Case Digest (G.R. No. 249678)
Facts:
Quezon for Environment, Atimonan Power to the People, Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ) Inc., Center for Energy, Environment and Development (CEED) Inc., Sanlakas, Monsignor Emmanuel Ma. L. Villareal, Rev. Fr. Warren R. Puno, Reynaldo Upalda, Fr. Edwin Gariguez, Gerard Arances, Bibiano Rivera, Jr., Marie Marguerite Lopez, and Erwin Puhawan v. Hon. Salvador Medialdea, G.R. No. 249678, November 05, 2024, Supreme Court En Banc, Singh, J., writing for the Court.On June 28, 2017, President Duterte issued Executive Order No. 30 (2017) creating the Energy Investment Coordinating Council (EICC) to "harmonize, integrate, and streamline regulatory processes" for Energy Projects of National Significance (EPNS). EO No. 30 directed the EICC to craft simplified approval processes, inter-agency rules, a web-based monitoring system, and quarterly reports to the Office of the President. Section 7 set baselines: (a) a presumption of prior approvals so member agencies may process applications without awaiting other agencies’ actions; and (b) a model processing timeframe "not exceeding thirty (30) days" with an automatic-approval mechanism if no decision is made within the timeframe. The EO allowed deviations only to comply with statutes or to avoid prejudice to the public interest; the DOE later issued Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) on April 25, 2018 (Dept. Circular DC2018-04-0013).
On October 25, 2019, petitioners—local residents of Quezon and various environmental groups and consumers—filed a verified Petition for an Environmental Protection Order (EPO) with a prayer for Temporary EPO (TEPO) under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC) and a petition for environmental certiorari. They alleged EO No. 30 was ultra vires, violated due process, and unlawfully facilitated expedited certification of coal power projects (notably Atimonan One Energy, Inc.) in contravention of statutes like the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) and the Department of Energy Act (DOE Act) and environmental laws (e.g., EIS system, IPRA, Water Code). The Court En Banc denied the TEPO on November 5, 2019 and required respondents to comment.
Respondents (represented by the OSG) filed a Comment (Feb. 28, 2020) contending the petition invoked improper remedies, lacked a justiciable controversy, and that EO No. 30 was within presidential authority (power of control/ordinance power) and consistent with statutes and anti–red tape policy. The parties exchanged plead...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the petitioners avail of the correct remedy and is the Petition ripe for judicial review?
- Are Executive Order No. 30, s. 2017, and its relevant issuances unconstitutional (i.e., ultra vires, violative of due process, overly broad in defining “significant”, or otherwise contrary t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)