"A protracted resolution of the case, even on the issuance of a temporary order stopping the implementation of the rate increase, may damage the country’s investment climate," he said.
Yasay said in an interview that the Supreme Court, under its power of judicial review, could overrule a decision by the ERC – but only on the basis of a finding of grave abuse of discretion by the regulatory body. He defined "grave abuse as something that is so reckless, whimsical and capricious that it amounts to lack of jurisdiction altogether."
His call for a quick resolution of the case is needed to bring back business activities to normalcy. "A predictable policy environment is important to allay apprehension of investors," he said.
"A robust investment and business climate will redound to the benefit of our people because more business mean more jobs and earning opportunities," he added.
"When a court of law issues a stoppage order without concern to countervailing interests of all parties involved, there is danger that an undue and irreversible bias is created against business and investors. In the end, such as situation will surely backfire on our people," Yasay said.
Yasay noted that it is well within the mandate and function of the ERC to grant a provisional authority allowing Meralco to implement a rate increase when it finds that the rate adjustment is urgently needed and justified.
"The Supreme Court usually issues TROs or status quo orders as an urgent temporary measure to prevent irreversible injury or damage, while the main case is still being deliberated on. In this regard, it must also seriously address any resulting irreparable injury to the utility company as against any perceived injury to the public, and determine which damage can be easily compensated or reversed without any resulting permanent injury.
"Otherwise, instability and serious damage is created with respect to the investment climate, especially when, as a general rule, an order temporarily halting any and all increases authorized by the ERC is always made against the utility company."
Yasay emphasized that if the SC ultimately decides to rule against the ERC decision granting Meralco the rate increase, it can always order a full refund to protect the public. But if the increase is found to have been authorized by ERC without any grave abuse of discretion, "the SC will never be able to rectify the injustice done to the regulated utility. That is lost forever," he pointed out.