The four suspended commissioners of the Energy Regulatory Commission said there is no basis for the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman on the issue of the bill deposits.
"The commissioners are deeply saddened at the Order of the Ombudsman suspending them for 3 months as a penalty for simple neglect of duty on the issue of bill deposits," the four commissioners said in a joint statement.
The Ombudsman ordered the suspension of commissioners Alfredo Non, Gloria Victoria Yap-Taruc, Josefina Patricia Asirit and Geronimo Sta. Ana for three months without pay for tolerating the misuse of bill deposits by allowing its commingling with the capital or operation cost of Manila Electric Co. contrary to the purpose for which the bill deposits was established, as a guarantee for the payment of bills.
The Ombudsman acted on the complaint filed by the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms Inc. represented by Rafael Antonio Acebedo and Ma. Paz Esperanza Coronel.
"The commissioners maintain that there is no basis for such a finding and that there has never been any neglect of duty on their part," the statement said.
The Ombudsman found that the four ERC commissioners “continuously refrain from strictly implementing rules defining the nature of BDs “as mere guarantee in payment of bills” which must be returned upon termination of the DUs’ service.
The commissioners also failed to issue rules or policies such creation of a separate escrow account to avoid commingling of bill deposits with the capital or operational expenses of Meralco or any distribution for that matter.
"There are existing regulations put in place by the Commission regarding the bill deposit being enforced to protect the public. One of the regulations issued by the Commission is the Magna Carta of the Rights of Electricity Consumers (MREC) where the consumers are granted the right to demand the return of the deposit and the distribution utilities cannot ignore the said demand," the commissioners said.
The commissioners said notwithstanding the existence of these policies, the Commission has been evaluating them beforehand and have actually been working on the review of the policies in question.
"The Commission continues to work on the concern as well as other equally important and pressing issues under the Commission’s mandate. The Industry has grown and developed in scope so much so that the agency has had to keep up with the needed actions and engagements to address regulatory gaps in different aspects of stakeholders’/regulated entities’ operations," they said.
"In this light, we continue to work towards resolving issues and concerns as well as anticipate needed reforms within our sphere of responsibility. Rest assured, we remain steadfast in our commitment to diligently execute our mandate with utmost professionalism and integrity," the commissioners said.
"They tolerated the use of BDs as Meralco’s capital without the benefit of a reasonable return of interest to accrue yearly to consumers,” the decision stated.
Nasecore, in a statement, said the decision is long overdue justice for the consumers against ERC’s regulatory failure.
Nasecore said the latest decision clearly shows that said commissioners are remiss in exercising its mandate of protecting the interest of the electricity consuming public resulting in regulatory failure.
Nasecore filed a complaint for syndicated estate and grave misconduct against officials of Meralco and the ERC commissioners.
Nasecore questioned the unauthorized use and utilization of consumers bill deposits by the distribution utility, the discriminatory fixing of interests by the ERC and, the non-crediting by Meralco of the interests earned by the bill deposits in favor of the consumers.
Nasecore said that although the case for syndicated estate against Meralco officials and the ERC commissioners was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, the Ombudsman referred to the Commission on Audit (COA) for the conduct of an audit on the bill deposits collected by Meralco from the public consumers.