G.R. No. 156556-57; October 4, 2011
Enrique U. Betoy, Petitioner, vs. The Board of Directors, National Power Corporation, Respondent.

FACTS

On June 8, 2001, Republic Act No. 9136, the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA), was enacted to restructure the electric power industry and privatize the assets of the National Power Corporation (NPC). Section 63 of the EPIRA provided separation benefits for National Government employees displaced by the restructuring and privatization. Pursuant to Section 77 of the EPIRA, the Secretary of the Department of Energy promulgated the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), including Rule 33 which provided guidelines for the separation benefits. On November 18, 2002, the National Power Board (NPB) passed Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125. NPB Resolution No. 2002-124 resolved that all NPC personnel would be legally terminated on January 31, 2003, and would be entitled to separation benefits. NPB Resolution No. 2002-125 created a transition team to manage and implement the separation program. As a result, petitioner Enrique U. Betoy, along with thousands of other NPC employees, was terminated. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and a supplemental petition for mandamus, assailing the NPB Resolutions, specific sections of the EPIRA (Sections 11, 34, 38, 48, 52, and 63), and Rule 33 of its IRR, and praying for his reinstatement.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition, which directly assails the constitutionality of the EPIRA and its IRR before the Supreme Court, is procedurally proper.
2. Whether NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125 are valid.
3. Whether the assailed provisions of the EPIRA and its IRR are unconstitutional.

RULING

1. On Procedural Propriety: The Supreme Court noted that while it has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, this jurisdiction is concurrent with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals. The power of judicial review, including the determination of the constitutionality of a law, is vested in all courts, not exclusively in the Supreme Court. Direct resort to the Supreme Court is generally not entertained unless the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts or exceptional circumstances justify it. The petition suffered from a procedural defect. However, the Court decided to disregard this defect as similar petitions involving the validity of the same NPB Resolutions and the constitutionality of EPIRA provisions had already been resolved by the Court.
2. On the Validity of NPB Resolutions: The Supreme Court, citing its prior ruling in NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC DAMA) v. National Power Corporation (NPC), declared NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125 void and of no legal effect. The Court in NPC DAMA held that the Resolutions were passed by a Board that was not duly constituted, as it failed to comply with the quorum requirement under Section 48 of the EPIRA. Furthermore, the Resolutions failed to comply with Section 47 of the EPIRA, which required the endorsement of the Joint Congressional Power Commission and the President of the Philippines.
3. On the Constitutionality of the Assailed Provisions: The Supreme Court found the petition without merit regarding the constitutional challenges. The Court’s decision indicates that the constitutional issues raised by the petitioner (e.g., violations of due process, equal protection, non-impairment of contracts, and other constitutional injunctions) were not sustained. The ruling implies that the provisions of the EPIRA, including Section 63 on separation benefits, and its IRR, were enacted within the legitimate exercise of legislative power to reform the electric power industry. The Court did not find the assailed sections to be repugnant to the Constitution. Consequently, the prayers to strike down Sections 11, 34, 38, 48, 52, 63 of the EPIRA and Rule 33 of its IRR as unconstitutional were denied. The supplemental petition for mandamus seeking reinstatement was likewise denied.