Case Digest (G.R. No. 248061)
Facts:
On July 23, 2018, Republic Act No. 11212 was enacted granting More Electric and Power Corporation (MORE) a legislative franchise to establish, operate, and maintain an electric power distribution system in Iloilo City. Section 10 of RA 11212 authorizes MORE to exercise the power of eminent domain, while Section 17 permits the incumbent operator, Panay Electric Company, Inc. (PECO)—whose 1922 franchise expired on January 18, 2019—to continue operating the existing distribution assets pending the new franchisee’s full operations. PECO’s system comprises five substations, 450 km of lines, 20,000 poles, 1,300 transformers, and 64,000 meters. On March 6, 2019, PECO filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City a declaratory relief petition assailing Sections 10 and 17 as violative of its due process and equal protection rights and lacking public use. On March 14, 2019, the RTC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining MORE from pursuing expropriation. On July 1, 2Case Digest (G.R. No. 248061)
Facts:
- Legislative franchise and interim operation
- Republic Act No. 11212 (RA 11212) was enacted on July 23, 2018, granting More Electric and Power Corporation (MORE) a legislative franchise to establish, operate, and maintain an electric power distribution system in Iloilo City.
- Section 10 of RA 11212 authorizes MORE to exercise the power of eminent domain; Section 17 permits Panay Electric Company, Inc. (PECO) to continue operating its existing distribution assets during transition (up to two years).
- PECO’s franchise expiry and legal challenge
- PECO’s original franchise (since 1923) expired on January 18, 2019; it continues operations via a provisional Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC).
- On March 6, 2019, PECO filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City (Civil Case No. R-MND-19-00571), assailing Sections 10 and 17 of RA 11212 as violative of due process and equal protection, seeking to enjoin MORE’s expropriation efforts.
- RTC rendered judgment on July 1, 2019, declaring Sections 10 and 17 void and unconstitutional, and made permanent the TRO enjoining any takeover or expropriation by MORE.
- Supreme Court proceedings
- MORE filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 (G.R. No. 248061) and the Republic of the Philippines (OSG) filed another (G.R. No. 249406); petitions were consolidated.
- On September 15, 2020, the Court reversed the RTC, upheld constitutionality of Sections 10 and 17, and granted MORE’s petitions.
- PECO filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Court resolved on March 9, 2021, denying the motion and affirming the September 15, 2020 Decision.
Issues:
- Are Sections 10 and 17 of RA 11212 constitutional under:
- The delegation of the power of eminent domain to a private utility?
- The constitutional requirements of due process and just compensation?
- The equal protection clause?
- The public use requirement for expropriation?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)