SC ruling on MORE Power franchise out this week

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

 

Iloilo City is keenly observing developments in the Supreme Court which is expected to rule anytime this week starting today, Sept 8, 2020, on the constitutional questions raised against the 25-year franchise of MORE Power to distribute electricity in the city.

At the heart of the SC case is Republic Act No. 11212 which granted the Enrique Razon-led MORE Power the right to operate power distribution services in Iloilo City. It was signed into law by Pres. Rodrigo Duterte on Feb 14, 2019.

The House of Representatives and Senate granted the franchise to MORE Power following the flood of complaints against the services of former distribution utility Panay Electric Co. ranging from erroneous billings and poor customer relations.

The complaints were backed up by more or less 30,000 signatures of consumers gathered by the group of former city councilors Joshua Alim and Plaridel Nava.

Alim and Nava were even sued by PECO for alleged conspiracy and falsification of public documents, but the charges were dismissed by the justice department for “utter lack of merit.”

In March 2019, MORE Power filed an expropriation complaint with the Iloilo Regional Trial Court in a bid to take over PECO assets citing Sections 11 and 17 of RA 11212.

Section 10 authorized MORE Power to “acquire such private property as is actually necessary for the realization of the purposes for which this franchise is granted, including, but not limited to poles, wires, cables, transformers, switching equipment and stations, buildings, infrastructure, machineries and equipment previously, currently or actually used, or intended to be used, or have been abandoned, unused or underutilized, or which obstructs its facilities, for the operation of a distribution system for the conveyance of electric power to end users in its franchise area.”

Section 17 of the law allowed PECO to operate its distribution system in the interim “until the establishment or acquisition by the grantee of its own distribution system and its complete transition towards full operations as determined by the Energy and Regulatory Commission, which period shall in no case exceed two (2) years from the grant of this legislative franchise.”

But PECO questioned RA 11212 before the Mandaluyong RTC Branch 209, and on July 1, 2019, Judge Monique Quisumbing-Ignacio sided with the 96-year-old power firm saying that Sections 10 and 17 of the law were unconstitutional.

“PECO’s rights to its properties are protected against arbitrary and confiscatory taking under the relevant portions of Section 10 and 17 of R.A No. 11212,” Judge Monique Ignacio ruled.

Judge Ignacio also made permanent the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that stops MORE from “enforcing, implementing and exercising any of the rights and obligations set forth under RA 11212.”

Meanwhile, Iloilo RTC Branch 37 Judge Yvette Marie Go granted MORE Power’s plea for the issuance of a writ of possession saying that “the Complaint for Expropriation is sufficient in form and substance,” but she fell short of issuing the actual writ.

MORE Power then asked the SC for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the Mandaluyong court ruling, while PECO asked the High Tribunal to hold in contempt Judge Go for ruling in favor of MORE Power despite the Mandaluyong RTC decision.

 

On Aug 14, the SC Second Division denied MORE’s request for a TRO and asked for PECO’s comment.

On Sept 2, the same SC division required Judge Go to respond to PECO’s petition that sought to hold her in contempt.

But on Dec 3, the SC en banc (entire bench or all justices) issued a TRO against the Mandaluyong RTC ruling and PECO while hearing the cases filed by MORE Power and PECO.

While the SC was deliberating on constitutional issues, MORE Power eventually took over PECO’s power distribution assets after Iloilo RTC Branch 23 Judge Emerald Requina-Contreras issued the writ of possession to the new distribution utility.