WHY did Panay Electric Co. (PECO) choose the Regional Trial Court (RTC Branch 209) as venue in which to file a civil case questioning the constitutionality of the law (Republic Act 11212) that granted a 25-year franchise to MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power) as new electricity distributor in Iloilo City? Why not here in Iloilo itself?
To justify the choice of venue, PECO identified 835 Harvard Street, Wack-Wack Village, Mandaluyong City as the address of its principal office before RTC-Mandaluyong. It is a residential village where the “office” alluded to is in a house with green gate.
Why such address when every Ilonggo knows that the office of PECO is on General Luna Street, Iloilo City?
Anyway, Judge Monique Quisumbing Ignacio’s decision calling two provisions of RA 11212 “unconstitutional” – Sections 10 and 17 – has called the attention of the Office of the Solicitor General. But that’s going ahead of the story. Let us look back to the two sections she assailed.
Section 10 on the “right of eminent domain” says, “The grantee may acquire such private property as is actually necessary for the realization of the purposes for which this franchise is granted, including but not limited to poles, wires, cables, transformers… Provided, that proper expropriation proceedings shall have been instituted and just compensation paid.”
Section 17, on the other hand, provides for smooth transition: “Panay Electric Co. (PECO) shall in the interim be authorized to operate the existing distribution system within the franchise area… until the establishment or acquisition by the grantee of its own distribution system and its complete transition towards full operations as determined by the ERC.”
On the other hand, ruling on a separate case filed by MORE Power for an application for writ of possession (first stage of expropriation proceedings), Judge Yvette Go of Iloilo City RTC Branch 37 granted the same, unmindful of the Mandaluyong court’s decision.
It fell on a separate branch (Branch 35) under Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo Amular to further hear the petition for “just compensation” that MORE Power is willing to pay PECO, exactly P481,842,450, based on PECO’s declared value of its assets.
PECO objected with a motion for reconsideration (MR) objecting to the eventual service of writ of possession, citing RA 11212’s “unconstitutionality” as declared by the Mandaluyong RTC, pending final resolution by the Supreme Court.
Friday this week, Judge Amular heard the MR in the presence of two lawyers each from PECO and MORE Power.
After listening to the positions of both sides, the judge said, “This Court is not bothered by the decision of another Court. This Court knows what to do.”
There was not much action there, however, both parties having requested for further time to review a separate motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSC) challenging the Mandaluyong RTC’s finding rendering two section of RA 11212 “unconstitutional”.
The Mandaluyong RTC had paid no attention to the OSC’s lengthy discussion penned by Assistant Solicitor General Henry Angeles and Associate Solicitor Frodina Rafanan. Let us quote just the salient points raised:
“There is no basis in law or jurisprudence to rule that the expropriation of PECO’s properties is not for ‘public use’ because the same are already for ‘public use’.
“Public use is deemed to include any use of usefulness, utility or advantage or what is productive of general benefit of the public. The requisite of ‘public use’ is therefore present as long as the use of the property is for the general benefit of the public.” (hvego31@gmail.com/PN)
