“Indulge me in marking them as three strikes: Deliberated with utmost consideration of their mandates; Decided not arbitrarily but through how the rationales measure up with what the law says; Finalized upholding balanced welfare of stakeholders in the energy sector in mind”
Let’s look at some recent stories with how they appear to be.
Let’s simplify it. Make it comprehensive. Like how a barber chats with a customer during hair trimming sessions.
There’s a perception about “kwentong barbero,” accordingly, convos are not to be taken seriously. It’s the older version of “tolits” (ito ang latest) in the present social media novelty characters.
But for me, barber chats are often not just hearsay. More than just facts, one can have a good grasp of perception as convos go by in between nips. In there, all are straightforward logical contextualization.
First, the center of the story — a contract. All stipulations and provisions therein are signed by the parties involved. It’s a commitment. Conditions and contents are agreed and voluntary submission to the articles therein is present.
It’s simply like a marriage contract that is even solemnized through a publicly stated commitment — in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer… note the use of “and” not “or.”. Again, it is a commitment.
Now, let’s put this into context. The contract I am referring to is the so-called Power Supply Agreement or PSA. A commitment pledged by a certain Electric Generation Company (Genco) and its client, a Distribution Unit (DU).
PSA is a contract won by a GenCo for stable supply and fixed-price scheme for a DU, as end-user who also represents their clients.
It’s like a suitor’s promise to a desired bride-to-be. GenCo courting, DU saying the much-coveted “yes.” Contract is the “I do.”
These PSA contracts definitely went through a battery of lawyers by both parties involved.
Safety nets and contingencies are well crafted and laid for the protection of the GenCo and the DU.
Due diligence at its best. These companies are toughened and seasoned veterans in the industry. The barber will say “hindi pikot” (not shotgun wedding).
For me, this is how basic the arrangement is sans mind-bending legal terminologies and perspective. Bared to its basic logical existence.
In a recent PSA-related story, a GenCo, rather GenCos are appealing for relief from their signed commitment citing certain situations. Well, the appeal is submitted to a duly-authorized body, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC).
It is but normal that such act of appeal goes with the acceptance that an objective deliberation will dutifully be done for a decision or a resolution.
It is again normal to the appealing parties that the act of submission is likewise tantamount to respect for the authority constitutionally bestowed on ERC and acknowledgment of their mandate. Foremost of which is the protection of consumers.
What’s not normal is an act that is simply like blackmailing the very parties, including consumers, that these GenCos sweet-talked with confident commitment and pledges. Publicly announcing that if appeal is denied, there’ll be shortage of electricity and blackouts happening.
It is contrary to the act of submitting an appeal. Outright disrespectful to the regulatory authority (ERC) these GenCos are appealing to.
As if it’s not already outrageous as it is, not long after the blackmailing, another tirade of public announcements was made, qualifying possible electricity shortages and blackouts as ERC’s fault, a result if appeal is denied.
Now, that’s plain and simple childish, a form of bullying, the barber may proclaim.
That’s strike two! But wait, there’s more! Oh, we thought the childish tantrum is over.
The GenCos, considered the husband, recently announced that they are boldly notifying the DU, considered the wife, that they’ll terminate the said PSA contract. And this matter is now between just the two of them. That’s double bully!
I can’t help but mention that I believe that there’s certainly a clause in the contract that in the event of a contractor’s intent to withdraw or terminate, as if saying that I no longer want to commit on my signed and pledged promises, a penalty provision is logically present.
With my rough estimation, it can go as much as P255 billion.
The barber exclaims “Well, common sense that such penalty must be paid!” I simply replied, “Yup, it’s common sense.”
Let me be clear, the above narratives, including the three strikes, are just my imagined discussion in a barber shop.
I believe that ERC’s decision to deny the appeal for relief from PSA commitment is in no way because of this “kwentuhang barbero.” I can even assume that the ERC didn’t even see the innuendos as blackmailing and bullying.
I strongly believe that ERC’s decision was based not on childish whims but derived out of mature and educated deliberation.
Indulge me in marking them as three strikes: Deliberated with utmost consideration of their mandates; Decided not arbitrarily but through how the rationales measure up with what the law says; Finalized upholding balanced welfare of stakeholders in the energy sector in mind.
From a satisfied barbershop customer with newly trimmed crown, I say, Kudos to ERC. Coincidentally, this resolution is the very first “talk of the town” made by ERC, under their newly appointed Chairperson, regarding a high pressure publicized case with blackmails and bullying.
Talk about baptismal of fire. This resolution sent a home run for ERC led by a new young lady.
The blackmail and the bullying, I believe are not the basis for the resolution. It (resolution) simply is an objective and logical application of law.
To Atty. Monalisa C. Dimalanta, new ERC Chairperson, job well done.
(Richard Orsino is a retired executive who worked for three decades in the telecommunications industry.)
