Parties in Meralco rate case to meet Monday
Lawyers of Manila Electric Co., the government, petitioners and third parties in the Meralco rate hike case are set to meet Monday at the Supreme Court to discuss issues and procedures for the oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 21. AFP FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—Lawyers of Manila Electric Co. (Meralco), the government, petitioners and third parties in the Meralco rate hike case are set to meet Monday at the Supreme Court to discuss issues and procedures for the oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 21.
In an order issued on Friday, the Supreme Court called the lawyers of the parties to attend the preliminary conference set at 2 p.m. to “determine and/or identify the pertinent issues raised by the parties involved and the respective order by which these issues are to be discussed during the oral arguments.”
On Dec. 23 last year, the Supreme Court, acting on petitions by party-list lawmakers and a group of electricity consumers and homeowners associations, issued a 60-day temporary restraining order on the P4.15-per-kilowatt-hour increase that Meralco was to collect in three installments for three months.
Aside from Meralco, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) are respondents in the case.
The petitioners claimed that their constitutional right to due process was violated when the DOE and the ERC allowed and approved the increases without conducting public hearings.
Rene Saguisag
Lawyers from the petitioners’ side who are expected to attend the conference include Ma. Cristina Yambot, representing six Makabayan bloc lawmakers; and former Sen. Rene Saguisag, representing the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms and two groups of homeowners’ associations.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which represents the government agencies, earlier assigned a team led by Assistant Solicitor General Vida San Vicente to handle the case.
Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza inhibited himself because he used to be Meralco’s assistant corporate secretary.
Accra law firm
Meralco is represented by the Accra law firm, which filed a 132-page reply denying that the company had committed any wrongdoing and collusion.
The utility also said the automatic rate adjustments had legal basis and that it did not stand to benefit from the generation charges which, it pointed out, were collected by new suppliers after the old ones temporarily shut down for maintenance.
“Imposing a restraining order at this point… only disrupts the power supply mechanism, prejudices the supply chain and damages all power industry participants, the public and ultimately, the national economy as a whole,” Meralco said.
Third-party respondents
The high court granted Meralco’s motion to include as third-party respondents two of its electricity suppliers, First Gas Power Corp. and Quezon Power (Philippines) Ltd. Co.; 11 power generating firms that trade on the wholesale electricity spot market (WESM); and National Grid Corp. of the Philippines, a private firm that maintains and operates the country’s transmission network.
The 11 power generating firms are 1590 Energy Corp., AP Renewables Inc., Bac-Man Energy Development Corp./Bac-Man Geothermal Inc., First Gen Hydro Power Corp., GNPower Mariveles Coal Plant Ltd Co., Panasia Energy Holdings Inc., Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp., SN Aboitiz Power, Strategic Power Development Corp., Trans-Asia Power Generation Corp. and Vivant Sta. Clara Northern Renewables Generation Corp.
Other suppliers
The Supreme Court earlier asked the petitioners to implead other Meralco suppliers—SEM-Calaca Power Corp., Masinloc Power Partners Corp., Therma Luzon Inc., San Miguel Energy Corp., South Premiere Power Corp. and Therma Mobile Inc.
The tribunal also instructed the Philippine Electricity Market Corp., which governs and administers the WESM, to be included as a respondent.
The power firms were given until Jan. 20 to comment on the main petition and Meralco’s reply. They were also asked to file manifestations by Jan. 15 should they waive their right to participate in the oral arguments.
The OSG, on the other hand, was given until Jan. 17 to submit the government’s response to the suit.
