MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of Executive Order No. 30, a 2017 directive that streamlines the approval process for energy projects deemed nationally significant.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the Court en banc dismissed a petition by several citizen groups seeking to halt the implementation of the order through an Environmental Protection Order (EPO). The petitioners argued that the directive overstepped presidential authority and undermined environmental safeguards.

The SC ruling said the EO 30 created the Energy Investment Coordinating Council (EICC) and set out measures to expedite the permitting of Energy Projects of National Significance (EPNS). These include a presumption of prior approvals—allowing agencies to process applications even if other permits are pending—along with a 30-day deadline to act on complete applications. If no action is taken within the timeframe, permits are deemed automatically approved.

The petitioners criticized the EO for allegedly bypassing essential requirements such as the Environmental Compliance Certificate, imposing unrealistic timelines, and prioritizing administrative speed over environmental and technical due diligence.

The Supreme Court rejected these claims, ruling that the President has the authority to streamline bureaucratic procedures in line with existing laws. The Court also noted that EO 30 supports national policy goals under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 and the Department of Energy Act of 1992.

The ruling clarified that EO 30 only sets minimum guidelines and does not remove legal requirements. The Court emphasized that the presumption of prior approvals allows simultaneous—not skipped—processing of permits, and that the 30-day deadline is more lenient than those found in other laws such as the Ease of Doing Business Act.

The Court also ruled that the EPO sought by petitioners was inappropriate, as such orders are intended for actual violations of environmental laws, not legal questions over executive authority.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen dissented, describing the EO as unconstitutional. He said the 30-day processing rule was arbitrary and did not account for the complexity of certain energy projects or their environmental impacts. Leonen underscored the need for energy development to proceed without compromising environmental integrity.

Meanwhile, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, in a concurring opinion, backed the majority, saying EO 30 merely aims to reduce bureaucratic delays without removing any legal protections.