Eminent domain
Employees and workers of Panay Electric Co. (PECO) in the Visayas are up in arms against a takeover bid launched by More Minerals Corp. (MMC).
PECO employees said that MMC does not have the power under its articles of incorporation, well as the qualification and sufficient capitalization to establish, operate and maintain the business of electric power distribution and conveyance to end-users.
PECO, the sole electricity supplier in Iloilo City, is fighting off a move in the House of Representatives to strip the former of its legislative franchise and to transfer it to MMC.
The House committee on legislative franchises, chaired by Palawan Rep. Franz Josef Alcarez, is said to be favoring MMC over PECO, which has been servicing Iloilo City 95 years now, and has even endorsed the grant of power of eminent domain to MMC
To make up for the MMC lack of technical know-how and the required facility to engage in power distribution, the committee endorsed the grant of power of eminent domain to the privately owned MMC.
PECO counsel Atty. Manases Carpio said they are objecting to the apparent indecent haste and lack of justification for the committee to favor HB 8132 seeking the grant of an electric distribution franchise to MMC over HB 6023 which endorses the renewal of PECO’s franchise.
In a letter to House Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Carpio deplored the committee’s move to pave the way for expropriation of private property to enable the MMC to operate as an electric power distributor in Iloilo City at PECO’s expense.
He urged Congress to withhold further actions on the MMC bill pending public hearings with PECO representatives and other stakeholders in attendance.
Carpio claimed that the committee failed to invite representatives of PECO and other concerned stakeholders to the hearings in violation of House rules, as well as the principles of prior operator, fairness, and level playing field.
Coincidental or not
A few months’ back, no less than Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Governor Nestor Espenilla Jr. cited the role of rural banks in bringing necessary financial services to the underserved, unserved and unbanked Filipinos.
Espenilla said rural banks have proven their mettle and invaluable contribution to countryside development through financing of rural communities, adding that RBs are strategically positioned to be a catalyst for greater financial inclusion.
But recent actions both by Congress and the Department of Education seem to view rural banks, and even thrift banks, differently.
Loans extended by these banks to public school teachers are no longer assured that they will be paid. This was after these loans were pushed to the bottom of a list of priorities in terms of allowable deductions to teachers’ payrolls.
According to DepEd Order 5 which implements a provision in the General Appropriations Act, under the automatic payroll deduction system (APDS) which takes out loan payments from a teacher’s monthly pay, mandatory government obligations are first, followed by non-stocks savings and loans associations (NSSLAs) and mutual benefits associations, provident funds, insurance companies, and lastly, rural and thrift banks.
Nothing wrong with putting government obligations first. But strangely, from second place, rural and thrift banks were relegated to last place. If by the time it gets to them the teachers’ salary is only P5,000 which is the minimum take home pay, then these private lending institutions (PLIs) will not get a single centavo. Since partial deduction is not allowed, if a teachers for example owes the bank P3,000 in monthly amortization and his salary is P7,000, the bank does not receive anything.
Together with the demotion of PLIs on the list is the promotion of NSSLAs.
Is it mere coincidence that it was around the time NSSLAs were promoted that a teacher’s party-list won a seat in Congress, with the group’s representative happening to be the chairman and CEO of the largest teachers’ NSSLA in the country?
Unclear policy
The Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) recently conducted public hearings on a draft memorandum circular covering common cell towers and which drew sharp criticism from industry stakeholders.
Much of the disagreement centered on presidential adviser Ramon Jacinto’s insistence on allowing only a maximum of two independent tower companies to build common cell towers.
Private tower companies themselves have objected to this policy, saying that if the problem is lack of cell towers, then there should be as many of them as possible.
Advocacy group Better Broadband Alliance lead convenor Grace Mirandilla-Santos also questioned Jacinto and DICT on the government’s rationale and legal basis for limiting the participating tower companies.
There are those who fear that limiting it to only two companies breeds favoritism and corruption.
Jacinto as early as January already seemed to have his favored pick by mentioning American Tower Corp. as a viable option.
Jacinto owns Rajah Broadcasting Network, Inc. (RBNI), which operates 10 radio stations whose towers, along with those of other prospective broadcast companies, could kick-off the telco tower companies’ goal of 20,000 plus towers.
DICT Acting Secretary Eliseo Rio may have seen through Jacinto’s policy as he emphasized during the public consultation last Thursday that “I have the last say, hindi si RJ (not Mr. Jacinto).”
He stated unequivocally that he is responsible for what will be decided, and that he and not Jacinto will sign the policy. We certainly hope so.
For comments, e-mail at mareyes@philstarmedia.com