By Joel R. San Juan - August 7, 2019
THE Supreme Court has ordered the
Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and the Manila Electric Co. to justify the
imposition and collection of bill deposit from power customers.
In a one-page resolution released to
the media on Tuesday, the Court en banc gave the ERC, Meralco, as well as the
Commission on Audit (COA) 10 days to submit their comment on the petition
assailing the collection of bill deposit.
The ERC, Meralco and COA were named
by several party-list groups led by Bayan Muna Chairman Neri J. Colmenares
and Party-list Rep. Carlos Isagani T. Zarate as respondents in the
petition.
Also among the petitioners are
Anakpawis Party-list Rep. Ariel B. Casilao, Gabriela Women’s Party-list Reps.
Emerenciana A. de Jesus and Arlene D. Brosas, Act Teachers Party-list Reps.
Antonio L. Tinio and Francisca L. Castro, Kabataan Party-list
Rep. Sarah Jane I. Elago and Bagong Alyansang Makabayan Secretary-General
Renato M. Reyes Jr.
The petitioners argued that the
imposition of bill deposit by Meralco, being a public utility, against its
captive market is illegal and contradicts its duty under its franchise to
promote consumer interest.
The bill deposit collected by
Meralco from its customers, according to the petitioners, has reached P29
billion, as of 2018.
The petitioners asked the Court to
declare as illegal and void the Bill Deposit provisions in the Magna Carta for
Residential Electricity Consumers and promulgated by the ERC on June 17, 2004,
which became Meralco’s basis for collecting such fees from its customers.
They also urged the Court to order
the ERC to implement the refund of the bill deposits to the consumers.
The Magna Carta defines bill deposit
as the deposit required from customers by distribution utilities of new and/or
additional service equivalent to the estimated billing for one month, in order
to guarantee payment of bills.
However, the petitioners said the
Bill Deposit provision under the Magna Carta is not allowed under the Electric
Power Industry Reform Act (Epira) of 2001 and the Meralco franchise.
Based on the Epira, the petitioners
said Meralco, as a distribution utility, may only collect from its consumers
distribution wheeling charges, connection fees and retail rate.
The imposition of bill deposit, according
to the petitioners, does not promote the interest of the consumers but only
profits distribution utilities.
The petitioners noted that the bill
deposit is being comingled with Meralco’s general fund and being used for other
purposes, including investments in financial instruments and operations-related
taxes.
Comingling of funds, according to
the petitioners, renders the bill deposit vulnerable to wrong business
decisions and investments, mismanagement, miscalculation or risks, legal cases
which deplete the funds of Meralco — which could affect the latter’s capacity
to refund the Bill Deposit to its consumers.
The petitioners asked the SC to
order the Commission on Audit (COA) to conduct an audit of all the funds
collected from consumers since the imposition of the Bill Deposit requirement,
the actual interest earned by Meralco from the same, the amount so far refunded
to the consumers and the balance of the amount that has not been refunded.
No comments:
Post a Comment