NEA scolded for extending electric coop ex-GM’s term

File Photo Linemen are the troubleshooters of every electric cooperative, tapped to fix problems that trigger blackouts throughout Pangasinan and other parts of Luzon, as shown in this undated photo. The Pangasinan 1 Electric Cooperative is among power co-ops in Luzon seeking to find a common energy supplier but the bid was stopped by the National Electrification Administration. —WILLIE LOMIBAO

MANILA, Philippines — The National Electrification Administration (NEA) was scolded by Isabela 6th District Rep. Faustino “Inno” Dy for approving resolutions to extend an electric cooperative’s former general manager’s term, allegedly despite the presence of adverse findings under his term.

During the hearing of the House committees on energy and the North Luzon quadrangle, Dy asked NEA why it still approved the several term extensions for former Isabela Electric Cooperative 1 (Iselco 1) general manager Virgilio Montano, as proposed by the Iselco 1 board.

NEA can approve proposals to extend the term of sitting electric cooperative officials, but these should be based on extraordinary performance.

Dy claimed this did not apply to Montano since he supposedly faced an administrative complaint from NEA itself.

The lawmaker said NEA still extended the term of the official even after he reached the compulsory retirement age.

“The presence of the (Iselco 1) Board is very crucial because our questions would be directed to them, because they accepted the retirement of GM Montano in 2017, and they’ve extended his tenure for two years, even though it specifically says or states in the NEA memo na ang optional retirement can only be availed if they have an extraordinary performance,” Dy said.

“And given that the former GM Montano was found guilty of an administrative offense by the NEA, his tenure shouldn’t have been extended […] There should be no adverse findings during his term, but we saw Mr. Chairman that there have been several adverse findings against the general manager,” he claimed.

In response, NEA Director Noli Alamillo laid down several instances where Iselco 1’s Board submitted a resolution to the NEA, which was eventually approved by past NEA administrations:

Iselco 1 resolution was submitted on December 20, 2016, extending Montano’s term for six months.

Another resolution by the cooperative submitted on September 5, 2016 approved the release of Montano’s retirement benefits (approved by NEA on May 2022).

Iselco 1 resolution submitted on December 6, 2016 extended Montano’s term for one year

It also submitted a resolution on April 16, 2018, approving Montano’s stay on office until he is 65 years old

This led Dy to ask who should be held liable — NEA, who approved the proposal, or the Iselco 1 Board, which submitted the resolution.

“So, is this the responsibility of the board or of the NEA?  What we said in the past hearing, Board Director (Rodolfo) Cristobal said that they only submit resolutions and that it is NEA who decides whether it would accept these — or if he is qualified to be extended while having his retirement payment,” Dy stressed.

In response, Alamillo said these had been certified by the NEA Administrative Committee.

“In so far as extension and retirement is concerned, we have a complete staff work for this purpose, Your Honors, including certification coming from our administrative committee,” he noted.

“That’s it, to whose office does this responsibility fall?  So you do not know that there are cases where GM Montano was found guilty?” Dy asked.

“For the AdCom cases your Honor, we have this specific office — the NEA Administrative Office,” Alamillo replied.

Dy said the Administrative Committee should have exercised due diligence in informing the NEA that Montano was already charged with an administrative case.

“The reason why I bring this up is because it is clear that during the time he was there, from 2016, when GM Montano’s term was first extended, if it passed through this committee, they did not exercise due diligence, Mr. Chairman,” he said.

“Because it is really clear based on the guidelines that if one is found guilty of any administrative offense, and if they have adverse audit findings, your term cannot be extended because that is no longer extraordinary performance ‘yon. It means that there are irregularities involved,” he added.

This is the second hearing conducted by the two committees regarding the issues hounding Iselco 1 and 2.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020, Iselco 2 was flooded with complaints due to high power bills.

Meter readers and collectors at that time failed to visit households due to the lockdowns.