BEFORE 2025 ended, Psalm President Dennis de la Serna disclosed that two private sector entities were vying for the rehabilitation of the Agus Hydroelectric Power Plants with plans to restore the facility to its full 1,000-megawatt capacity, through the public-private partnership scheme.
According to de la Serna, while Psalm normally conducts competitive bidding, unsolicited proposals are permitted under PPP rules.
While declining to name the two entities, de la Serna revealed that one was a consortium and the other a single company as he expressed optimism that the winning concessionaire or bidder could restore the plant to full capacity and would be able to sell the electricity, highlighting Agus’ potential boost to Mindanao’s power supply, which is now operating at less-than-ideal capacity.
The Psalm president added that the rehabilitation of the Agus-Pulangi hydropower complex, which consists of seven run-of-river hydroelectric power plants, is on track for completion within the Marcos administration and is targeted for completion by 2028.
But take note, de la Serna also stressed that under the PPP code timelines, there are 10 days to accept or reject a proposal, 90 days for evaluation, and another 90 to 150 days for negotiation.
This is where the proposals from the two entities get tricky, as sources provided bits of details regarding the two proposals. The sources stated that the PPP Center, in October 2025, accepted and endorsed an unsolicited proposal for the modernization of the Agus-Pulangi Hydropower Complex. That proposal entered formal evaluation in accordance with the PPP Code.
Yet only weeks later, the PPP Center endorsed a second unsolicited proposal covering the same Agus facilities — this time bundled with the Lanao del Sur Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Lasureco) power distribution system.
This endorsement appears to violate the PPP Code’s own rules.
The implementing rules allow only a 10-day window for similar unsolicited proposals. Both proposals involve Agus 1 and 2 and substantially the same rehabilitation and operational scope. The second proposal was submitted well beyond this period and should have been returned to the proponent for participation in the comparative challenge process.
Treating the two proposals as “not similar” because of added components elevates form over substance. Courts have long recognized that laws must be interpreted purposively, not mechanically. Packaging cannot be used to bypass clear procedural safeguards.
Equally troubling is the inclusion of the Lasureco component, which lies outside Psalm’s ownership and statutory authority. A PPP requires a government implementing agency with legal control over the project. Stretching this definition risks undermining the integrity of the PPP framework itself.
These are not minor technical issues. Unresolved procedural defects invite legal challenges, delay implementation, and ultimately harm the public. For a project as critical as Agus, uncertainty is a cost the country cannot afford.
This is why the PPP Center must act decisively. Reconsidering — and if necessary — retracting the endorsement of the second unsolicited proposal is not an admission of error; it is an affirmation of the rule of law. Public-private partnerships succeed only when rules are applied consistently, transparently and fairly.
The rehabilitation of the Agus Hydroelectric Power Plants is a matter of national importance. It affects power reliability in Mindanao, electricity prices, and public confidence in how the government handles major infrastructure projects. Precisely because of its significance, the process governing Agus must be beyond reproach
The future of Mindanao’s power supply and public trust in the PPP process demand nothing less.