No real rivalry between PECO and MORE Power

By Herbert Vego

 

“UNNATURAL!”

With that single word, President Roel Z. Castro of MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power), affirmed his belief that the brownout that pestered residents of Mandurriao, Iloilo City the other Saturday was intentional.

Castro was the main resource person yesterday of a fact-finding probe by the Sangguniang Panglunsod’s committee on public utilities as regards the power outage that could have been an act of “sabotage.”

His allegation that wired stones and bottles thrown at the power lines had triggered the trip-offs at the Mandurriao substation earned the nod of the councilors for being factual.

The occasion nevertheless turned out to be an ideal venue for the city dads to relay to Mr. Castro their constituents’ concerns. Noted.

With the consent of committee chair Romel Duron, an uninvited officer from the defunct Panay Electric Co. (PECO), Mikel Afzelius, was given a chance to ventilate his denial against the alleged “libelous” accusations of sabotage, indirectly hinting that his company was the entity alluded to. He also painted a scenario of a better power-distribution utility that “could have been” had PECO enjoyed a “two-year transition period.”

That assertion must have sounded Greek to Duron, Vice-Mayor Jeffrey Ganzon, councilors Jay Treñas, Alan Zaldivar, Ed Peñaredondo and Ely Estante, simply because PECO had never acknowledged MORE Power as its successor.

Castro simply shrugged it off, stressing that PECO has “no more franchise, no more certificate of public convenience and necessity and no more business permit.”

This corner interprets it to mean that there is no more rivalry between MORE and PECO because the former has been functioning as the sole energy distributor in Iloilo City for four months already.

This corner has always wished for a smooth transition period from PECO to MORE, but within the framework of the law (RA 11212) granting the latter a 25-year franchise.

Had PECO not questioned the constitutionality of the franchise before a far-away regional trial court in Mandaluyong City, the predecessor and the successor could have worked out a mutually beneficial transition.

Instead of cooperating, however, PECO – whose franchise expired on January 19, 2019 yet –  engaged MORE Power in court battles that have already been well discussed in the media.

The “unconstitutional” tag is now water under the bridge. Both the Court of Appeals (CA 18th Division) and the Supreme Court have restrained the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong from enforcing its decision favorable to PECO because it “has no jurisdiction to restrain and/or enjoin the expropriation case.”

The transitory provision (Sec. 17) of RA 11212 aimed to keep PECO functional “until the establishment or acquisition by the grantee [MORE Power] of its own distribution system.”

Sec. 10 authorizes MORE Power to sequester the distribution utility in exchange for a “just compensation” that MORE Power has offered to pay PECO amounting to P481,842,450.

Despite the undisputed expiration of its franchise on January 19, 2019 and “extension” of one year until February 28, 2020, PECO to this day would not give up just because the Supreme Court – according to MORE Power lawyer Hector Teodosio – has not yet ruled on a petition to junk with finality the decision of the Mandaluyong court.

It was Judge Emerald Requina-Contreras of the Iloilo Regional Trial Court (RTC Branch 23) who granted a writ of possession to MORE Power, directing the court’s sheriff to turn over PECO’s distribution facilities to MORE Power on the basis of presumption of the constitutionality of RA 11212 until amended by Congress or nullified by the Supreme Court.

With no more franchise to hold on to, what’s the point of PECO in questioning the capability of MORE Power through two non-Ilonggo party-list congressmen — Abang Lingkod’s Stephen Paduano and Ako Bisaya’s Sonny Lagon — who vowed to initiate a congressional investigation?

Ironically, it could be because PECO might benefit from a provision of RA 11212, the very law that they had questioned. Section 11 states that the franchise “shall be deemed ipso facto revoked in the event that the grantee fails to operate continuously for two (2) years.”

Therein lies the key as to who has the motive to stall the operation of the new company that represents a change in almost a century of unchallenged PECO monopoly.