SC upholds Duterte admin EO on speedy approval of energy projects | ABS-CBN
ADVERTISEMENT

Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
SC upholds Duterte admin EO on speedy approval of energy projects
SC upholds Duterte admin EO on speedy approval of energy projects
New geothermal exploration efforts are underway in the Philippines, a nation that has some of the world's largest untapped sources of volcanic heat. Noel Celis, AFP

MANILA — The Supreme Court has upheld Executive Order No. 30, issued in 2017 by then-President Rodrigo Duterte, which created the Energy Investment Coordinating Council, a body tasked to speed up the approval of energy projects for power generation, transmission and other services.
MANILA — The Supreme Court has upheld Executive Order No. 30, issued in 2017 by then-President Rodrigo Duterte, which created the Energy Investment Coordinating Council, a body tasked to speed up the approval of energy projects for power generation, transmission and other services.
In a decision of the en banc promulgated on November 5, 2024, the court dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by pro-environment groups and individuals such as Quezon for Environment, Atimonan Power to the People, Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, Msgr. Emmanuel Maria Villareal.
In a decision of the en banc promulgated on November 5, 2024, the court dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by pro-environment groups and individuals such as Quezon for Environment, Atimonan Power to the People, Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, Msgr. Emmanuel Maria Villareal.
EO 30 established minimum guidelines to streamline and shorten the process of approving Energy Projects of National Significance or EPNS, which include presumption of prior approvals, a 30-day deadline to act on applications and automatic approval if no action is taken within the deadline.
EO 30 established minimum guidelines to streamline and shorten the process of approving Energy Projects of National Significance or EPNS, which include presumption of prior approvals, a 30-day deadline to act on applications and automatic approval if no action is taken within the deadline.
Respondents to the petition are former executive secretary Salvador Medialdea and then Energy Investment Coordinating Council chairperson Jesus Cristino Posadas.
Respondents to the petition are former executive secretary Salvador Medialdea and then Energy Investment Coordinating Council chairperson Jesus Cristino Posadas.
ADVERTISEMENT
The petitioners however claimed that EO 30 went beyond the authority of the President and argued that it violated their right to a healthy environment for bypassing requirements like the Environmental Compliance Certificate.
The petitioners however claimed that EO 30 went beyond the authority of the President and argued that it violated their right to a healthy environment for bypassing requirements like the Environmental Compliance Certificate.
The petitioners also said the order set unrealistic deadlines for complex projects, some of which normally take more than 1,000 days to process.
The petitioners also said the order set unrealistic deadlines for complex projects, some of which normally take more than 1,000 days to process.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected the arguments of the petitioners and reiterated that the President has the power to streamline government processes and the order is in line with the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected the arguments of the petitioners and reiterated that the President has the power to streamline government processes and the order is in line with the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001.
“The contentions raised by petitioners, though gallant, were regrettably misplaced,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
“The contentions raised by petitioners, though gallant, were regrettably misplaced,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
The court also stated that the petitioners were not able to prove that the mechanisms available under existing environmental laws, rules and regulated proved futile or were rendered useless by the EO.
The court also stated that the petitioners were not able to prove that the mechanisms available under existing environmental laws, rules and regulated proved futile or were rendered useless by the EO.
ADVERTISEMENT
The court also ruled that the issuance of an Environmental Protection Order as prayed for by the petitioners, was not appropriate because it applies to violations of environmental laws and not legal challenges.
The court also ruled that the issuance of an Environmental Protection Order as prayed for by the petitioners, was not appropriate because it applies to violations of environmental laws and not legal challenges.
Meantime, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissented to the decision and argued that EO 30 is unconstitutional.
Meantime, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissented to the decision and argued that EO 30 is unconstitutional.
He stated in his dissenting opinion that EPIRA’s declared policies include the acceleration of the total electrification of the country as well as the assurance of socially and environmentally compatible energy sources and infrastructure.
He stated in his dissenting opinion that EPIRA’s declared policies include the acceleration of the total electrification of the country as well as the assurance of socially and environmentally compatible energy sources and infrastructure.
“One should not be sacrificed for the other and every effort must be taken for all the declared policies to come to fruition,” Leonen said.
“One should not be sacrificed for the other and every effort must be taken for all the declared policies to come to fruition,” Leonen said.
Read More:
Duterte
environment
SC
Supreme Court
energy
Energy Investment Coordinating Council
power
ANC
ANC promo
ABSNews
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT