G.R. No. 249678 - Quezon for Environment, et al. vs. Medialdea, et al.

On June 28, 2017, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued Executive Order No. 30, creating the Energy Investment Coordinating Council (EICC).
Executive Order No. 30 aims to streamline regulatory procedures for energy projects, particularly those classified as Energy Projects of National Significance (EPNS).
The EICC is tasked to harmonize, integrate, and simplify processes related to energy investments in the Philippines.
Specific functions of the EICC include establishing simplified approval processes, resolving inter-agency issues, maintaining a monitoring system, creating sub-committees, submitting quarterly reports to the Office of the President, and other incidental functions.

Presumption of Prior Approvals—the processing agency assumes that other relevant permits are already granted.
Action within 30 days—government agencies must act on permits within 30 days of complete requirement submission, with written denial required if rejected.
Automatic approval if no decision is made within timeframe.
Exceptions allowed only to comply with specific statutory directives or to avoid harming public interest.

On October 25, 2019, petitioners filed a verified Petition for Environmental Protection Order (EPO) and Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO), and a Petition for Environmental Certiorari.
Petitioners include residents from Quezon Province and Metro Manila, citing violations of constitutional right to balanced and healthful ecology and the precautionary principle.
They allege that Executive Order No. 30 was:

Issued beyond executive power as it was unauthorized by legislature and lacks legislatively granted authority.
Unconstitutional for not requiring notice or hearing.
Unreasonable and arbitrary, espousing acceleration of electrification without environmental considerations.
Grants impermissible rights to EPNS, undermining various environmental laws such as requiring the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC), among others.
Violates procedural due process by not providing publication, mechanisms for opposition, or appeal.
Contravenes Republic Act No. 9513 (Renewable Energy Act) by expediting coal-fired power plants.

Respondents, through the Office of Solicitor General, contend that the petitioners filed an improper remedy.
Executive Order No. 30 was validly issued within the President’s executive powers, including the power to streamline agency procedures.
Petitioners failed to provide empirical evidence to support application of the precautionary principle.
Respondents assert the petition is not ripe and petitioners lack standing.
Respondents point out existing laws provide statutory basis for prescribed processing times.

Court denied initial prayer for TEPO but required comments from respondents.
Submissions and memoranda were filed.
The petition was treated as a special civil action for certiorari invoking judicial review of constitutionality.

Did the petitioners avail of the proper remedy in assailing Executive Order No. 30?
Is the petition ripe for judicial review?
Do the petitioners have legal standing to question the issuance and implementation of Executive Order No. 30?
Are Executive Order No. 30 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) unconstitutional for:

Being beyond the scope of executive power?
Imposing unreasonable and arbitrary baselines like presumptions of prior approval and mandatory 30-day action?
Granting overly broad definitions of "significant" in classifying EPNS?
Violating due process by omitting mandated publication, notice, hearing, and appeal mechanisms?