Meralco gets SC nod; COA to review books
Saturday, December 09, 2006
By Jomar Canlas, Reporter
THE Supreme Court granted on Wednesday the P0.0169 per kilowatt hour rate hike petition of power giant Meralco but ordered the Commission on Audit (COA) to look into its books and records to safeguard consumer rights.
The 22-page unanimous decision of the Court, penned by Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, approved the rate increase, but said the Court could not close its eyes to the fundamental principle of social justice—that “he who has less in life should have more in law.”
“The Energy Regulatory Commission is, thus, directed to request the COA to undertake a complete audit on the books, records and accounts of Meralco relative to its provisionally-approved rate increases and unbundled rates,” the Court said.
The Court acknowledged its ruling would have “far reaching effects and is of utmost significance to the public, especially to the poor, who face the threat of deeper wallowing in the quagmire of financial distress once the burden of electricity rate increases is passed on to them.”
“Better judgment, therefore, calls for this Court to temper the rigidity of its decision,” the decision said.
Expert body
With the said ruling, the Court affirmed the ERC findings on March 20, 2003, and its May 30, 2003, order granting the petition of Meralco for rate increase.
The Supreme Court reversed that Court of Appeals decision on July 22, 2004, and resolution on January 24, 2005.
Meralco argued before the ERC that the said rate increase was to augment its growing operation and maintenance expenses, which include leased properties on customer premises, construction work in progress, and building plants for future use.
The Court pointed out that the findings of an administrative agency, like the ERC, should be given respect by the courts.
“The established rule in this jurisdiction is that findings of administrative or regulatory agencies on matters within their technical area of expertise are generally accorded not only respect but finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence,” the Supreme Court said.
Midnight order?
The ruling of the Supreme Court en banc was dated December 6, the same day former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban retired the Court.
The decision document raised some questions because it carried only the names of five justices from the First Division, although the en banc includes the full 15 membership.
Gleo Guerra, assistant public information office chief of the Supreme Court, denied that it was a midnight decision under the Panganiban court.
She said there had been lengthy deliberations and the promulgation was really set for Panganiban’s last day in office.
She said the front page disparity was due to a typographical error and that all 15 justices had signed the last page of the decision.
posted by philpower @ 8:44 AM,
