GR 248061 Delos Santos (Digest)
G.R. No. 248061 , March 9, 2021
MORE ELECTRIC AND POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PANAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 249406, March 9, 2021] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER-OPPOSITOR, MORE ELECTRIC AND POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PANAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Republic Act No. 11212 granted More Electric and Power Corporation (MORE) a franchise to establish, operate, and maintain an electric power distribution system in Iloilo City. Sections 10 and 17 of the law authorize MORE to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire private property, including assets “previously, currently or actually used, or intended to be used” for the operation of a distribution system, specifically targeting the properties of Panay Electric Company, Inc. (PECO). The provisions allow immediate possession of the properties upon filing of expropriation and deposit of the assessed value. PECO challenged the constitutionality of these provisions.
ISSUE
Whether Sections 10 and 17 of Republic Act No. 11212 are unconstitutional for violating the constitutional requirement that the power of eminent domain be exercised only for a public purpose.
RULING
In the dissenting opinion of Justice Delos Santos, joined with Justice Leonen’s dissent, Sections 10 and 17 of RA 11212 must be struck down as unconstitutional. The power of eminent domain under Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution requires that private property shall not be taken without just compensation and, crucially, only for public use. The dissent argues that the taking of PECO’s assets by MORE does not constitute a legitimate public purpose but rather amounts to a transfer of property from one private entity to another primarily for private gain. The dissent cites several reasons: MORE lacks qualifications and experience in electricity distribution; it has no assets of its own and would rely solely on PECO’s assets; the taking fosters a monopoly; it results merely in a change in who appropriates profits, serving MORE’s proprietary interests; any public benefit is incidental, not direct; and the guarantee of uninterrupted supply during transition is not a guaranteed or sufficient public purpose. The dissent concludes that upholding these provisions would sanction a violation of the Constitution, PECO’s property rights, and the public’s right to efficient electricity distribution.