city’s power users and consumers had long suffered”.

MORE Power said it was ready to immediately provide the estimated total value of PECO’s assets at more than P480 million.

MORE Power also maintained that the assets they seek to control are already public property as consumers have repaid PECO for its investments.

It cited Republic Act No. 9136 or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA), which states that “the costs for the acquisition, construction, and establishment of the power distribution system were allowed to be recovered through the retail rate approved by the ERC (Energy Regulatory Commission).”

“Considering that the retail rate already covers the capital recovery of the defendant, these power distribution system assets are no longer purely private but are vested with public interest. Moreover, electricity is a basic necessity whose generation and distribution is imbued with public interest,” the complaint added.

PECO questioned MORE Power’s franchise with the Mandaluyong City RTC which granted its petition, but the Supreme Court later restrained the Mandaluyong court’s decision.