Case Digest (G.R. No. 192088)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 192088)
Facts:
Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment Through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS, Inc.), represented by its Executive Director, Mr. Edgardo Ligon, and Freedom From Debt Coalition (FDC), represented by its Vice President Rebecca L. Malay, Akbayan Citizens Action Party, Alliance of Progressive Labor, and Rep. Walden Bello, petitioners v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM), et al., G.R. No. 192088, October 09, 2012, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The petition challenged PSALM’s public bidding and award of the Angat Hydro-Electric Power Plant (AHEPP) to Korea Water Resources Corporation (K‑Water). PSALM, created by Republic Act No. 9136 (EPIRA), was mandated to privatize National Power Corporation (NPC) generation assets. PSALM began steps to privatize the 246 MW AHEPP (part of the Angat Complex) in 2005; PSALM’s Board approved bidding procedures on December 15, 2009 and issued an Invitation to Bid (11–13 January 2010). The bidding package described the sale “AS IS, WHERE IS,” stated that non‑power components (including the Angat Dam) would be subject to an Operations & Maintenance (O&M) agreement, and flagged that a water protocol with MWSS, NIA, NWRB and NPC was being negotiated. Six bidders qualified; K‑Water placed the highest bid (US$440,880,000). On May 5, 2010 PSALM’s Board approved a Notice of Award to K‑Water. On May 19, 2010 petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for injunctive relief; the Court issued a Status Quo Ante Order on May 24, 2010.
Petitioners alleged (inter alia) grave abuse of discretion: (a) PSALM violated the people’s constitutional right to information by failing to disclose key bidding terms, qualified bidders and minimum price (relying on Chavez v. Public Estates Authority), (b) PSALM failed to offer the AHEPP to alleged co‑owners MWSS and NIA, (c) allowing a foreign, Korean state‑owned corporation to win contravened the constitutional and statutory nationality limitations on exploitation of water resources, and (d) privatization threatened the people’s right to water (citing a CHR advisory). They sought annulment of the award and a permanent injunction.
Respondents denied abuse. PSALM argued the petition was procedurally improper or moot (Notice of Award), the bidding was open and transparency satisfied (website postings, forums), confidentiality rules justified non‑disclosure of certain items, MWSS’s expenditures did not create co‑ownership, EPIRA compels privatization of NPC generation assets (except the Agus and Pulangui complexes), and DOJ opinions supported that hydropower operation by foreigners does not amount to appropriation prohibited by the Constitution/Water Code so long as the non‑power components remain state‑controlled. MWSS claimed supervisory control over Angat Dam and investments supporting its interest; it asked that AHEPP be transferred to MWSS. NIA, First Gen and other private respondents filed comments defending PSALM or disclaiming real‑party interest. K‑Water filed a manifestation in lieu of comment, relying on PSALM’s conduct of the process.
The petition reached the Court by a direct petition for certiorari and prohibition (Rule 65), the CAUSE: allegations of grave abuse of discretion in PSALM’s exercise of privatization powers under EPIRA and infringements of constitutional water/national patrimony provisions. The Court En Banc heard and resolved the matter.
Issues:
- Do petitioners have legal standing to challenge PSALM’s bidding and award?
- Is the petition rendered moot by the issuance of a Notice of Award to K‑Water?
- Was petitioners’ right to information violated by PSALM’s handling of the bidding and disclosure of materials?
- Who owns and has jurisdiction over the AHEPP and Angat Dam (NPC, MWSS, NIA)?
- Does the sale of AHEPP to a foreign corporation violate Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution?
- Does the sale/award violate the Water Code provisions on grant/transfer of water rights?
- Did PSALM fail to comply with Section 47(e) of EPIRA (safeguards for multi‑purpose hydro facilities)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)