GR. No.

192088
IDEALS Inc. v PSALM, et al.
October 9, 2012

SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

PSALM is a GOCC mandated by RA 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 or the EPIRA Law)
to manage the orderly sale, disposition, and privatization of the assets of the National Power Corp.
(NPC) over a 25-year period. In the discharge of its said duties, PSALM held a public bidding for the sale
of AHEPP, a 246-MW hydroelectric power plant. After evaluating the submitted bids, PSALM awarded
the sale to K-Water, a Korean company.

But even before K-Water was given the Notice of Award, IDEALS had been sending letters to PSALM to
request for copies of documents pertaining to the sale. The first letter requested for copies of the Terms
of Reference and proposed bids submitted by the bidders. There was no response because at the time
no bids have been submitted yet. Besides, updates about the ongoing bidding were posted on the
PSALM website anyway. The second letter requested for information regarding the winning bidder, such
as company profile, contact person, office address, and Philippine registration. Despite press releases
announcing K-Water as the winning bidder, PSALM failed to sufficiently provide the petitioners with the
information they were asking for, almost as if PSALM officials were trying to hide something.

Whether or not a foreign company can own a hydroelectric power facility.

Yes, foreign ownership of a hydropower facility is not prohibited under existing laws. The construction,
rehabilitation, and development of hydropower plants are among the infrastructure projects which even
wholly-owned foreign corporations are allowed to undertake under RA 7718 or the Amended Build-
Operate-Transfer Law.

Argument and References:

We can argue and correlate the case of Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS to give evidence on why the
supreme court needs to overturn the case above because not only its an earlier case and the SC must
apply the case using the Doctrine of Stare decisis but in the case of Manila prince it stated there that
there is a constitutional right granted to the us that natural resources would not be operated by a
foreign company. Doctrine used is the Filipino First Policy (Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987
Constitution)
When our Constitution mandates that [i]n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering
national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just
that — qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when our Constitution declares that a right exists in
certain specified circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding
the absence of any legislation on the subject; consequently, if there is no statute especially enacted
to enforce such constitutional right, such right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and
puissance and from which all legislations must take their bearings

The topic at hand is about National Patrimony in our constitution we can search cases for more
references or use Atty. Gorospe’s Syllabus or book for more evidence and citations in our
arguments. There are also separate opinions in the Manila Prince Hotel case we can use as a
defense