By Joel R. San Juan - March 13, 2018
A PETITION was filed before the
Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday to declare as null and void the
60-day temporary restraining order (TRO) that the Court of Appeals (CA) issued
on February 9, enjoining the Office of the Ombudsman from
implementing the one-year suspension it imposed against four commissioners of
the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC).
In a 17-page petition, the Alyansa
Para sa Bagong Pilipinas Inc. (APBPI) also sought the Court’s
immediate issuance of a TRO or a status quo ante order to prevent the
CA’s Ninth Division from implementing its order pending final resolution of the
petition
The CA, in its February 9, 2018,
resolution, said it issued the resolution in order not to impair public
service considering that since the suspension of the four commissioners by the
Ombudsman last December 11 the Palace has not acted to replace them.
ERC commissioners Alfredo Non,
Gloria Victoria Yap-Taruc, Josefina Patricia Asirit and Geronimo Sta. Ana were
ordered suspended by the Ombudsman last September 29 for one year after
they were found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service, aggravated by simple misconduct and simple neglect of duty for
allegedly exempting Meralco and other firms from the competitive selection
process (CSP), which mandates that all power-supply agreements (PSAs) be
covered by public bidding.
Last December 28 they filed an
appeal before the CA, assailing the Ombudsman’s suspension order against them
and sought the issuance of an injunctive relief.
In its petition, APBPI claimed that
the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing the 60-day suspension order.
The group also argued that the CA
has no discretion to stay a decision of the Ombudsman and that the TRO is an
encroachment on the rule-making powers of the Ombudsman under the Constitution,
which grants the the authority to promulgate its own rules of procedure.
The group cited the court’s ruling
in Ombudsman v. Samaniego, where it was held that “the
appealable decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately executory
pending appeal and may not be stayed by the filing of an appeal or the issuance
of an injunctive writ.”
“The Ombudsman’s decision in
imposing the penalty of suspension for one year is immediately executory
pending appeal. It cannot be stayed by the mere filing of an appeal to the CA,”
the petitioner said.
“In this case, the public respondent
committed or acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed
resolution granting a TRO against an appealable decision of the Office of the
Ombudsman, when jurisprudence is clear on the matter and the principle as to
the nature of such Ombudsman decision is already settled. The assailed
order was issued with grave abuse of discretion and was patently erroneous,”
the group added.
The CA, in its assailed resolution,
explained that grave and irreparable injury can be committed if the TRO is not
issued in favor of the petitioner-commissioners.
The case stemmed from the decision
of the ERC to reset the deadline for compliance with the CSP
from November 6, 2015, to April 30, 2016, thus, exempting the PSA from
undergoing transparent and public bidding ordained in the CSP.
The Ombudsman said
the ERC commissioners exercised “gross inexcusable negligence” in
delaying CSP’s implementation since the process was put in place to make the
PSAs’ cost more reasonable.
It also ruled that
the ERC commissioners “cannot feign ignorance” when Meralco took
advantage of the resetting of the effectivity date of the CSP.
“Hence, accommodating companies’
request to be exempted from CSP was a deviation from respondents’ duty to
promote public interest through the CSP requirement,” the Ombudsman said.
No comments:
Post a Comment