Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition v. National Power Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners in G.R. No. 70632 questioned the competence of respondent Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) Commissioners to pass judgment on the safety of the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 (PNPP-1) and assailed the validity of the motion filed by the National Power Corporation (NPC) for the conversion of its construction permit into an operating license, citing deficiencies in financial qualifications, nuclear fuel source, and insurance coverage. They also charged the PAEC Commissioners with bias and prejudgment. Procedural History: In G.R. No. 68474, petitioners moved for PAEC to reconsider its orders and for a mandatory injunction or restraining order. In G.R. No. 70632, a temporary restraining order was issued enjoining the PAEC from further proceeding in the licensing proceedings. The Petition: Petitioners sought to question the competence and alleged bias of the PAEC Commissioners and the validity of the NPC's motion for conversion of its construction permit to an operating license.
Issue(s)
Whether the competence of respondent PAEC Commissioners could be judicially inquired into without seeking their ouster. Whether the motion for conversion of the construction permit to an operating license was legally sufficient. Whether respondent PAEC Commissioners were guilty of bias and prejudgment. Whether the Supreme Court could compel the President to designate another body or appoint temporary commissioners. Whether G.R. No. 68474 had become moot and academic. Whether petitioners had a cause of action for prohibition and injunction in G.R. No. 70632. Whether the matter of the operation of a nuclear plant is a political question. Whether a "law member" should be appointed to the PAEC.
Ruling
The Supreme Court resolved to restrain respondent PAEC Commissioners from further acting in PAEC Licensing Proceedings No. 1-77. In G.R. No. 68474, the Court ordered respondent PAEC (once reconstituted) to re-open the hearing on PNPP-1 to give petitioners sufficient time to complete their cross-examination and presentation of evidence, prescribing a time schedule for dispatch and allowing NPC to correct deficiencies. The Court also noted that G.R. No. 68474 had become moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On the competence of PAEC Commissioners: The Court held that where the validity of an appointment is not challenged in an appropriate proceeding, the question of competence is not within the field of judicial inquiry. If not considered a qualification the absence of which would vitiate the appointment, competence is a matter of judgment addressed solely to the appointing power. Therefore, the first issue was resolved against the petitioners. On the legal sufficiency of the NPC motion for conversion: The Court believed that the indicated deficiencies in the NPC motion could be remedied and supplied in the course of the hearing before the PAEC. The respondent-applicant NPC could submit pertinent testimonies and documents when the PAEC hearing was re-opened, subject to controversion and counterproof by the petitioners. Thus, this ground did not constitute a jurisdictional infirmity. On the charge of bias and prejudgment: The Court found merit in the charge, noting that PAEC pamphlets (Exhibits "JJ", "KK", and "LL") clearly indicated pre-judgment that PNPP-1 is safe. These pamphlets, particularly Exhibit "JJ" which was published in 1985 when the respondent Commissioners were already appointed, and Exhibits "KK" and "LL" issued earlier but with majority of Commissioners holding responsible positions, continued to be distributed by PAEC as late as March 1985. The Court concluded that having prejudged the safety of PNPP-1, the PAEC Commissioners would be acting with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction if they were to sit in judgment upon the safety of the plant, absent the requisite objectivity. Consequently, the Court resolved to restrain the respondent PAEC Commissioners from further acting in the proceedings. The Court emphasized that even if there were doubts regarding prejudgment, such doubts should be resolved in favor of a course of action that assures an unquestionably objective inquiry, considering the circumstances and the number of people vitally interested. On compelling the President: Justice Abad Santos, in his separate opinion, stated that the Court cannot compel the President to designate another body or appoint temporary commissioners, citing the separation of powers and the President not being a party to the proceedings. The Court's role is to restrain the commissioners from acting. On mootness and standing: Chief Justice Aquino dissented, arguing that G.R. No. 68474 was moot and academic as the prayer had been granted. He also argued that petitioners in G.R. No. 70632 lacked legal standing as citizens and taxpayers to file a petition for prohibition and injunction, and that prohibition was not the proper remedy as the PAEC was acting within its jurisdiction. Justice Patajo also voted to dismiss G.R. No. 68474 for being moot and academic and G.R. No. 70632 as premature. On the matter of the operation of a nuclear plant being a political question: Chief Justice Aquino considered the matter a political question and stated the Court had no original jurisdiction for injunction. On the propriety of prohibition or injunction to question competence and the belief that the Commissioners could still be objective: Justice Patajo questioned the propriety of prohibition or injunction to question competence and believed the Commissioners could still be objective. On the reopening of the hearing (G.R. No. 68474): Considering the paramount need for reasonable assurance that the operation of PNPP-1 will not pose an undue risk to health and safety, the Court ordered the PAEC to re-open the hearing. This was to give petitioners sufficient latitude to complete their cross-examination of expert witnesses and present their evidence, unfettered by technical rules of evidence, in keeping with due process in administrative proceedings. The PAEC was allowed to prescribe a time schedule and give NPC an opportunity to correct deficiencies.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court restrained respondent PAEC Commissioners from further acting in PAEC Licensing Proceedings No. 1-77 due to their prejudgment of the safety of PNPP-1, constituting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Court also ordered the reopening of the hearing to allow petitioners to complete their evidence presentation, emphasizing due process and the paramount need for assurance of safety.