Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    Rule 65-2 ROSALES Vs ERC

    Uploaded by

    Cali Ey
    This document summarizes a case between Rosales vs ERC regarding the constitutionality of the Members' Contribution for Capital Expenditures (MCC) imposed by Electric Cooperatives pursuant to Rules and Resolutions of the Energy Regulation Commission (ERC). Petitioners claimed MCC violated clauses on property rights and due process. The ERC issued resolutions establishing and later amending MCC to the Reinvestment Fund for Sustainable Capital Expenditure. The court held that a special civil action under Rule 65 was not the appropriate remedy as ERC was exercising quasi-legislative and administrative functions in issuing the resolutions, not judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rule 65-2 ROSALES Vs ERC

    Uploaded by

    Cali Ey
    91 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a case between Rosales vs ERC regarding the constitutionality of the Members' Contribution for Capital Expenditures (MCC) imposed by Electric Cooperatives pursuant to Rules and Resolutions of the Energy Regulation Commission (ERC). Petitioners claimed MCC violated clauses on property rights and due process. The ERC issued resolutions establishing and later amending MCC to the Reinvestment Fund for Sustainable Capital Expenditure. The court held that a special civil action under Rule 65 was not the appropriate remedy as ERC was exercising quasi-legislative and administrative functions in issuing the resolutions, not judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Rule 65-2 ROSALES vs ERC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a case between Rosales vs ERC regarding the constitutionality of the Members' Contribution for Capital Expenditures (MCC) imposed by Electric Cooperatives pursuant to Rules and Resolutions of the Energy Regulation Commission (ERC). Petitioners claimed MCC violated clauses on property rights and due process. The ERC issued resolutions establishing and later amending MCC to the Reinvestment Fund for Sustainable Capital Expenditure. The court held that a special civil action under Rule 65 was not the appropriate remedy as ERC was exercising quasi-legislative and administrative functions in issuing the resolutions, not judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    91 views2 pages

    Rule 65-2 ROSALES Vs ERC

    Uploaded by

    Cali Ey
    This document summarizes a case between Rosales vs ERC regarding the constitutionality of the Members' Contribution for Capital Expenditures (MCC) imposed by Electric Cooperatives pursuant to Rules and Resolutions of the Energy Regulation Commission (ERC). Petitioners claimed MCC violated clauses on property rights and due process. The ERC issued resolutions establishing and later amending MCC to the Reinvestment Fund for Sustainable Capital Expenditure. The court held that a special civil action under Rule 65 was not the appropriate remedy as ERC was exercising quasi-legislative and administrative functions in issuing the resolutions, not judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ROSALES vs ERC

    GR 201852

    Energy Regulation Commission, on 23 September 2009, issued Resolution 20 Series of 2009


    establishing the Rules for Setting the Electric Cooperatives’ Wheeling Rates which then
    provides for the establishment of the Members’ Contribution for Capital Expenditures. Said MCC
    envisioned to fund the amortization or debt service of its indebtedness associated with the
    expansion, rehabilitation o upgrading of the existing electric power system of the ECs.

    On 06 July 2011, ERC issued Resolution 14 Series of 2011 amending the MCC to
    Reinvestment Fund for Sustainable Capital Expenditure.

    Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on the unconstitutionality of the Members’
    Contribution for Capital Expenditures (MCC) later renamed as Reinvestment Fund for
    Sustainable Capital Expenditures (RFSC) imposed by Electric Cooperatives pursuant to the
    Rules and Resolution of the Energy Regulation Commission

    Petitioners claim the imposition of MCC or RFSC by te ERC as a form of investment solicitation
    to fund the expansion and other capital expenditures of electric cooperatives is highly irregular,
    oppressive, and unconstitutional as it directly violates the due process and equal protection
    clauses on property under Section 1 Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

    They further averred that ruling of ERC allowing the mandatory collection f MCC or RFSC by the
    electric cooperatives is undoubtedly unconstitutional as it directly violates Section 10, Article II
    and Section 1 and 15 Article XII of the Constitution.

    Issue:
    Whether the special civil action under Rule 65 is the appropriate remedy for the petitioner

    Held: (NO)

    Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules mandates:

    SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
    quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
    abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal,
    or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
    thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
    praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal,
    board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

    A respondent is said to be exercising judicial function where he has the power to determine


    what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine
    these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.

    Quasi-judicial function, on the other hand, is "a term which applies to the actions, discretion,
    etc., of public administrative officers or bodies … required to investigate facts or ascertain the
    existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official
    action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature."
    ERC exercised neither judicial nor quasi-judicial function. In issuing and implementing the
    RSEC-WR and Resolution No. 14, it was not called upon to adjudicate the rights of contending
    parties to exercise, in any manner, discretion of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature. Instead,
    RSEC-WR and Resolution No. 14 were done in the exercise of the ERC's quasi-legislative and
    administrative functions. It was in the nature of subordinate legislation, promulgated in the
    exercise of its delegated power. Quasi-legislative power is exercised by administrative agencies
    through the promulgation of rules and regulations within the confines of the granting statute and
    the doctrine of non-delegation of powers flowing from the separation of the branches of the
    government. Particularly, the ERC applied its rule-making power as expressly granted by
    Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9136 ("Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001" or EPIRA),

    You might also like