Considering the circumstances and legal precedents, one cannot help but notice the recent Ombudsman order of a six-month suspension on Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) chairperson Mona Dimalanta.

According to a legal expert, while the rules of practice and procedure at the Office of the Ombudsman allow for a preventive suspension without due process, the one imposed on Dimalanta was highly irregular and “indicative of a powerful lobby behind it.”

Dimalanta started serving her six-month preventive suspension on Monday, vowing to challenge it before the courts.

Saying her reputation was on the line, Dimalanta explained the need to “fight it out” since a six-month suspension without pay would be very painful.

“For a public servant who does not have any other source of income and has divested all private interests to be able to perform with integrity, six months of losing pay is an ordeal,” she said.

Another peculiarity of the suspension imposed on Dimalanta was her being singled out to be penalized. All decisions at the ERC, including the orders signed by the chairperson, are collegial.

“Pete Ilagan at the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms Inc. (Nasecore) knows this, as his previous cases were filed against all the sitting commissioners,” the legal expert noted.

Thus, the question is posed to Ilagan — who seems to be the only active member of Nasecore — why is it that “only during this commission led by Dimalanta has Nasecore been attacking the chairperson only?”

Based on previous cases, including those involving San Miguel Corp. (SMC) power plants that wanted to break their contracts that went all the way to the Supreme Court, Dimalanta’s voting record established her consistent pursuit of the consumers’ welfare.

Nasecore was the main complainant in the case vs the SMC plants but later it was not heard from during the deliberations on the case, prompting other consumer groups to take over.

The ERC rejected SMC’s plea to suspend provisions of its contract but the Asian conglomerate went directly to the Court of Appeals which overturned the ERC decision.

Even in the assailed case that became the basis for the Ombudsman order, and that Ilagan claimed the ERC had sat on, Dimalanta was a dissenter to the decision that favored the power firm.

The ruling issued in June meant that the case that resulted in the preventive suspension was already moot, according to the legal expert.

The ERC order released on 14 June denied the motion for reconsideration of a June 2022 decision that granted Meralco’s calculation of the average tariff and approved the final refund scheme to account for those years.

In a 3-2 ruling, Dimalanta and Commissioner Catherine Maceda dissented.

In her dissent, Dimalanta argued that dismissing the motions prevented the ERC from correcting mistakes and deprived consumers of their right to transparent and reasonable pricing.

Maceda stressed that the ERC as a regulator had the obligation to ensure full transparency, due process and due diligence by involving the public in determining and setting electricity rates.

Dimalanta was alleged to have sat on the case but the case progression showed that on 2 September 2022 the pre-trial conference was conducted and on 16 September, the date Meralco was to present its evidence, the ERC reset the hearing since the pre-trial order had not yet been issued.

The order was released only on 3 May 2024 which meant that it took the ERC just over a month to issue its ruling on 14 June.

The preventive suspension of half a year on Dimalanta was obviously meant to break her will and thus allow for a replacement who would be more pliant to the interests of those behind the effort to oust her.