The Civil Service Commission has dismissed the complaints filed by four commissioners of the Energy Regulatory Commission against chairman and chief executive Jose Vicente Salazar over appointments made in the agency for lack of jurisdiction over the case.
Commissioners Josefina Patricia Magpale-Asirit, Alfredo Non, Gloria Victoria Yap-Taruc and Geronimo Sta. Ana alleged in April that Salazar violated the Electric Power Industry Reform Act, Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 and a CSC order in carrying out an agency revamp that saw the designation of Ronaldo Gomez as OIC-executive director.
Prior to the designation, Gomez was the chief energy regulatory officer at ERC’s Mindanao field office and had served the agency for seven years. It was also the start of a wide-ranging reorganization at ERC, with three senior service directors reshuffled along with other unit heads.
In their complaint before the CSC, the four commissioners cited EO 172, which created the Energy Regulatory Board”•the predecessor of ERC, as the basis for their position.
Salazar maintained that his exclusive power to appoint and overall responsibility for ERC’s operations and performance were founded on Section 38 of Epira, which vested the ERC chairman as CEO of the commission. EO 172 does not contain this specific provision while Epira invalidates any legal provision that is inconsistent with its specific mandates.
The CSC, in Order No. 17-0221 issued on June 9, cited the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service in dismissing the complaints against Salazar. Section 7, Paragraph A of RRACCS, excludes presidential appointees from CSC jurisdiction.
Also referring to Section 38 of Epira, the order signed by CSC assistant commissioner Ariel Ronquillo said: “The above provision is clear in stating that the ERC chairman is a presidential appointee. That being the case, any disciplinary administrative case filed against him cannot be taken cognizance by the commission. Necessarily, the instant complaints filed against Salazar must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
