NGCP’s Staggering ₱130 Billion Ad Spend Needs Public Audit

It is high time for the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) to throw open the gates and allow the public to act as vigilant sentinels over the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) and its expenditures.

Rather than illuminating the path to fairness and efficiency, NGCP's extravagant advertising expenses have cast a shadow, obscuring the very transparency that privatization was meant to uphold. I Photo: NGCP

These are not mere numbers on a balance sheet—these figures ultimately dictate the transmission rates embedded in our household and corporate electricity bills. Transparency is not a privilege; it is a necessity. Accountability is not optional; it is owed to every consumer footing the bill.

But one expenditure stands out like a glaring neon sign: a jaw-dropping P130 billion spent on advertising from 2016 to 2020.

NGCP insists this was for "information dissemination," but the ERC refuses to be hoodwinked.

Where is the proof that such an astronomical sum genuinely benefits the public? More importantly, why should consumers—already struggling with soaring utility costs—shoulder the burden of these extravagant expenses?

To grasp the sheer absurdity of the situation, let’s break it down: Imagine NGCP running a full-page ad proclaiming, “Bawal humawak ng livewire” (Do not touch live wires). Does this qualify as a “reasonable” expense?

Should hardworking Filipinos be forced to pay for a message that common sense and basic education have long made clear? What was once framed as a public awareness initiative now appears to be a gold-plated anchor, weighing down the very ideals of privatization.

The ERC remains unconvinced—and rightfully so. The staggering sum equates to roughly P32 billion per year in advertising expenses. To put that into perspective:

• How many schools could have been built with that money?

• How many hospitals could have been equipped?

• Or, as one official put it, how many Porsches or Audis could have been parked in lavish garages?

ERC Chairperson Monalisa Dimalanta delivered a razor-sharp message: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, charitable donations, and employee perks should be funded by corporate profits—not by consumers.

Privatization was not meant to be a blank check for unchecked spending; it was a promise of efficiency, a commitment to reducing costs, and an assurance that savings would be passed on to consumers.

The question is not whether NGCP’s ads or CSR efforts are noble—it is whether the burden of these endeavors should be unfairly thrust upon consumers.

This is the crux of the issue: NGCP, as a public utility, is bound by the fundamental principle of incurring only "necessary and efficient" costs. The ERC’s mandate is to act as a firewall against excess, ensuring that every centavo is spent in service of the public good.

And yet, rather than illuminating the path to fairness and efficiency, these extravagant advertising expenses have cast a shadow, obscuring the very transparency that privatization was meant to uphold.

In this light, the ERC’s move to disallow these expenses is not just necessary—it is imperative.

Adoracion Navarro of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) aptly describes this action as a "line in the sand"—a firm stand against excess and financial recklessness.

This is not merely about crunching numbers; it is about safeguarding public trust. Every peso spent must be justified, every expenditure must withstand scrutiny, and every financial decision must serve the people’s best interests.

This issue transcends financial audits—it strikes at the very heart of fairness and trust. When the government privatized the transmission sector, it made a promise: a promise of efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and fairness to consumers.

But when NGCP burns P130 billion on ads, one question becomes inescapable: Does the public truly gain from these lavish expenditures, or are they being sold an illusion at their own expense?

Ultimately, the ERC’s decision to block these unjustifiable advertising expenses is more than just a regulatory ruling—it is a declaration that privatization must serve the people, not exploit them.

The question is not whether NGCP had noble intentions, but whether those intentions justify the hefty price tag passed onto consumers.

ERC stands as the last line of defense, the guardian of public interest, ensuring that privatization lives up to its promise of efficiency, fairness, and—above all—transparency. Anything less than that is simply unacceptable.

And in the end, as ERC Chair Dimalanta succinctly pointed out, the sheer magnitude of NGCP’s spending is difficult to comprehend. To this, a Gen Z response comes to mind: "Ano ka, hilo?"