DAVAO CITY, Philippines — A South Cotabato regional trial court on Sept. 7 extended a temporary restraining order halting a plebiscite on the proposed joint venture between South Cotabato II Electric Cooperative and Ignite Power and Energy Holdings, Inc.
The court initially issued a 72-hour TRO on Sept. 4, stopping a plebiscite on Sept. 5-6 to prevent potential irreversible harm while the issues raised in the complaint await responses. Eugene Mangilaya filed the complaint and posted a P200,000 bond to secure the TRO.
Branch 39 Judge Alena Gale Palileo-Yabes extended the TRO for another 20 days following a summary hearing, further delaying the plebiscite.
The vote was originally set for September 5-6 and 12-13, with later rounds on Sept. 19-20 and 26-27. Around 200,000 SOCOTECO II member-owners were expected to participate.
The Coalition for the Protection of SOCOTECO II member-consumer-owners (MCOs) launched its campaign Sept. 2 before the voting on the Conditional Joint Venture Agreement (CJVA) has been stalled.
The coalition comprises the Bantay Kuryente Movement; the People’s Initiative for Clean, Honest, Plebiscite; the People’s Council of General Santos City; the Diocese of Marbel Social Action Center and Social Communications Ministry; and the Pro-CDA Conversion Advocacy Group.
Under the proposed arrangement, 70% of the value of the distribution assets would be paid in cash to SOCOTECO II, while the remaining 30% would represent the cooperative’s equity stake in the new distribution firm.
IGNITE said the partnership would provide capital for a five-year modernization program intended to rehabilitate aging infrastructure, improve reliability and reduce system losses.
SOCOTECO II reported accumulated financial losses of about P2.1 billion as of December 2025 and system losses approaching 14%, resulting in losses of more than P40 million monthly.
IGNITE aims to bring the system-loss charges passed on to consumers down to 5.5% and fund modernization before seeking regulatory approval for cost recovery.
The proposed partnership involves Ignite, a consortium involving Primelectric Holdings Inc. of the Razon group and MP Holdings associated with the family of former senator and boxing icon Manny Pacquiao.
But members of the coalition said the cooperative’s financial difficulties do not settle questions over the proposed agreement, particularly its terms and the process through which it was pursued.
Questions over the process
Rev. Fr. Jerome Millan, director of the Diocese of Marbel Social Action Center, stressed the need for transparency among SOCOTECO II’s MCOs.
“All consumers must know, because they are the owners of SOCOTECO II. That’s why they’re called consumer-owner,” Millan said during a livestreamed news conference.
Edmund Cejar, convenor of Bantay Kuryente Movement, said the coalition’s main concern is how the proposed partnership was pursued and presented to MCOs.
“Why is it that their conduct since before, from choosing IGNITE as their partner, has been kept secret from our MCOs. They also didn’t follow the law,” Cejar said during a news conference streamed live on Facebook.
Both questioned the pace of the process, particularly the proceedings of the July 25 AGMA, which the coalition had objected to, saying some participants were not given enough opportunity to ask questions or understand the proposed agreement.
Millan said during the proceeding the consumers’ microphones were muted denying them their right to scrutinize and understand the issue because the joint venture agreement they’re entering into was not explained well.
“Because of that, we do not recognize those resolutions, and above all, we do not recognize the AGMA that will be the subject of the upcoming plebiscite — that’s why we will not vote. We will boycott it, because we refuse to recognize the process as legitimate,” Millan said.
The coalition is calling the member-consumers to either participate in the plebiscite and vote “No” or boycott the plebiscite.
A “No” vote means participating in the official vote while rejecting the proposed agreement, whereas a boycott is a refusal to participate because of objections to the legitimacy of the process.
The coalition will document those who boycott through filling out forms that it intends to submit to SOCOTECO II, local governments, and national authorities. Such forms, however, would not constitute official ballots or form part of SOCOTECO II’s official plebiscite tally.
Proxy voting
Rules governing on proxy voting during the plebiscite are some of the concerns the coalition raised.
Lawyer Virgilio Alconera, a member of the People’s Initiative for Clean, Honest, Plebiscite, said the guidelines do not impose a numerical limit on how many principals a proxy may represent.
“There’s no provision in the guidelines. Any person can be a proxy and he can represent as many principals, no matter how many people authorized a member-consumer—even 200,000 could do so, or even more,” Alconera said.
SOCOTECO II’s official plebiscite guidelines explicitly allow proxy voting, requiring notarized authorization and identification documents for the principal and proxy.
Cejar, however, argued that proxy voting should not apply to a decision involving major cooperative assets.
“Under the law, it is only allowed if… they will decide on say, minor matters. But in matters of selling, disposing, or transferring major assets of the electric cooperative… the voter is required, the member-consumer must cast his/her vote. That’s under the EPIRA Law, it’s stated there,” added Cejar.
Ownership, financing, and calls for inquiry
Bro. Manuel de Leon, lead convener of the coalition, acknowledged that SOCOTECO II faces difficulties in obtaining financing.
“Actually, under the EPIRA law, private investments are allowed so that we can make use of the capital—because it would also be difficult if it were only us,” De Leon said in an interview with XFM 95.9 General Santos City.
In his visits in power distribution operations in Bacolod and Iloilo, De Leon saw improvements that he attributed to better equipment, technology, and management.
What concerns him is whether the proposed 70-30 equity arrangement is fair and equitable to SOCOTECO II’s member-consumer-owners.
Former Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate also opposed the proposed agreement, saying it would “effectively hand over” the cooperative to private corporate interests.
“What is happening in SOCOTECO II is a classic case of disaster capitalism—where a cooperative’s alleged financial and operational challenges are being used as a pretext for a corporate grab, sidelining the true owners, the member-consumer-owners,” Zarate said.
He called on the House Committee on Energy to conduct an investigation and urged that the plebiscite be deferred.
The coalition said it had sought assistance from General Santos City Rep. Shirlyn Bañas-Nograles.
Bañas-Nograles subsequently filed House Resolution No. 1392 on August 25 and House Resolution No. 1401 on August 27 seeking a congressional inquiry into the joint venture.
The House resolutions seek an examination of the proposed agreement, including its compliance with laws and regulations, transparency, stewardship of cooperative assets, and protection of MCO interests. The latest House record lists the measure as pending first reading. (davaotoday.com)
