Ideals Vs Psalm

IDEALS, INC. vs.
PSALM
GR No. 192088 | Oct. 9, 2012 | J. Villarama, Jr.
FACTS
Respondent Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management Corporation (PSALM) is a GOCC created
by virtue of Republic Act No. 9136, otherwise known as
the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001
(EPIRA). Said law mandated PSALM to manage the
orderly sale, disposition, and privatization of NPC
generation assets, real estate and other disposable
assets, and Independent Power Producer (IPP)
contracts with the objective of liquidating all NPC
financial obligations and stranded contract costs in an
optimal manner, which liquidation is to be completed
within PSALMs 25-year term of existence.
In August 2005, PSALM commenced the privatization of
the 246-megawatt (MW) Angat Hydro-electric Power
Plant (AHEPP), forming part of the Angat Complex,
which includes the Angat Dam, Angat Reservoir and the
outlying watershed area. This is partly owned by
respondent Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System (MWSS). The Angat Dam and AHEPP are
utilized for power generation, irrigation, water supply and
flood control purposes. Because of its multi-functional
design, the operation of the Angat Complex involves
various government agencies, namely: (1) NPC; (2)
National Water Resources Board (NWRB); (3) MWSS;
(4) respondent National Irrigation Administration (NIA);
and (5) Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and
Astronomical Services Administration (PAG-ASA).
On December 15, 2009, PSALMs Board of Directors
approved the Bidding Procedures for the privatization of
the AHEPP. The two auxiliary units owned by MWSS
were excluded from the bid. Pertinent portions of the
Bidding Package include: The priority of water usage
under Philippine Law would have to be observed by the
Buyer/Operator. The Winning Bidder/Buyer shall be
requested to enter into an operations and maintenance
agreement
with
PSALM
for
the
Non-Power
Componentsthe Buyer will be required to enter into the
said water protocol agreement as a condition to the
award of the Asset.
Korea Water Resources Corporation (K-Water) had the
winning bid and was consequently given the Notice of
Award.
The present petition was filed by the Initiatives for
Dialogue and Empowerment Through Alternative Legal
Services, Inc. (IDEALS), Freedom from Debt Coalition
(FDC), AKBAYAN Citizens Action Party (AKBAYAN) and
Alliance of Progressive Labor, seeking to permanently
enjoin the sale of the AHEPP to K-Water. SC issued
Status Quo Ante Order.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONERS
RESPONDENTS
Right to information
Conducted the bidding in
violated PSALM did not
an open and transparent
release to the public

critical information
regarding the bidding
PSALM violated CC 498

PSALM did not offer the
sale of AHEPP to MWSS,
its co-owner, before selling
to an outsider
PSALM violated Consti

and Water Code KWater is a foreign
corporation
NPC gives up its authority
to extract or utilize water
from the Angat River
Right to water was violated
by bidding process
State has an obligation to
ensure water security for
its people
Angat Dam provides 97%
of Metro Manila's water -->
PSALM should prioritize
domestic use of water over
power generation
manner, through a series

of events in accordance
with the governing rules on
public bidding --> IDEALS
request for information
about the winning bidder,
as contained in its letter
dated May 14, 2010, the
same was already referred
to respondent K-Waters
counsel for appropriate
action
MWSSs contribution in the
funds used for the
construction of the AHEPP
did not give rise to a
regime of co-ownership as
the said funds were merely
in exchange for the supply
of water that MWSS would
get from the Angat Dam
The utilization of water by
a hydroelectric power plant
does not constitute
appropriation of water from
its natural source
considering that the source
of water (dam) that enters
the intake gate of the
power plant is an artificial
structure
PSALM is mindful of the
States duty to protect the
publics right to water when
it sold the AHEPP. In fact,
such concern as taken into
consideration by PSALM in
devising a privatization
scheme for the AHEPP
whereby the water
allocation is continuously
regulated by the NWRB
and the dam and its
spillway gates remain
under the ownership and
control of NPC
MWSS (respondent, but seems to side with P)

1) MWSS has supervision and control over the
Angat Dam given that the Angat Reservoir
supplies approximately 97% of the water
requirements of Metro Manila. MWSS has
incurred expenses to maintain their upkeep,
improve and upgrade their facilities.
2) After the enactment of EPIRA, MWSS had
expressed the desire to acquire ownership and
control of the AHEPP so as not to leave the
operation of the Angat Reservoir to private
discretion that may prejudice the water allocation
to MWSS as dictated by NWRB rules.
3) The AHEPP is in dire danger of being whollyowned by a Korean corporation which probably
merely considers it as just another business

opportunity
ISSUES
1) WON petitioners right to information was violated
2) Which entity exercises jurisdiction over AHEPP?
3) WON privatization of the power generation process of
AHEPP amounted to a violation of Sec. 2, Art. XII of the
Constitution
4) WON it violated Water Code provisions on the grant of
water rights
HELD
1) PSALM advised petitioners that their letter-re quest
was referred to the counsel of K-Water. We find such
action insufficient compliance with the constitutional
requirement and inconsistent with the policy under
EPIRA to implement the privatization of NPC assets in
an open and transparent manner. PSALMs evasive
response to the request for information was unjustified
because all bidders were required to deliver documents
such as company profile, names of authorized
officers/representatives,
financial
and
technical
experience.
2) AHEPP is under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Energy through NPC. PSALM was authorized to take
title to and possession of, those assets transferred to it.
EPIRA mandated that all such assets shall be sold
through public bidding with the exception of Agus and
Pulangui complexes in Mindanao, the privatization of
which was left to the discretion of PSALM in consultation
with Congress.
The operation and maintenance of a hydroelectric power
plant is not among the statutorily granted powers of
MWSS. Since the sale of AHEPP by PSALM merely
implements the legislated reforms for the electric power
industry through schemes that aim to enhance the
inflow of private capital and broaden the ownership base
of the power generation, transmission and distribution
sectors, the proposed transfer to MWSS which is
another government entity contravenes that State policy.
3) & 4) The Water Code limits the grant of water rights
only to Filipino citizens and juridical entities duly qualified
by law to exploit and develop water resources, including
private corporations with sixty percent of their capital
owned by Filipinos. In the case of Angat River, the
NWRB has issued separate water permits to MWSS,
NPC and NIA.
Under the EPIRA, the generation of electric power, a
business affected with public interest, was opened to
private sector. Power generation shall not be considered
a public utility operation, and hence no franchise is

necessary. Foreign investors are likewise allowed entry
into the electric power industry. However, there is no
mention of water rights in the privatization of multipurpose hydropower facilities.
Operation of a Hydroelectric Power Plant
Hydroelectric energy is produced by the force of falling
water. The capacity to produce this energy is dependent on
both the available flow and the height from which it falls.
Building up behind a high dam, water accumulates potential
energy. This is transformed into mechanical energy when the
water rushes down the sluice and strikes the rotary blades of
turbine. The turbine's rotation spins electromagnets which
generate current in stationary coils of wire. Finally, the
current is put through a transformer where the voltage is
increased for long distance transmission over power lines.
Under the Water Code concept of appropriation, a

foreign company may not be said to be appropriating
our natural resources if it utilizes the waters collected in
the dam and converts the same into electricity through
artificial devices. Since the NPC remains in control of the
operation of the dam by virtue of water rights granted to
it, there is no legal impediment to foreign-owned
companies undertaking the generation of electric power
using waters already appropriated by NPC, the holder of
water permit.
There is no provision in the EPIRA itself authorizing the
NPC to assign or transfer its water rights in case of
transfer of operation and possession of multi-purpose
hydropower facilities. Since only the power plant is to be
sold and privatized, the operation of the non-power
components such as the dam and reservoir, including
the maintenance of the surrounding watershed, should
remain under the jurisdiction and control of NPC which
continue to be a government corporation. There is
therefore no necessity for NPC to transfer its permit over
the water rights to K-Water. Pursuant to its purchase and
operation/management contracts with K-Water, NPC
may authorize the latter to use water in the dam to
generate electricity.
NPC shall continue to be the holder of the water permit
even as the operational control and day-to-day
management of the AHEPP is turned over to K-Water
under the terms and conditions of their APA and O & M
Agreement, whereby NPC grants authority to K-Water to
utilize the waters diverted or collected in the Angat Dam
for hydropower generation. Further, NPC and K-Water
shall faithfully comply with the terms and conditions of
the Memorandum of Agreement on Water Protocol, as
well as with such other regulations and issuances of the
NWRB governing water rights and water usage.

Ideals Vs Psalm

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ideals Vs Psalm

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ideals Vs Psalm

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IDEALS, INC. vs.

release to the public

PSALM violated CC 498

PSALM violated Consti

manner, through a series

MWSS (respondent, but seems to side with P)

merely considers it as just another business

a public utility operation, and hence no franchise is

Under the Water Code concept of appropriation, a

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.