ILOILO City – More Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power), the new power distributor in this city, has filed a petition at the Regional Trial Court for the expropriation of Panay Electric Co.’s (PECO) power distribution assets.
The petition was filed yesterday five days after PECO asked the Regional Trial Court in Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila to issue a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against MORE Power and all government agencies tasked to implement Republic Act (RA) 11212 which is MORE Power’s franchise law.
MORE Power asked the court here to issue with a writ of possession authorizing it to take immediate control, operation, use, and disposition of PECO’s power distribution system assets.
The city’s new power distributor also petitioned the court to determine the reasonable value of PECO’s power distribution system assets for just compensation, then order the transfer of the ownership of these upon payment of a just compensation.
By MORE Power’s own estimate, however, PECO’s power distribution system is valued at P481,842,450 – way below PECO’s previous claim that its assets are worth at least P2 billion.
“Plaintiff is ready, willing and able to deposit the amount – in a bank that the Honorable Court will designate,” read part of MORE Power’s petition.
In seeking the expropriation of PECO’s assets, MORE Power cited Section 10 of RA 11212 and Rule 67 Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court authorizing it to take possession of, exercise control over, and manage and operate all of the power distribution assets in Iloilo City.
The expropriation of PECO’s assets in its favor, according to MORE Power, would allow it to “immediately address and correct poor services, overcharging, frequent brownouts, expensive rates, old and unsafe facilities and practices, and other service deficiencies that this city’s power users and consumers had long suffered.”
Marcelo Cacho, PECO administrative manager, played down MORE Power’s petition for expropriation.
“The Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City would be issuing a ruling on our prayer for a temporary restraining order anytime soon since the matter has already been submitted for resolution. This hasty action of MORE Power to seize PECO’s assets is a clear indication of its intention to ignore the jurisdiction acquired by the Mandaluyong court,” said Cacho.
PECO, the sole power distributor in this city for the past 95 years, will exhaust all legal remedies to protect its assets, he stressed.
PECO’s power distribution franchise expired on Jan. 19, 2019. It failed to renew it. Its application, submitted in 2017 yet, remains stuck in the Lower House’s committee on legislative franchises.
In recent years, PECO faced mounting criticism from dissatisfied consumers complaining of erroneous billing, poor customer service and high rates, among others.
PECO specifically asked the Mandaluyong court for the following:
* a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction enjoining respondents and/or any of their representatives from enforcing, implementing and exercising any rights and obligations set forth under RA 11212, including but not limited to: (a) commencement of expropriation proceedings; (b) takeover by MORE Power of PECO’s distribution assets; and (c) issuance by DOE/ERC of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), provisional authority to operate or any other permits or licenses for the operation of MORE Power in Iloilo City, or if one had already been issued, to suspend the same pending the resolution of the case
* declare sections 10 (Right of Eminent Domain) and 17 (Transition of Operations) of RA 11212 as invalid and/or unconstitutional
President Rodrigo Duterte signed RA 11212 on Feb. 14, 2019.
PECO told the court its rights to its property are protected against any arbitrary and confiscatory undertaking.
PECO said RA 11212’s sections 10 and 17 infringe on its right to due process and equal protection of the law.
The delegated eminent domain authority granted to MORE Power “all but hostages” PECO to turn over its assets and business to the new power distribution franchisee, it lamented.
“While the grant of such power to a franchisee is not unusual, the targeting of PECO’s specific assets makes such grant of power constitutionally infirm,” read part of PECO’s petition.
It said this amounts to “a confiscation of property that may not be exercised by the State nor delegated to a private person in blatant disregard of the constitutionally protected property rights of another.”/PN
