Bid to stop Meralco PSA junked
The Supreme Court (SC) has junked the petition seeking to scrap the power supply agreement (PSA) between the Department of energy (DOE) and the Manila electric Co. (Meralco) for the latter’s procurement of 1,800 MW of capacity. In a seven-page resolution, the Court’s First Division held that the petition was filed prematurely and in violation of the hierarchy of courts.
The ruling stemmed from the petition filed by Power for People Convenor, Konsyumer National Coordinator, Philippine Movement for Climate Justice and Freedom from Debt Coalition. The petition sought the Court’s urgent issuance of a temporary restraining order to stop respondents DOE Secretary Alfonso G. Cusi and lawyer Ferdinand Domingo, chairman of the Third Party Bids and Awards Committee (TPBAC), from pursuing the PSA for the 1,800 Mw baseload capacity.
The petitioners argued that the provisions in the terms of reference (TOR) “are glaringly unfavorable to consumers of electricity,” which is contrary to Meralco’s obligation to supply electricity in the least-cost manner.
The respondents, according to the petitioners, gravely abused their discretion for allowing the competitive selection process to proceed even with the questionable TOR.
They further averred that the TOR for the 1,200 Mw and 500 Mw contracts contained provisions that guarantee lower electricity rates for consumers than those provided in the TOR for the 1,800-Mw capacity.
The petitioners said they decided to directly file their petition with the Court considering that the issues raised were of transcendental importance and involve public welfare and concerns purely questions of law.
The SC noted that the petitioners also raised several contentions on the advantageous terms for Meralco’s procurement of PSAS, which would require the assessment of the costs necessary to generate the required capacity, the expected energy consumption of electricity consumers within Meralco’s franchise area for the period of the PSA, and a historical analysis of Meralco’s current PSAS with other generation companies.
The Court said these issues were factual in nature which would require looking into the wisdom of the Meralco
TPBAC TOR for the 1,800-Mw contract capacity.
“However, without a complete and settled factual determination, the Court can only surmise and speculate on the merits of the challenged terms in the TOR. Petitioners’ direct recourse to the Court is therefore fatal to their petition,” the SC declared.
“After a careful study of the allegations and the records of this case, the Court resolves to dismiss the petition for violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.”
The SC said the admission of the petitioners that the DOE has yet to act on their letter protesting the TOR only highlighted the prematurity of the petition.
The SC also said pending the Energy Regulatory Commission’s review of the PSA, the reasonableness of the electricity rates resulting from the TOR for the 1,800 Mw baseload is yet to be determined.
“It is therefore clearly premature for the Court to take cognizance of the petition and supplant any term prescribed by the Meralco TPBAC,” the Court said.