SANTIAGO CITY, Isabela – A local court declared some provisions of certain memoranda issued by the National Electrification Administration (NEA-BOA) illegal and unconstitutional.
In a decision, Judge Anastacio Anghad of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 36 struck down NEA-BOA Memorandum to Electric Cooperatives (ECs) 2020-039 and Memorandum to ECs 2021-040 as the same runs counter to the provisions of Republic Act (RA) 7952, otherwise known as the Party-list System Act, some provisions of the Omnibus Code, and more importantly the freedom of expression and association clause of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Further, the court held NEA and NEA-BOA to have crossed the line with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the issuance of Memorandum to ECs 2021-051 as the said agencies should not deprive anyone their freedom of speech, assembly, right to form associations and that any issuance that destroys or impairs such rights, is to that extent void.
In an attempt to further disenfranchise and prohibit the ECs to support the advocacies of the One EC-MCO Movement, NEA and the NEA-BOA issued several memoranda that turn against the constitution and curtail the basic freedom of leaders and advocates of the movement.
Worst, NEA even failed to conduct prior consultation and hearing with the concerned stakeholders or affected EC Board of Directors, officers, employees and the Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association (PHILRECA), the national association of electric cooperatives.
In order to counter the said clear harassment by NEA and NEA-BOA, PHILRECA Party-list Rep. Presly de Jesus filed a petition to strike down and declare illegal and unconstitutional the said memoranda from NEA.
Among the assailed memoranda include Memo to ECs 2021-039 that sought to amend NEA Memorandum 2020-001 dated 27 January 2020 which amends Article V, Section 6 of the Code of governance for electric Cooperatives that provided that an EC Director or General Manager who is chosen as representative by a Party-list of electric cooperatives or EC member-consumer-owners or any other Party-list shall be considered resigned effective upon their assumption of office as congressman or Party-list Representatives; Memo to ECs 2021-040 or the guidelines in the candidacy for EC officials and employees for the May 2022 national and local elections which automatically considers EC officials and employees who were chosen as nominees by a party-list on leave of absence from the start of campaign period, and automatically resigned effective upon their assumption of office as congressman or Party-list Representative and Memo to ECs No. 2021-051 or the guidelines in the conduct of participation of electric cooperatives in certain activities, which prohibits, and in fact, penalizes officers and employees and other personnel of electric cooperatives to join or participate in any partisan political activity and the same shall be construed to be conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the electric cooperative which shall be subject to administrative investigations and disciplinary actions by NEA.
De Jesus assailed NEA, represented by controversial Administrator Emmanuel Juaneza and NEA-BOA represented by Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi on the aforesaid issuances and petitioned the court to strike down and declare the same as illegal and unconstitutional because they transgress the Bill of Rights enshrined and guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution.
In addition to the NEA’s failure to adhere to the rigid requirement of legal and constitutional due process by failing to conduct prior consultation and hearing with the concerned stakeholders or affected electric cooperatives’ directors, officers and employees, de Jesus pointed out that NEA and NEA-BOA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In as far as Memo to ECs 2021-039 and Memo to ECs 2021-040, the lawmaker asserted that NEA and NEA-BOA cannot impose additional requirements or disqualifications which are already provided for in the law, thus, it is clear that NEA and NEA-BOA can only supervise and does not control the electric cooperatives as Republic Act 10531 or the NEA Reform Act enumerates the qualifications and disqualifications of the Board of Directors and officers of electric cooperatives and a mere issuance of NEA’s Administrative Order cannot supersede the same.
As regards Memo to ECs 2021-051, de Jesus emphasized that NEA and NEA-BOA do not possess the competence nor the authority to limit expressions made by electric cooperatives, their Board of Directors, their officers, and their employees in the exercise of their constitutional rights to freedom of expression, of the press, and association by partaking in partisan political activities, not even during elections but also in the interim.
The party-list congressman stated that in fact, if employees in the government’s civil service, including members of the armed forces, are given some leeway to participate in some sort of partisan political activities by expressing their views on current political problems or issues or even mention the name of certain candidates for public office whom they support, why would the electric cooperatives, their Board of Directors, General Managers, officers, employees, and other personnel who, indubitably, all belong to the private sector, be prohibited from participating in partisan political activities more than those in the government civil service.
