
As DigiPlus Interactive Corp. scales up its international expansion, the company has joined the Brazilian Institute of…

Finance Secretary Frederick Go announced that MySSS Card holders can avail of a two-week PISO Fare promotion as the…

The Philippine Stock Exchange Index (PSEi) fell 9.70 points, or 0.15 percent, to 6,256.02 on Tuesday, while the peso…

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. extolled the MVP Group for investing in its Meralco Terra Solar Project in Nueva Ecija,…

Four years after ending nickel mining operations, Berong Nickel Corporation (BNC) is investing heavily in restoring its…

Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) chief Atty. Monalisa Dimalanta
ERC
What's your take?
Google Preferred Sources
Get more Daily Tribune stories in your search results
Add Daily Tribune as a preferred source on Google Search.
Following the six-month suspension order of the Office of the Ombudsman imposed against Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) chief Atty. Monalisa Dimalanta, some of the country’s biggest business group aired their backing to her, as the ERC chief has addressed issues hounding the energy sector.
“The Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), the Philippine Exporters Confederation, and the Employers Confederation of the Philippines expressed their full and unequivocal support to the (ERC) and the leadership of its chairperson, Atty. Monalisa Dimalanta,” the groups said in a statement on Monday.
The groups maintained that since the appointment of Atty. Dimalanta as ERC chairperson, the commission has become more active in addressing issues in the industry, acknowledging the important role of energy and power to attract investments, improving the productivity of local industries and enterprises, and enhancing the country’s economic competitiveness.
The Ombudsman suspended Dimalanta following a complaint filed by the National Association of Electricity Consumers Inc for negligence of duty for delayed action on rate reset, particularly for power utility provider Manila Electric Company.
“The initial reset of the transmission and distribution rates of ERC’s regulated entities, the integration of ERC processes into the Energy Virtual One Shared System (EVOSS), the issuance of the revised rules and guidelines on Certificates of Compliance and Competitive Selection Process (CSP), are just a few of the milestones the ERC has achieved under Atty. Dimalanta,” PhilExport and PCCI further said in their statement.
Moreover, the groups said the ERC, which faced tremendous legacy challenges to the power sector over the years, “under the leadership of Atty. Dimalanta, has taken a proactive stance in its rate and service regulation functions, in promoting competitive operations of the electric power industry and education campaign for consumer protection.”
“On behalf of the business sector, energy investors, and consumers alike, we express our concern over the 6-month Ombudsman suspension order. It may lead to a disruption in the workings of the ERC, which may impact consumers, businesses, and producers alike. This decision along with other recent decisions by the judiciary puts at risk the trust, independence and authority of the ERC. Regulators are essential to fostering an environment where investors will invest, consumers are protected, and economic growth is sustainable,” the groups' statement read.
They said they are advocating for a swift and transparent resolution of the suspension to restore the integrity of the ERC and its Commission, so that it may continue its mission to enforce energy regulations on behalf of Philippine consumers, businesses, and energy investors.
In a separate statement also on Monday, Dimalanta maintained that she would “immediately cease to perform her functions as Chairperson and Chief Executive Office of the ERC,” after she received the order served by the Office of the President on Monday through the Office of Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin.
“All operations of the agency shall continue to function, to the extent possible and as required by the exigencies of service,” she said.
“The Ombudsman’s ruling does contain some allegations of the complaint, without providing, however, any statement as to the evidence submitted by a complainant that became the basis for the issuance of the preventive suspension order,” Dimalanta, on the other hand, noted.