G.R. No. 264260 - Iloilo I Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, et al.

Petitioners Iloilo I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ILECO I), Iloilo II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ILECO II), and Iloilo III Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ILECO III) are electric cooperatives holding separate certificates of franchise to operate electric light and power distribution in various municipalities of Iloilo province and Passi City.
Their respective franchises have varying expiration dates: ILECO I (August 22, 2053), ILECO II (December 12, 2029), and ILECO III (August 10, 2039).
In 2019, MORE Electric and Power Corporation (MORE) was granted a franchise to operate an electric distribution system in Iloilo City under RA 11212.
In 2022, Republic Act No. 11918 amended MORE's franchise to expand its service area to 15 municipalities and one city in Iloilo, overlapping the franchise areas of petitioners ILECO I, II, and III.

Petitioners challenged Section 1 of RA 11918, contending it violates the Constitution by unjustifiably amending their franchises without common good, violating due process, impairing contracts, denying equal protection, and infringing exclusive franchise rights under NEA and EPIRA laws.
The overlapping areas roughly included specific municipalities for each petitioner: for ILECO I (6 municipalities), ILECO II (Passi City plus 7 municipalities), and ILECO III (2 municipalities).
Petitioners argued that allowing MORE to operate in their franchise area leads to wasteful competition, higher electricity rates, and contractual and financial risks due to take-or-pay supply agreements.

Constitutional mandate requires franchises not to be exclusive and allows Congress to amend franchises when common good demands.
The NEA Act prohibits granting franchises overlapping a cooperative’s franchise area except with board consent or commission finding of inability/unwillingness to serve.
EPIRA mandates distribution utilities to serve captive markets in least cost manner.
Legislative hearings acknowledged that MORE’s rates are lower than ILECO’s though potential market shifts could lead to stranded costs and higher rates for the “leftover” consumers served by ILECO.

Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 questioning RA 11918’s constitutionality.
Respondents filed a comment asserting the case raised political questions and arguing congressional plenary power and non-exclusivity of franchises.
Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association (PHILRECA), an association of electric cooperatives including petitioners, sought to intervene citing direct interest.

Whether petitioners enjoy exclusive franchises over their coverage areas as prohibited by Constitution and applicable laws.

Whether the grant of overlapping franchise area to MORE via RA 11918 violates the petitioners’ right to due process.

Whether RA 11918 impairs petitioners’ contracts with power suppliers and violates the constitutional prohibition on impairment of contracts.

Whether RA 11918 violates equal protection by granting MORE advantages not afforded to other distribution utilities.

Whether PHILRECA should be allowed to intervene given its legal interest in the case.