THE Supreme Court (SC) reaffirmed a 2017 executive order (EO) on Tuesday that accelerates approvals for energy initiatives deemed of national importance, rejecting a legal challenge presented by environmental proponents.
The SC, convened en banc, dismissed a request aimed at obstructing EO No. 30, which simplifies the permitting process for Energy Projects of National Significance (EPNS) by creating the Energy Investment Coordinating Council (EICC).
The decision, authored by Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, indicated that the EO falls within the president’s authority to reorganize governmental structures and hasten administrative procedures.
The challengers, Quezon for Environment, asserted that EO 30 surpasses the President’s jurisdiction, infringes on their entitlement to a wholesome environment, circumvented essential environmental prerequisites such as the Environmental Compliance Certificate, and imposed unrealistic timelines for intricate energy initiatives.
The court dismissed these assertions, declaring the EO is compatible with the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 and the Department of Energy (DoE) Act of 1992.
It stated that an Environmental Protection Order was not relevant as the petition raised legal, not factual, inquiries regarding violations of environmental law.
“The SC endorsed the provisions under EO 30, which merely establishes baseline criteria to assist agencies — these can be modified to comply with specific statutes or safeguard public interest,” it explained in a different statement.
“It clarified that the assumption of prior approval allows permits to be processed simultaneously, rather than completely omitted,” it added.
Conversely, the 30-day window is even more adaptable than the deadlines specified in other legislation such as the DoE Act and the Ease of Doing Business Act.
Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen opposed the ruling, labeling the EO as unlawful.
He described the 30-day provision as arbitrary, emphasizing that some permits necessitate additional time due to their complexity or the requirement to evaluate environmental consequences.
He also reiterated that swift electrification should align with environmental safeguarding.
In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa noted that the EO reduces bureaucratic hurdles without undermining legal safeguards.
The defendants in the matter included former Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, the DoE, and other regulatory bodies engaged in the administration of energy project permits. — Chloe Mari A. Hufana
