SANTIAGO CITY, Isabela – A local court declared as null and void two controversial Memorandum Circulars (MCs) of the National Electrification Administration (NEA) for having issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of its jurisdiction.
In a 12-page decision, Judge Efren Cacatian of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 35 stated that the NEA Board of Administrators has no power under the law as nowhere in Section 4 of Presidential Decree (D) 269 and its amendments under Republic Act (RA) 10531 or the NEA Reform Act expressly provides for it.
On the contrary, the court added that NEA has supervisory powers only over electric cooperatives such as in the issuance of orders, rules and regulations motu proprio or upon petition of third parties, to conduct investigations, referenda and other similar actions on all matters affecting the ECs; issuance of preventive or disciplinary measures, including, but not limited to, suspension or removal and replacement of any or all of the members of the Board of Directors and officers of the ECs, as the NEA may deem fit and necessary and to take any other remedial measures as the law or any agreement or arrangement with NEA may provide to attain the objectives of the law and appoint independent Board of Directors in the ECs.
“The law speaks only of supervisory and disciplinary powers over the ECs and its Board of Directors; no more, no less. It speaks of preventive suspension, removal and replacement of any or all of the members of the Board of Directors and officers of the ECs but only in so far as or in relation to the conduct of the investigations involving such officers affecting the ECs,” the decision stressed.
The court pointed out that in using Memorandum circulars No. 2021-055 and 2021-056, NEA-BOA has exercised not its supervisory and disciplinary powers but control over ECs like the petitioner Isabela electric Cooperative (ISELECO) I clearly beyond its authority, hence, ultra vires not to say an exercise of legislative power which it does not have.
By issuing the two assailed circulars, the court explained that NEA and its Board of Administrators have, in effect, need an executive legislation which is prohibited by law.
Further, NEA-BOA is not expressly vested with the power to screen, hire and appoint general manager of electric cooperatives and it is by the mere inference of the Solicitor-General to reach the conclusion that the NEA-BOA has such powers, without expressed provision of the law.
The court reiterated that the law is clear that NEA is merely authorized to designate and not to appoint, because a designation is temporary and provisional in character, while an appointment has the nature of permanency or regularity in the position as held by the Supreme Court .
According to the decision, to designate is allowed; to appoint is not provided for. Otherwise, if NEA and its BOA are allowed, more particularly to appoint general managers of its own choice to manage ECs nationwide, certainly, chaos, disorder and disharmony would occur, which is very prejudicial and detrimental to public interest.
The court stipulated that the Solicitor-General reportedly outreached his conclusion concerning the NEA law that the supervisory powers of NEA and its board of Administrators over ECs are equivalent or tantamount to the power to appoint general managers as it is, his opinion apparently based on mere assumptions, inference and deduction, without, if not contrary to, the expressed provisions of the law.
As to the insinuation of the Solicitor-General that ISELCO I through its president Presley de Jesus should have appealed first to the Office of the President before initiating the case, the court took the same as unnecessary as there is urgency of the matter as it is a purely legal question, where the matter involved is strong public interest and that there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, hence, the petition falls as an exemption of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Under the assailed NEA-BOA MCs, the NEA-BOA took it upon itself the appointment of general managers of ECs which runs counter to its supposed role of supervising the same.
De Jesus caused the filing of the petition for certiorari with the local court to question the evident abuse of the NEA-BOA in issuing the questionable MCs that vested upon them the powers to appoint the general manager of ECs.
The petition alleged that the NEA and its Board of Administrators committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of and in excess of their jurisdiction when they issued the questioned MCs, both dated December 13, 2021, hence, both issuances are null and void for lack of legal basis from the provisions of PD 269 as amended by RA 10531.
