GR 227670 CAguioa (Digest)
G.R. No. 227670 , November 20, 2018
Alyansa Para sa Bagong Pilipinas, Inc. vs. Energy Regulatory Commission
FACTS
The Department of Energy (DOE) issued a circular in June 2015 mandating a Competitive Selection Process (CSP) for Power Supply Agreements (PSAs). The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), in coordination with the DOE, subsequently issued Resolution No. 13 in October 2015, requiring Distribution Utilities (DUs) to conduct a CSP for PSAs executed but not yet filed, effective November 7, 2015. Following stakeholder concerns about immediate compliance, the ERC issued Resolution No. 1 in March 2016, which moved the CSP effectivity date to April 30, 2016, creating a transition period.
A petition was filed alleging the ERC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 1, arguing it improperly suspended the CSP requirement. The ponencia agreed, annulling Resolution No. 1 and declaring the relevant section of Resolution No. 13 void. It further directed that all PSAs submitted after June 30, 2015, must comply with the CSP as per a later 2018 DOE Circular.
ISSUE
Whether the ERC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 1, which restated the effectivity date of the CSP requirement.
RULING
No. The dissenting opinion argues the ERC acted within its exclusive regulatory mandate under the EPIRA. The issuance of Resolution No. 1 was a reasonable administrative response to practical concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding the immediate implementation of the CSP. It constituted a policy decision addressing feasibility, necessitating prior inquiry and evaluation best discharged by the specialized agency, not the courts.
The ponencia’s annulment constitutes an unwarranted judicial encroachment into the ERC’s sphere of technical expertise and discretion. By requiring PSAs negotiated and executed prior to April 2016 to comply with a 2018 regulation, the decision imposes an impossible retroactive condition. Furthermore, the case involves complex factual questions—such as the impact on the country’s electricity supply and the reasonableness of the transition period—that are not properly cognizable by the Supreme Court in a certiorari proceeding but require evidentiary hearing. The dissent concludes that the Court overstepped by substituting its judgment for that of the expert regulator acting within legal bounds.