Case Digest (G.R. No. 159796)
Facts:
Romeo P. Gerochi, Katulong ng Bayan (KB) and Environmentalist Consumers Network, Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., G.R. No. 159796, July 17, 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc, Nachura, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners sued to declare Section 34 of Republic Act No. 9136 (the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001, EPIRA) and Rule 18 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) unconstitutional for imposing the so‑called Universal Charge; they sought refunds, and prayed for injunctive relief against respondents’ charging and collection of the Universal Charge.
Congress enacted the EPIRA on June 8, 2001 (effective June 26, 2001). Pursuant to Section 34 (Universal Charge) and the IRR, respondent National Power Corporation‑Strategic Power Utilities Group (NPC‑SPUG) and NPC filed petitions before the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) seeking availments from components of the Universal Charge: NPC‑SPUG for Missionary Electrification (ERC Case No. 2002‑165) and NPC for withdrawal from the Special Trust Fund (STF) for Watershed Rehabilitation (ERC Case No. 2002‑194). The ERC provisionally authorized a UC‑ME rate (Order of Dec. 20, 2002) and later approved adjustments (Decision of June 26, 2003), which was then modified on reconsideration (Order of Oct. 7, 2003). Separately, ERC authorized NPC a P70,000,000 withdrawal for watershed rehabilitation (April 2, 2003 decision).
On the basis of these ERC orders, respondent Panay Electric Company, Inc. (PECO) began charging petitioners and other end‑users the Universal Charge in their electric bills starting July 2003. Petitioners then filed an original action styled a Complaint (Sept. 15, 2003) directly with the Court, challenging constitutionality of Sec. 34 and Rule 18 and alleging the Universal Charge is essentially a tax and that ERC’s authority to determine it is an unconstitutional delegation. They demanded refunds and injunctive relief. Respondents (DOE, ERC, NPC, PSALM, TRANSCO, PECO) defended, asserting the Universal Charge is an exaction under the State’s police power, not a tax, and that EPIRA contains sufficient standards for ERC’s rule‑making and rate‑setting functions. PSALM also emphasized the creation and administration of a Special Trust Fund.
The Supreme Court found a procedural defect in that petitioners bypassed the hierarchy o...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the Universal Charge imposed under Section 34 of the EPIRA a tax?
- Does Section 34 and the delegation to the ERC to determine, fix and approve the Universal Charge constitute an undue delegation of le...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)