EXPENSIVE RECONNECTION FEES

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

(Author's Note: Reconnection fees are getting more expensive. In some instances, utility companies charge as much as the equivalent of monthly fee to restore utility services that have been cut off because of failure to pay the fees. But this is not just a simple issue. In fact, charging reconnection fees could be unconstitutional from a legal standpoint.)

The imposition of reconnection fees on all public utilities violates the multiple punishment doctrine of the 1987 Constitution bans. Customers are already punished when their utilities services are unilaterally cut off or terminated by the utilities firms for failure to pay their bills on time.

Although they are hard up by the high cost of utility services, customers further suffer from expensive reconnection fees. Hence, they suffer from double punishment.

It does not take technical expertise or heavy work to restore the terminated utility services. But why are those reconnection fees so expensive?

When services are terminated by the utilities firms, their subscribers suffer the mental anguish for not having the utilities for hours or days. Nosy neighbors feast on them, making them the talk of the town, although their failure to pay on time and the subsequent disconnection is not their fault. 

This punishment is being exacerbated, when they have to pay the heavy reconnection fees.

The multiple punishment doctrine is the foundation of the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy. 

The 1987 Constitution bans any accused or offender to face more than one court trial on the first offense because it does not want him to get more than one punishment for the same offense.

Hence, the reimposition of reconnection fees could be unconstitutional. 

But since this has not been raised before any judicial forum, Congress should take the initiative by enacting a law outlawing the imposition of reconnection fees.

Public utilities firms engaged in electricity, water, and telecommunications services cut off their services without any notice to their customers in payment arrears. 

Meralco is probably the only utility firm that issues disconnection notices to alert customers to pay on time. If not, they face discontinuation of their electricity service.

As a matter of practice, other utilities firms just disconnect the services with or without any disconnection notices. 

The bills of Maynilad Water Services and Manila Water Services, Inc., for instance, serve as a disconnection notices at the same time.

The interrupted utility services are restored only upon payment of the arrears and heavy reconnection fees.

Subscribers pay Bayantel Telecommunications Services Inc. a flat monthly subscription fee of P500. But the reconnection fee is P360, or 70 percent of the monthly subscription fee.

For Maynilad and Manila Water, the monthly bill for a family of six or seven could reach slightly over P500 on the average, but the reconnection fee is P500, which is 100 percent of the monthly service fee.

Utility firms generate windfall profits from their operations, which are even monopolies in some areas. It would not make them any poorer reconnection fees are totally outlawed and eliminated.

Since a strong consumer movement is almost zero, the choice is to protect consumers through legislative initiatives. Lawmakers, as representatives of the people, should protect consumers from unsound business practices, which include the reimposition of reconnection fees.

Hence, Congress should enact a law outlawing this practice of imposing reconnection fees on all public utilities.