G.R. No. 214042 - Foundation for Economic Freedom vs. Energy Regulatory Commission

These consolidated Philippine Supreme Court cases involve the Foundation for Economic Freedom, Remigio Michael A. Ancheta II, and Alyansa ng mga Grupong Haligi ng Agham at Teknolohiya para sa Mamamayan (AGHAM) challenging the validity of the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) System implemented by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), Department of Energy (DOE), National Renewable Energy Board (NREB), and National Transmission Corporation (NTC).
The FIT System was established pursuant to Republic Act No. 9513, known as the Renewable Energy Act of 2008, to accelerate the development of renewable energy sources in the Philippines by providing guaranteed fixed payments to renewable energy producers.

G.R. No. 214042 - Foundation for Economic Freedom filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to question the ERC Resolution No. 10 adopting specific FIT rates and to enjoin ERC and NREB from implementing said rates, arguing non-compliance with publication requirements and invalid delegation of power.
G.R. No. 215579 - Remigio Michael A. Ancheta II filed a Petition for Prohibition and Certiorari questioning the ERC's provisional approval of the PHP 0.0406/kWh FIT Allowance, contending it violates constitutional principles of delegated power, due process, and is an improper exercise of police power.
G.R. No. 235624 - AGHAM and Angelo B. Palmones petitioned to nullify key aspects of the FIT System, including Sections 6 and 7 of RA 9513, DOE certifications increasing installation targets, ERC decisions fixing FIT rates, and orders approving FIT Allowance rates for various years.

RA 9513 mandates a FIT System to incentivize renewable energy through fixed tariff payments for at least 12 years, with priority grid connections and purchases.
The ERC, in consultation with the NREB, is tasked to promulgate the FIT rules and approve rates.
The DOE leads implementation of renewable energy policies and issues certifications, including those increasing installation targets of renewable energy.
The NREB recommends FIT rates and installation targets to ERC, ensuring consistency with the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).

NREB filed a Petition to Initiate Rule-Making for FIT adoption; public hearings and publication notices were held.
ERC issued Resolution No. 10 setting FIT rates; later, Resolution No. 16 adopted FIT rules.
DOE issued certifications increasing solar and wind installation targets in 2014 and 2015.
ERC issued orders approving FIT Allowance rates, allowing advanced collection of charges on electricity consumers before production.
The petitioners challenged these issuances on grounds of constitutional validity, procedural due process, delegation of legislative power, and abuse of discretion.

Whether the petitions filed under Rules 45 and 65 of the Rules of Court are proper remedies to question the FIT System and related issuances.
Whether the Supreme Court may exercise judicial review over the challenged acts and issuances.
Whether determination of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS rules, maximum penetration limits study, and installation targets are prerequisites to implementing the FIT System and setting FIT rates.
Whether there is valid delegation of legislative power to administrative agencies under Sections 6 and 7 of RA 9513.
Whether the respondents gravely abused their discretion or exceeded their powers in issuing rules allowing advanced collections and increasing installation targets.
Whether the implementation of the FIT System is a valid exercise of police power or taxation power.
Whether consumers were deprived of property without due process of law.
Whether the Foundation for Economic Freedom committed forum shopping.
Whether there is a basis for granting injunctive relief to the petitioners.