PECO’s claims are self-serving – lawmaker

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

A lawmaker slammed the former distribution utility of Iloilo City for claiming that any Supreme Court decision in favor of a rival firm will set a “bad precedent” for businesses in the country.

In a statement, Deputy House Speaker and Surigao del Sur Rep. Johnny Pimentel said there is no legal basis for the allegations of lawyer Estrella Elamparo, lead counsel of Panay Electric Co., that any SC decision in favor of MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power) is bad for the country’s business climate.

Elamparo earlier said that a judicial ruling in favor of MORE Power will legitimize hostile takeovers of companies and franchises from interested parties without showing their technical capacity.

PECO is questioning before the Supreme Court portions of Republic Act 11212, which granted MORE Power the congressional franchise to distribute electricity in Iloilo City.

Pimentel said Congress did not renew PECO’s franchise to favor a new company “so there is no truth of hostile takeover since PECO was removed because consumers finally stood up and rejected them due to poor service.”

“The opinion of PECO is self-serving because they still want to operate the electric utility but the truth of the matter is that it is the consumers who have been clamoring for another utility company because for several decades PECO has very poor service and they have several pending cases because of complaints from the customers,” Pimentel explained.

Pimentel said Congress rejected PECO due to the numerous complaints ranging from alleged overbilling, poor service, among others.

“I was always present during the hearings of the renewal of their franchise and I have thorough knowledge of their poor performance and several violations with the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC),” Pimentel added.

Pimentel maintained there is nothing wrong with doing business in the country, especially if there are other companies who can provide reliable and world-class services needed by consumers.

“I think the people deserves a better utility company than PECO who can really serve the needs of the people,” he said.

Pimentel is hopeful the Supreme Court will respect and recognize the decision of Congress to give the legislative franchise to a deserving company since it has the jurisdiction over the grant of the franchise.

“We cannot pre-empt the decision of the Supreme Court but in my opinion just like in the case o ABS-CBN, the high court will rule in favor of MORE Power because its already moot and academic because PECO does not have a franchise to operate anymore,” Pilmentel said.

Pimentel added that in the event the SC rules against MORE Power, PECO cannot consider it a victory because they still cannot operate.

“The House of Representatives already denied the franchise including their request for reconsideration so even if they win the case how can they operate if they do not have a franchise? However the franchise of MORE Power was approved,” Pimentel said.

After its franchise was revoked, PECO sought relief from the Mandaluyong City Regional Trial Court Branch 29 where it received a favorable decision.

Mandaluyong RTC Branch 29 Judge Monique Ignacio declared as unconstitutional Sections 10 and 17 RA 11212 “for infringing on PECO’s rights to due process and equal protection of the law.”

Section 10 of RA 11212 authorizes MORE to exercise the power of eminent domain and acquire such private property as necessary for the realization of the purposes for which the franchise is granted.

Section 17 reiterates the power of MORE as the grantee.

The court said PECO has no obligation to sell and the respondent MORE has no right to expropriate PECO’s assets under Sections 10 and 17 of RA 11212 and PECO’s rights to its properties “are protected against arbitrary and confiscatory taking.”

The SC, however, stopped the implementation of the Mandaluyong RTC decision and issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in favor of More Power.

PECO appealed the decision and asked for a withdrawal of the TRO which shall be decided by the SC on Sept 8.