Title
IDEALS, Inc. vs. PSALM Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 192088
Decision Date
Oct 9, 2012
PSALM's sale of Angat Hydro-Electric Power Plant to K-Water nullified by Supreme Court for violating transparency, co-ownership rules, and constitutional limits on natural resource utilization, prioritizing public interest and water security.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 192088)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Subject Matter
    • Petitioners: IDEALS, Inc.; Freedom from Debt Coalition; AKBAYAN; Alliance of Progressive Labor; Rep. Walden Bello.
    • Respondents: PSALM Corp.; MWSS; NIA; Korea Water Resources Corp. (K-Water); other NPC bidders.
    • Subject: petition to enjoin PSALM’s sale of the 246-MW Angat Hydro-Electric Power Plant (AHEPP) to K-Water following public bidding.
  • Privatization of AHEPP
    • RA 9136 (EPIRA) created PSALM to privatize NPC generating assets within its 25-year term.
    • PSALM published an Invitation to Bid (Jan. 11–13, 2010), selling AHEPP “as is, where is” and requiring winning bidder to enter an O&M Agreement for the dam and other non-power components.
    • Six firms qualified; K-Water submitted the highest bid (US$440.88 M). PSALM’s Board issued Notice of Award to K-Water on May 5, 2010.
  • Judicial Proceedings
    • Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed May 19, 2010, with prayer for TRO/preliminary injunction.
    • Supreme Court issued Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) May 24, 2010. Respondents filed comments; K-Water filed a manifestation.

Issues:

  • Procedural
    • Is certiorari/prohibition the proper remedy?
    • Has the petition become moot by issuance of the Notice of Award?
    • Does it present a non-justiciable political question?
    • Do petitioners have legal standing?
    • Was the people’s right to information violated?
  • Substantive
    • Did PSALM exceed its authority in privatizing AHEPP?
    • Must co-owners (MWSS/NIA) be offered AHEPP first?
    • Does sale to a foreign corporation violate Constitution, Art. XII Sec. 2?
    • Does the Water Code bar transfer of NPC’s water permit to K-Water?
    • Did PSALM fail to prescribe EPIRA Sec. 47(e) safeguards for water usage?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.