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.<\/p>\n
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).<\/p>\n
The decision, authored by Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, indicated that the EO falls within the president\u2019s authority to reorganize governmental structures and hasten administrative procedures.<\/p>\n
The challengers, Quezon for Environment, asserted that EO 30 surpasses the President\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/span><\/p>\n It stated that an Environmental Protection Order was not relevant as the petition raised legal, not factual, inquiries regarding violations of environmental law.<\/p>\n \u201cThe SC endorsed the provisions under EO 30, which merely establishes baseline criteria to assist agencies \u2014 these can be modified to comply with specific statutes or safeguard public interest,\u201d it explained in a different statement.<\/p>\n \u201cIt clarified that the assumption of prior approval allows permits to be processed simultaneously, rather than completely omitted,\u201d it added.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen opposed the ruling, labeling the EO as unlawful.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n He also reiterated that swift electrification should align with environmental safeguarding.<\/p>\n