Ombudsman asked to cite in contempt suspended ERC Chairperson Dimalanta
The National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (Nasecore) has asked the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) to cite in contempt suspended Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) Chairperson Monalisa C. Dimalanta for discussing her case in public.
As a lawyer, Nasecore President Petronilo L. Ilagan said that Dimalanta should be aware of the sub-judice rule in Section 19 of Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
Ilagan said the rule prohibits lawyers from using any forum or medium to comment or publicize opinion pertaining to a pending proceeding before any court, tribunal, or other government agency that may cause a pre-judgment or sway public perception, among other things.
Last Aug. 27, Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires asked Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin to implement the six-month preventive suspension of Dimalanta.
The suspension was issued after the OMB started its investigation on whether or not Dimalanta should be charged for allowing Manila Electric Company (Meralco) to purchase electricity from the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM), with the former passing on the charges to consumers without first securing the approval of the ERC.
In its complaint, Nasecore said Dimalanta's action was in violation of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA).
However, Ilagan said that during her suspension, Dimalanta attended a forum on energy-related topics and discussed her recent Ombudsman suspension.
During the forum, Ilagan quoted Dimalanta as having declared: "High stakes kasi itong laro dito sa power industry. Hindi malayong meron kang masasaling. (The power industry play is high stakes. It is not far from reality that you may offend someone)."
Ilagan explained that the statement "clearly insinuated" that Dimalanta's suspension was politically motivated and was influenced by power players from the energy industry.
In the same forum, Ilagan said that Dimalanta also said that she has expressed her side through a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Ombudsman. She questioned whether her suspension was legal, since the 5RP (Fifth Regulatory Period) case subject of her suspension has already been dismissed, he said.
However, Ilagan begged to differ and said that the case is "still pending before the ERC as far as the complainant is concerned."
"Considering her profession and blatant disregard of this rule, as can be viewed in her statements in the said forum, the same cannot and should not be brushed aside. Hence, complainant respectfully moves that respondent Dimalanta be held liable for indirect contempt," Ilagan's motion pleaded.
At the same time, the motion pleaded the OMB to stop Dimalanta "from further making any public statements or comments on the pending case."