IN 2017, Panay Electric Co. (PECO) applied for a renewal of its franchise to supply electricity to Iloilo City. I thought that PECO was treating the matter as a mere formality. Perhaps the franchise committee of the House of Representatives which had the authority as to whether or not to renew PECO’s franchise felt the same.
As I wrote at the time, I suggested PECO’s attitude was an over-confident “See ya in 2044.” Anyhow the franchise committee neither approved nor disapproved of PECO’s application.
Later, MORE Power made an application to the franchise committee which was eventually approved. This caused a surprise to many since MORE Power did not present evidence that it had the facilities to meet the obligations of the franchise. Instead it presumed that it could take over, via eminent domain, the resources owned and operated by PECO. The franchise committee agreed in principle and eventually Republic Act 11212 giving MORE Power the right to take over PECO’s assets was passed.
PECO has challenged MORE Power’s right of expropriation and the matter is currently pending in the Supreme Court (SC).
It is disappointing that the SC has not handed down its decision. Logically, the expropriation decision should be addressed first, not last.
The right of eminent domain usually applies to public sector matters and in an equitable society is sparingly used. The “build, build, build”’ program has not proceeded with the momentum we had hoped for, partly because of the slow and careful processes involved in pressing eminent domain.
***
We look to the Judicial Branch of government to provide a counterweight to the competing claims of the Executive and Legislative Branches.
The proposed abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) by the Philippines is currently under review. Is it a decision that President Duterte can make unilaterally or does he need Senate approval?
Senate approval is required to accept the VFA which was sought and obtained in 1999. Senate approval to join the VFA is explicitly specified in the Constitution. But there is no mention of whether abrogation also requires similar approval.
This is a job for the SC and if it is to be regarded as a genuinely co-equal branch of government, it should not delay its decision.
In fact the SC is in danger of becoming not as relevant as the Constitution’s framers intended it to be.
***
The expressions of concern by well-meaning citizens in relation to the K-12 Act (RA 10533) deserved a better hearing and response from SC which in patronizingly adversarial terms rejected all six petitions assailing K-12. These petitions were ‘consolidated’ in a way that made their concerns diluted. Furthermore it took SC nearly six years after the ‘passing’ of RA10533 (one of the petitions cast light on the doubtful nature of the passage of the Act), thereby rendering the Act irrelevant for many students.
Constitutionally, our students are supposed to receive “quality” education but international comparisons show this not to be true.
SC must do better, otherwise it runs the risk of becoming irrelevant./PN
