Case Summary (G.R. No. 249678)
Applicable Law
This case draws upon the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly Section 16, Article II, which guarantees the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, alongside relevant laws including the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA), and other environmental statutes.
Petition for Certiorari
The petitioners filed for a Petition for Certiorari to question Executive Order No. 30, claiming it did not undergo the necessary legislative authorization and lacked due process, as it facilitates expedited project approvals that may harm the environment.
Arguments of the Petitioners
The petitioners argue that Executive Order No. 30 exceeds executive powers and undermines environmental protection laws. They contend that it was issued without legislative authority, lacks required notices and hearings, and violates their constitutional rights to environmental protection. They specifically contest provisions allowing for presumed prior approvals and a 30-day review period for permit applications, asserting that such measures pressure government agencies to expedite processes at the expense of thorough environmental assessments.
Respondents' Arguments
In response, the respondents argue that the petitioners misapplied procedural laws, asserting that the Executive Order is within the scope of presidential powers to streamline government processes. They maintain that the President has the authority to establish rules that aid in the efficient administration and implementation of laws pertaining to energy projects.
Court’s Ruling on Justiciability
The Court determined that the case presented an actual controversy, affirming that it had the jurisdiction to assess the legality of the Executive Order. It ruled that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient interest in the outcome, as they were residents affected by the coal-fired power plant certified under the Executive Order.
Examination of Executive Order No. 30
The Court evaluated Executive Order No. 30, confirming that it is valid under the President’s power to control and manage executive departments. It held that the regulation’s provision for the presumption of prior approval and the 30-day processing timeline are not inherently unconstitutional, as they are subject to the fulfillment of statutory safety and environmental laws.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition for ce
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 249678)
Background and Nature of the Case
- Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari for the Issuance of Environmental Protection Order (EPO) and Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) to declare Executive Order No. 30, Series of 2017 (EO No. 30) null, void, and unconstitutional.
- EO No. 30 created the Energy Investment Coordinating Council (EICC) to streamline regulatory procedures affecting energy projects, particularly Energy Projects of National Significance (EPNS).
- Petitioners allege EO No. 30 violates constitutional rights, environmental laws, and due process by expediting the approval of coal-fired power plants and other energy projects.
- Respondents assert improper remedy, lack of justiciable controversy, and defend EO No. 30 as valid exercise of executive power.
Executive Order No. 30: Purpose and Provisions
- EO No. 30 was issued on June 28, 2017 by then President Rodrigo Roa Duterte.
- It mandates EICC to harmonize, integrate, and streamline regulatory processes for developing energy investments.
- Functions include simplified approval process, inter-agency dispute resolution, maintaining a database and monitoring system, submitting quarterly progress reports, and other necessary functions.
- Section 7 provides baselines for processing EPNS applications: presumption of prior approvals, action within thirty (30) days from submission of complete requirements, and automatic issuance if no action within five (5) working days after 30-day period.
- Deviation from baselines allowed only when necessary to comply with statutory directives or avoid prejudice to public interest.
Petitioners' Claims and Arguments
- EO No. 30 was issued beyond the President's authority and without legislative authorization under Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) and Department of Energy Act.
- EO No. 30 lacks the required notice and hearing, violating due process.
- EO No. 30 prioritizes acceleration of electrification disregarding quality, reliability, affordability, and environmental concerns.
- EO No. 30 imposes arbitrary baselines and overly broad definition of "significant" in EPNS determinations.
- Alleged unconstitutional grants of rights to EPNS projects including presumed prior approvals possibly dispensing Environmental Compliance Certificates (ECC) and Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC).
- Automatic approval within 30 days pressures agencies to bypass established lengthy and complex procedures for permits such as ECC, FPIC, water permits, and land use conversion, violating existing laws.
- EO No. 30 contravenes Republic Act No. 9513 (Renewable Energy Act) by expediting coal-fired power plants.
- Lack of transparency, publication, hearing, and mechanisms for intervention or appeal in certification process.
Respondents' Arguments and Defense
- Petitioners used an improper remedy; challenge to EO No. 30's validity falls under certiorari and not environmental suits.
- No justiciable controversy as petitioners failed to show direct injury or denial of rights under EO No. 30.
- Precautionary principle inapplicable due to lack of empirical evidence.
- EO No. 30 valid exercise of the President's power of control over executive departments, including procedural rulemaking.
- Thirty-day action period is baseline for regulatory agencies to adopt;