Suspended Energy Regulatory Commission chairperson and CEO Atty. Monalisa Dimalanta stressed that her case filed at the Office of the Ombudsman is moot, noting that she and the four ERC commissioners have already decided on the issue raised in the complaint against her.

In a media forum on Thursday in Quezon City, Dimalanta said that the ERC already decided to dismiss the rate application and “consider the fifth regulatory period as a lapsed period.”

The rate application was the subject of the Ombudsman case filed by consumer group Nasecore on the delays in the rate reset of distribution utility Meralco.

She maintained that ERC already decided to dismiss the rate application, which means that Meralco’s rate will remain unchanged until the end of the said timeframe.

The ERC made its decision on 21 August 2024, or before the Ombudsman’s issued order dated 27 August 2024, according to the embattled ERC official.

Further, she clarified that she was one of two dissenters who opined that the rate reset of Meralco should be reviewed and settled before the sixth regulatory period.

3-2 ruling

“On August 21, the Commission already voted, 3-2, and I was part of the two that dissented, along with Commissioner Maceda. Our dissent vote was that there needs to be a proper reset for the fifth regulatory period, which is the 2022 to 2026 period of Meralco,” Dimalanta said in the vernacular. “My point was it is the job of the regulator to do the reset. There hasn’t been a reset in the last 10 years, so why should we let go of our job to reset for a period that is yet to lapse,” she explained.

With this, Dimalanta vowed to be more transparent in the Commission’s decisions to avoid similar cases in the future, believing that the Ombudsman case is just a misunderstanding.