The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 34 of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA), which imposes a Universal Charge on all electricity end-users. The Court ruled that the Universal Charge is not a tax but an exaction under the State’s police power, aimed at ensuring the viability of the electric power industry. This decision clarifies the scope of regulatory power delegated to the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and its impact on electricity consumers.

Powering Progress or Burdening Consumers? Examining the Universal Charge Under EPIRA

The case of Gerochi v. Department of Energy revolves around the challenge to the Universal Charge imposed by Section 34 of the EPIRA. Petitioners argued that this charge, collected from all electric end-users, is an unconstitutional tax and that the delegation of the power to determine and fix this charge to the ERC is an undue delegation of legislative authority. The respondents, including the Department of Energy (DOE) and the ERC, countered that the Universal Charge is not a tax but a regulatory exaction under the State’s police power. The central legal question is whether the Universal Charge constitutes an impermissible tax and whether the delegation of authority to the ERC is constitutional.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by distinguishing the State’s power of taxation from its police power. The power to tax is rooted in necessity, providing the government with the means to fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare. Conversely, police power allows the State to regulate liberty and property to promote public welfare. The critical distinction lies in the purpose of the charge. If the primary purpose is to generate revenue with regulation being incidental, it is a tax. But if regulation is the primary aim, the incidental generation of revenue does not transform it into a tax.

In this case, the Court found that the Universal Charge, as outlined in Section 34 of the EPIRA, is an exercise of the State’s police power. The EPIRA’s declaration of policy underscores regulatory purposes, such as ensuring the quality, reliability, security, and affordability of electric power. Section 34 enumerates the specific purposes for which the Universal Charge is imposed, including:

SECTION 34. Universal Charge. – Within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, a universal charge to be determined, fixed and approved by the ERC, shall be imposed on all electricity end-users for the following purposes:

(a) Payment for the stranded debts in excess of the amount assumed by the National Government and stranded contract costs of NPC and as well as qualified stranded contract costs of distribution utilities resulting from the restructuring of the industry;

(b) Missionary electrification;

(c) The equalization of the taxes and royalties applied to indigenous or renewable sources of energy vis-à-vis imported energy fuels;

(d) An environmental charge equivalent to one-fourth of one centavo per kilowatt-hour (P0.0025/kWh), which shall accrue to an environmental fund to be used solely for watershed rehabilitation and management. Said fund shall be managed by NPC under existing arrangements; and

(e) A charge to account for all forms of cross-subsidies for a period not exceeding three (3) years.

The Court emphasized that the taxing power can be used as an implement of police power. The Universal Charge, with its Special Trust Fund (STF) administered by PSALM, shares characteristics with the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) and Sugar Stabilization Fund (SSF), which were previously upheld as valid exercises of police power. The STF ensures the attainment and perpetuity of the purposes for which the Universal Charge is imposed, namely, to ensure the viability of the country’s electric power industry.

Turning to the issue of undue delegation of legislative power, the Court reiterated the principle that what has been delegated cannot be delegated further (potestas delegata non delegari potest). However, it also recognized that delegation to administrative agencies is permissible when the law is complete in itself and contains sufficient standards to guide the delegate’s discretion. This is satisfied through the completeness test and the sufficient standard test.

The Court found that the EPIRA, read in its entirety, meets both tests. While Section 34 does not specify the exact amount of the Universal Charge, the amount is made certain by the legislative parameters within the law. Section 43(b)(ii) of the EPIRA tasks the ERC with determining, fixing, and approving the Universal Charge after due notice and public hearings. Furthermore, Section 51(d) and (e) of the EPIRA mandate PSALM to calculate the stranded debts and stranded contract costs of NPC, which then form the basis for the ERC’s determination of the Universal Charge.

The Court emphasized that the ERC’s discretion is not unfettered. The EPIRA provides sufficient standards, such as ensuring the total electrification of the country, the quality and affordability of electric power, and watershed rehabilitation and management, to guide the ERC in formulating the IRR. These standards provide limitations on the ERC’s power, preventing it from acting arbitrarily.

The Supreme Court underscored the importance of the ERC’s role in regulating the electric power industry, citing previous cases that affirmed the ERC’s broad jurisdiction and the necessity of its power to respond to changes affecting public utilities. The Court concluded that the EPIRA aims to attract private investment and address the shortcomings of the electric power industry. Every law carries a presumption of constitutionality, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear violation of the Constitution that would warrant nullifying Section 34 of the EPIRA and its IRR.

In summary, the Court found that the Universal Charge is a valid regulatory exaction under the State’s police power, and the delegation of authority to the ERC is constitutional because the EPIRA provides sufficient standards and limitations on the ERC’s power.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Universal Charge imposed under Section 34 of the EPIRA is a tax and whether there was an undue delegation of legislative power to the ERC. The petitioners argued the charge was an unconstitutional tax, while the respondents maintained it was a regulatory exaction under the state’s police power.
What is the Universal Charge?	The Universal Charge is a fee imposed on all electricity end-users to fund various initiatives, including missionary electrification, environmental programs, and payment for stranded debts and contract costs. It is collected by distribution utilities and remitted to the PSALM Corp.
Is the Universal Charge a tax?	No, the Supreme Court ruled that the Universal Charge is not a tax but an exaction under the State’s police power. The primary purpose is regulation, ensuring the viability of the electric power industry, rather than generating revenue.
What is the role of the ERC in relation to the Universal Charge?	The ERC is responsible for determining, fixing, and approving the Universal Charge, as well as ensuring its proper utilization for the purposes outlined in the EPIRA. It conducts public hearings and considers the calculations provided by PSALM to determine the appropriate charge.
What is PSALM’s role in the Universal Charge?	PSALM (Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Group) calculates the amount of stranded debts and contract costs of NPC, which serves as the basis for the ERC’s determination of the Universal Charge. PSALM also administers the Special Trust Fund where the collected charges are deposited.
What are the stranded debts and contract costs mentioned in the EPIRA?	Stranded debts refer to the unpaid financial obligations of NPC that have not been liquidated by the proceeds from the sales and privatization of NPC assets. Stranded contract costs refer to the excess of the contracted cost of electricity over the actual selling price.
What is missionary electrification?	Missionary electrification refers to the provision of basic electricity service in unviable areas with the goal of making operations in these areas viable. The Universal Charge helps fund these initiatives to extend electricity access to underserved communities.
What is the Special Trust Fund (STF)?	The STF is a fund created by PSALM to manage the proceeds from the Universal Charge. It is disbursed for the purposes specified in the EPIRA, such as missionary electrification, environmental programs, and payment of stranded debts.
Was there an undue delegation of legislative power to the ERC?	No, the Supreme Court held that there was no undue delegation of legislative power to the ERC. The EPIRA provides sufficient standards and limitations to guide the ERC in determining the Universal Charge.
What are the implications of this ruling for electricity consumers?	The ruling means that the Universal Charge, as imposed under the EPIRA, remains valid. Electricity consumers will continue to pay this charge, which is intended to ensure the long-term viability and stability of the country’s electric power industry.

This case affirms the government’s authority to impose regulatory charges to support critical sectors like the electric power industry. It also reinforces the principle that administrative agencies can be granted the power to implement laws as long as sufficient standards are in place to guide their discretion. While the Universal Charge may represent an added cost for consumers, this ruling underscores its importance in achieving the broader goals of reliable and sustainable electricity supply for the Philippines.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Romeo P. Gerochi, et al. vs. Department of Energy, et al., G.R. No. 159796, July 17, 2007