Case Digest (G.R. No. 210245)
Facts:
Bayan Muna Representatives Neri Javier Colmenares and Carlos Isagani Zarate, Gabriela Women’s Party Representatives Luz Ilagan and Emmi de Jesus, ACT Teachers Party‑List Representative Antonio Tinio, and Kabataan Partylist Representative Terry Ridon v. Energy Regulatory Commission and Manila Electric Company, G.R. Nos. 210245, 210255, 210502, August 03, 2021, Supreme Court En Banc, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.In October–December 2013 MERALCO informed the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) that the shutdown of the SPEX‑Malampaya gas facility, coinciding with scheduled maintenance at other plants, would sharply raise its November 2013 generation costs; MERalco’s supplier bills showed total generation cost of ₱22.64 billion, implying a generation rate of ₱9.1070/kWh (up ₱3.44/kWh from the prior month). By letter dated December 5, 2013 MERALCO invoked the AGRA mechanism and asked the ERC (1) to allow it to bill a lower December generation charge and defer ₱3 billion of November costs to February 2014, and (2) to permit recovery of carrying costs arising from the deferral.
On December 9, 2013 the ERC provisionally cleared MERALCO to stagger recovery by exception to the AGRA Rules, authorized specific caps for December and February/March billings, and expressly denied MERALCO’s request to recover carrying costs without a separate formal application; the ERC emphasized that any amounts remained subject to post‑verification. The ERC action prompted consolidated Rule 65 petitions: G.R. No. 210245 (Bayan Muna et al.) and G.R. No. 210255 (NASECORE et al.) challenged the December 9 clearance as grave abuse, lack of due process, and constitutional infirmity in provisions of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA), R.A. No. 9136 and its IRR; MERALCO’s January 8, 2014 consolidated comment/counter‑petition was treated and docketed as G.R. No. 210502.
The Court consolidated the petitions, issued a 60‑day temporary restraining order (TRO) on December 23, 2013 (later extended), required comments, and set oral arguments (held January–February 2014). The ERC filed a March 3, 2014 Order in ERC Case No. 2014‑021MC declaring certain Luzon WESM prices void and directing PEMC to implement “regulated prices” while an investigation proceeded; the Court required parties to com...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Rule 65 special civil action (certiorari/prohibition) the proper remedy to challenge the ERC’s December 9, 2013 letter‑approval?
- Are these petitions and the issues they raise justiciable in this Court?
- Did the ERC commit grave abuse of discretion in approving MERALCO’s December 5, 2013 request (December 9, 2013 letter), including by violating petitioners’ due process and failing to guard against anti‑competitive practices?
- Does the amendment to Section 4(e), Rule 3 of the EPIRA IRR and ERC Resolutions No. 10‑01 and 10‑04 (series of 2004) exempting AGRA adjustments from prior notice/hearing violate due process and EPIRA policy?
- Do automatic generation rate adjustments surrender the ERC’s regulatory functions in violation of Section 25 of EPIRA?
- Are Sections 6 and 29 of EPIRA unconstitutional insofar as they declare generation/supply not public utilities and their prices beyond ERC regulation?
- Should the TRO be lifted; and are ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)