Party-list group Bayan Muna yesterday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling that upheld a 2013 order of the Energy Regulatory Commission allowing the collection of what it said is the “mother of all power rate hikes” by the Manila Electric Co.
Former Bayan Muna Rep.Carlos Isagani Zarate personally led the filing of the motion for reconsideration of the en banc ruling which allowed Meralco to impose a staggered hike in its power rates to recover over P22.64 billion it allegedly paid for increased cost of electricity in 2013.
The petitioners asked the SC to reconsider its ruling and hold the ERC accountable for its failure to protect the consumers.
The ruling was promulgated by the SC in August last year but only made public early this month.
“The Majority did not see anything wrong with how the ERC exercised or failed to exercise its powers but how about the consumers who will be forced to shoulder the rate hike, which is the highest recorded pass-on charge in Philippine history, and which atrocious amount was a result of anti-competitiveness behavior, ineptness and irregularities? What about the State policy of consumer protection and regulation of monopolies for public good?, “the motion said.
“From where we sit, the consumers do not fe el that its interests are being protected and promoted,” it added.
The petitioners said the Court committed reversible error when it held that the ERC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it “hastily approved” Meralco’s Dec. 5, 2013 letter.
To recall, the ERC allowed Meralco to increase electricity rates by P4.15 per kilowatt hour (kWhl) in three tranches from December 2013 to March 2014 due to the maintenance shutdown of SPEX-Malampaya which prompted the utility firm to buy higher-priced electricity supply from the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM).
The rate increase though was never implemented because the SC issued several temporary restraining orders until indefinitely halting the increase in April 2014.
In the same ruling, the ERC though junked Meralco’s request to charge consumers the carrying costs.
The SC, voting 6-5, held that the ERC did not abuse its discretion when it granted Meralco’s request for a staggered power rate increase.
The ruling penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez stated the existing rules allowed the automatic adjustment of generation rates, which under the same rules it said, can be charged to consumers in one single bill, subject only to post-verification by ERC to avoid over-recovery or under-recovery.
The majority also held that Section 4 (e), Rule 3 of the EPIRA law excempts certain rate adjustments from certai requirements such as notice and hearing.
The petitioners deplored what it said is the failure of ERC to investigate first the generation rate despite “glaring irregularities”leading to is approval of Meralco’s request.
“The ERC should have known the said circumstances being the body with technical expertise, obligation to regulate the spot market, investigate and penalize market abuses, and overall duty to protect the consumers from the abuses and greed of power players,” the petitioners said.
They added the ERC should have known the schedule of the Malampaya shutdown since it is known months or even years in advance.
The petitioners also questioned the ERC’s move approving Meralco’s request “in a span of just one working day” on Dec.r 5, 2013.
“Clearly from the foregoing, ERC committed grave abuse of discretion.
The facts surrounding the highest recorded rate increase, which are highly irregular and suspicious, should have meritedthe exercise by the ERC of its powers under the EPIRA to at least protect the consumers,” they added.
Further, the petitioners said Meralco’s request for a staggered power rate increase should have alerted the ERC that something is out of the ordinary.
“ERC’s hasty decision in approving the P4.15 kWh increase violated various provisions in the EPIRA to protect the public from anti-competitive policies and market abuse,” the petitioners said.
