saracho

TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. and AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., petitioners,
vs.
HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as Secretary, Budget & Management, HON. ROZALINA S. CAJUCOM in her capacity as National Treasurer and COMMISSION ON AUDIT,respondents.

G.R. No. 94571 April 22, 1991

Facts:

The Petitioners question the constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for debt service in the 1990 budget.  The 1990 budget consists of P98.4 Billion in automatic appropriation (with P86.8 Billion for debt service) and P155.3 Billion appropriated under Republic Act No. 6831, otherwise known as the General Appropriations Act, or a total of P233.5 Billion,  while the appropriations for the Department of Education, Culture and Sports amount to P27,017,813,000.00.  The said automatic appropriation for debt service is authorized by P.D. No. 81, Sections 31 of P.D. 1177, and P.D. No. 1967.

Issue:

1.     Is the appropriation of P86.8 Billion in the P233.5 Billion 1990 budget violating Section 5, Article XIV of the constitution?

2. Are PD no. 81, PD no. 1177 and PD no. 1967 still operative under the constitution?

3.   Are they violating Section 29(l), Article VI of the constitution?

Held:

            No.  While it is true that under Section 5, Article XIV of the Constitution Congress is mandated to "assign the highest budgetary priority to education" in order to "insure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment," it does not thereby follow that the hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to deprive it the power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest and for the attainment of other state policies or objectives.  It is not only a matter of honor and to protect the credit standing of the country.  More especially, the very survival of our economy is at stake.

            Yes.  Section 3, Article XVIII of the Constitution recognizes that -"All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive issuances not inconsistent with the Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked."  This transitory provision of the Constitution has precisely been adopted by its framers to preserve the social order so that legislation by President Marcos may be recognized. Such laws are to remain in force and effect unless they are inconsistent with the Constitution or, are otherwise amended, repealed or revoked.

            No.  The legislative intention in R.A. No. 4860, as amended, Section 31 of P.D. No. 1177 and P.D. No. 1967 is that the amount needed should be automatically set aside in order to enable the Republic of the Philippines to pay the principal, interest, taxes and other normal banking charges on the loans, credits or indebtedness incurred as guaranteed by it when they shall become due without the need to enact a separate law appropriating funds therefor as the need arises. The purpose of these laws is to enable the government to make prompt payment and/or advances for all loans to protect and maintain the credit standing of the country.

SURIGAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (SURNECO), Petitioner,
vs.
ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 183626   October 4, 2010

Facts:

The Association of Mindanao Rural Electric Cooperatives, as representative of SURNECO and of the other 33 rural electric cooperatives in Mindanao, filed a petition before the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) for the approval of the formula for automatic cost adjustment and adoption of the National Power Corporation (NPC) restructured rate adjustment to comply with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7832.  The ERC (replaces ERB) hereby confirms the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA) of Surigao Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SURNECO) for the period February 1996 to July 2004 which resulted to an over-recovery for the amount of PhP18,188,794.00. In this connection, SURNECO is hereby directed to refund to its Main Island consumers starting the next billing cycle from receipt of this Order until such time that the full amount shall have been refunded. But in Hikdop Island it’s resulted to an under-recovery for the amount of PhP2,478,045.00. SURNECO is hereby authorized to collect from its Hikdop Island consumers starting the next billing cycle from receipt of this Order until such time that the full amount shall have been collected.

Accordingly, SURNECO is directed to:

a) Reflect the PPA refund/collection as a separate item in the bill using the phrase "Previous Years’ Adjustment on Power Cost";

b) Submit, within ten (10) days from its initial implementation of the refund/collection, a sworn statement indicating its compliance with the aforecited directive; and

c) Accomplish and submit a report in accordance with the attached prescribed format, on or before the 30th day of January of the succeeding year and every year thereafter until the amount shall have been fully refunded/collected.

SURNECO filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the ERC.  So, SURNECO went to CA via petition for review, but it was also denied.

.

Issue:

Is SURNECO denied in Due Process?

Held:

          No.In directing SURNECO to refund its over-recoveries based on PPA policies, which only ensured that the PPA mechanism remains a purely cost-recovery mechanism and not a revenue-generating scheme for the electric cooperatives, the ERC merely exercised its authority to regulate and approve the rates imposed by the electric cooperatives on their consumers. The ERC simply performed its mandate to protect the public interest imbued in those rates. The regulation of rates to be charged by public utilities is founded upon the police powers of the State and statutes prescribing rules for the control and regulation of public utilities are a valid exercise thereof. When private property is used for a public purpose and is affected with public interest, it ceases to be jurisprivati only and becomes subject to regulation. The regulation is to promote the common good.  Administrative due process simply requires an opportunity to explain one’s side or to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.It means being given the opportunity to be heard before judgment, and for this purpose, a formal trial-type hearing is not even essential. It is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable chance to demonstrate their respective positions and to present evidence in support thereof.

Wherefore, SURNECO was not denied in due process.