The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the validity of Executive Order (EO) No. 30, issued in 2017 to fast-track the approval of energy projects by establishing the Energy Investment Coordinating Council (EICC).

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC En Banc dismissed a petition from several citizen groups seeking to block the implementation of EO 30 through an Environmental Protection Order (EPO).

EO 30 sets out minimum guidelines to simplify and shorten the approval process for Energy Projects of National Significance (EPNS). Key provisions include:
(a) a presumption of prior approvals, allowing agencies to begin processing applications even if other permits are still pending;
(b) a 30-day deadline for agencies to act on complete applications; and
(c) automatic approval if no action is taken within that timeframe.

The petitioners argued that EO 30 exceeds presidential authority, compromises environmental safeguards, circumvents requirements such as the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), imposes unrealistic deadlines for complex projects, and prioritizes speed over reliability and sustainability.

The Court rejected these claims, affirming that the President may streamline government processes provided they comply with existing laws. It found EO 30 consistent with national energy development policies under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA) and the Department of Energy Act of 1992.

The SC clarified that EO 30 merely sets baseline standards that agencies can adjust to meet specific legal and environmental requirements. It also noted that the 30-day deadline is more flexible than similar timelines in other laws, such as the DOE Act and the Ease of Doing Business Act, which also incorporate automatic approval mechanisms.

The Court further ruled that an EPO is inappropriate in this context, as such orders are meant for clear violations of environmental laws, not for legal or constitutional challenges.

In a dissenting opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen argued that EO 30 is unconstitutional, calling the 30-day deadline arbitrary given the complexity of some energy projects and their environmental implications. He stressed that energy development must align with environmental protection.

Meanwhile, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, in a concurring opinion, supported the majority view, emphasizing that EO 30 merely accelerates government processes without removing legal safeguards.