ERC commissioners ask CA to stop, reverse new suspension

The four executives of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) freshly ordered suspended by the Office of the Ombudsman have asked the Court of Appeals (CA) to stop the anti-graft office from implementing a decision that found them guilty of simple neglect of duty.

ERC Commissioners Alfredo Non, Gloria Victoria Yap-Taruc, Josefina Patricia Magpale-Asirit and Geronimo Sta. Ana asked the CA for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or a writ of preliminary injunction on the Ombudsman's May 18 decision that ordered them suspended from the service for three months without pay.

The suspension of the four stemmed from a complaint filed by the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms Inc. (NASECORE) accusing them and the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) of syndicated estafa over the "unauthorized use" of consumers' bill deposits and the "unjust or discriminator fixing of interest return" on the deposits.

The criminal charge was dismissed by the Ombudsman.

These commissioners had previously been meted a one-year suspension in connection with allegedly anomalous transactions involving power generation companies affiliated with Meralco.

But the one-year suspension was stayed by the appellate court earlier in the year to avoid the disruption of ERC services in the absence of replacements for the four officials.

It is this earlier TRO from the CA that they raised in their new pleading in an attempt to convince the court of the urgency of their case.

In their 40-page petition for review, the suspended officials argued, among other contentions, that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt against them for simple misconduct.

They also said suspending them from office will result in the "cessation" and "paralysis" of the functions of the ERC as a collegial and quasi-judicial regulatory body, as they make four out of five of the commission created under the EPIRA.

Their suspension, they added, "prejudices public interest."

They also accused the Ombudsman of arrogating upon itself the rule-making authority of the ERC "by making impositions on the rates of interest on bill deposit, when such competence is reserved to them under the EPIRA (Electric Power Industry Reform Act)."

"By dictating upon the petitioners that the rate of interest on bill deposit is low or that they are ignoring their mandate to regulate MERALCO’s utilization of bill deposit, the Ombudsman overlooks the fact that such matters are well within the expertise of the ERC and the petitioners, and as such, only the ERC can issue guidelines or rules on matters discussed in the assailed Decision," their pleading said.

They said the Ombudsman relied on what they called the speculative allegations of NASECORE, their accuser, and reached a conclusion that "was not backed up by any documentary evidence" but was based on an "opinion that [they] committed a sin of omission."

"If the Ombudsman has held that the bill deposit is in the nature of the loan, which effectively allows MERALCO to utilize it without committing any crime, how could the Ombudsman conclude that the petitioners are tolerating its “misuse,”" the pleading said.

"There can never be a finding of “misuse” if the use of the bill deposit is considered legal. Indeed, the reasoning of the Ombudsman is a non sequitur." — RSJ, GMA News