GENERAL SANTOS CITY — The legal roadblock has been removed, but the battle over the proposed SOCOTECO II–IGNITE Power partnership is far from over.
A Regional Trial Court in Polomolok, South Cotabato, has lifted the temporary restraining order (TRO) that had stopped the plebiscite on the proposed conditional joint venture agreement between South Cotabato II Electric Cooperative (SOCOTECO II) and IGNITE Power and Energy Holdings Inc.
The Sept. 11 resolution by Judge Vicente Andiano of RTC Branch 62 granted SOCOTECO II’s motion to lift the TRO and rejected member-consumer-owner Eugenio Mangilaya’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
The ruling immediately dissolved the Sept. 4 TRO, which had initially halted the first scheduled voting weekend on Sept. 5 and 6. The restraining order had subsequently been extended until Sept. 24.
Court says allegations did not justify injunction
In its 12-page resolution, the court said Mangilaya had not sufficiently established the requirements for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Among the allegations raised were concerns about transparency in SOCOTECO II’s approval of the conditional joint venture agreement, including claims that members were not provided copies of relevant board resolutions and the agreement.
The court characterized the allegations as speculative and emphasized that the proposed joint venture remained conditional, meaning the agreement had not yet reached its final stage.
Importantly, the decision did not rule that the proposed joint venture is valid or that the allegations of irregularities were proven false.
Instead, the court found that stopping the plebiscite at this stage was not justified by the evidence presented in the injunction application.
The court also noted that Mangilaya could still pursue the main case seeking the nullification of the plebiscite and conditional joint venture agreement, as well as damages, if irregularities were subsequently established.
Voting resumes—but Sept. 12–13 schedule is off
Although the lifting of the TRO allows SOCOTECO II to proceed with the plebiscite, the cooperative said it would not resume voting on Sept. 12–13 because there was insufficient preparation time following the court ruling.
The remaining scheduled voting dates are Sept. 19–20 and Sept. 26–27, according to the latest report on the court ruling.
SOCOTECO II had originally planned a four-weekend plebiscite covering Sept. 5–6, 12–13, 19–20 and 26–27. The cooperative’s own published notice confirms the original schedule.
The plebiscite is expected to involve roughly 200,000 member-consumer-owners (MCOs) across SOCOTECO II’s franchise area. GMA News previously reported that the voting process was designed to provide broad participation among qualified members.
What exactly are members voting on?
At the center of the controversy is a proposed partnership between SOCOTECO II and IGNITE Power, a company backed by Primelectric Holdings Inc. and Manny Pacquiao’s MP Holdings Inc.
The proposed arrangement involves SOCOTECO II’s distribution assets being transferred to a new distribution company. Under the conditional agreement, 70% of the consideration would be paid in cash while the remaining 30% would be converted into SOCOTECO II’s equity stake in the new company.
Ignite has also proposed lowering the system-loss charge recoverable from consumers from SOCOTECO II’s current 8.25% cap to 5.5%, while undertaking a modernization program intended to improve the distribution network.
SOCOTECO II has argued that the partnership could provide much-needed capital and technical expertise to rehabilitate aging infrastructure and improve power reliability.
The cooperative has faced serious financial and operational challenges. GMA News reported that SOCOTECO II’s system losses had climbed to nearly 14%, while its board treasurer said the cooperative was losing more than P40 million a month.
Ignite has said it intends to finance a five-year modernization program, including infrastructure upgrades and measures to reduce system losses.
But opposition to the deal remains
The court’s decision comes amid intense debate over whether SOCOTECO II should enter into the proposed private-sector partnership.
Critics have questioned the transparency of the process and the proposed structure of the agreement.
Philstar previously reported that around 10,000 SOCOTECO II members/consumers/owners had signed criminal and administrative complaints against officials of the cooperative and the National Electrification Administration (NEA), alleging irregularities in the negotiation process. These remain allegations and have not been established as wrongdoing by the court.
The controversy has also reached Congress.
General Santos Rep. Shirlyn Bañas-Nograles filed a House resolution calling for an investigation into the proposed conditional joint venture, including questions surrounding the selection of IGNITE as the private-sector partner. The resolution itself does not establish that wrongdoing occurred.
At the same time, thousands of SOCOTECO II members have publicly supported the proposed partnership. Context.ph reported that organizers estimated around 5,000 MCOs attended gatherings in General Santos City and Polomolok on Friday, including nearly 3,000 at Plaza Heneral Santos.
Why this vote matters beyond South Cotabato
The SOCOTECO II case could become a closely watched test of how electric cooperatives can work with private investors to modernize their distribution systems.
Philstar noted that electric cooperatives serve communities in roughly 40 areas nationwide and that many face challenges involving aging equipment, financing and system losses.
That makes the outcome of the SOCOTECO II vote potentially significant beyond General Santos, Sarangani and parts of South Cotabato.
For supporters, the deal represents an opportunity to bring fresh capital into an electricity distributor facing mounting financial and infrastructure problems.
For opponents, the central questions involve transparency, member control, accountability and whether the proposed structure adequately protects the interests of the cooperative’s consumers.
For now, the court has settled only one part of the dispute: the plebiscite can proceed.
The much bigger question will now be answered by the members themselves:
Will SOCOTECO II’s member-consumer-owners vote to open the door to the IGNITE partnership—or reject a deal that could fundamentally reshape how their electricity distribution system is operated?
Leave a Reply