Foundation for Economic Freedom vs. Energy Regulatory Commission

The Feed-In Tariff System under Republic Act No. 9513, including the advanced collection of the FIT Allowance from electricity consumers, is a valid exercise of police power and a permissible delegation of legislative power, provided that the law is complete in itself and fixes a sufficient standard, and that renewable energy developers are paid only for electricity actually generated and metered.

Republic Act No. 9513, the Renewable Energy Act of 2008, was enacted to accelerate the exploration, development, and use of renewable energy resources, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and protect health and environment. Section 6 mandates a Renewable Portfolio Standard—a market-based policy requiring electricity suppliers to source a portion of their energy from eligible renewable energy resources—and Section 7 mandates a Feed-In Tariff System guaranteeing fixed payments to developers of electricity from wind, solar, ocean, run-of-river hydropower, and biomass. The Energy Regulatory Commission, in consultation with the National Renewable Energy Board, was tasked to formulate and promulgate the FIT System rules, while the Department of Energy was designated as the lead implementing agency. The National Transmission Corporation was later designated as the FIT Allowance Administrator. Three sets of petitioners—Foundation for Economic Freedom, Remigio Michael Ancheta II, and AGHAM with Angelo Palmones—filed separate petitions challenging the constitutionality and validity of these statutory provisions and the cascade of administrative issuances implementing them.

On December 16, 2008, Republic Act No. 9513, the Renewable Energy Act of 2008, was signed into law. Section 6 mandated the National Renewable Energy Board to set a Renewable Portfolio Standard—a minimum percentage of generation from eligible renewable energy resources—within one year from effectivity. Section 7 mandated the Energy Regulatory Commission, in consultation with the National Renewable Energy Board, to formulate and promulgate Feed-In Tariff System rules within the same period, guaranteeing fixed payments to developers of electricity from wind, solar, ocean, run-of-river hydropower, and biomass for not less than twelve years.

On July 12, 2010, the Energy Regulatory Commission issued Resolution No. 16, Series of 2010, adopting the FIT Rules, which became effective on August 12, 2010. The FIT Rules tasked the National Renewable Energy Board to recommend FIT and degression rates to the Energy Regulatory Commission. The National Renewable Energy Board filed a Petition to Initiate Rule-Making for the Adoption of Feed-In Tariff, recommending rates for each renewable resource. The Energy Regulatory Commission set the petition for public hearing on several dates in September 2011 and required publication of the notice twice for two successive weeks in two newspapers of general circulation. The National Renewable Energy Board filed a Notice of Compliance dated September 2, 2011, attaching affidavits and newspaper issuances showing publication on August 11 and 15, 2011.

The Foundation for Economic Freedom opposed the Petition to Initiate, arguing that publication requirements were not met and that the petition was premature because the Renewable Portfolio Standard rules, penetration limits, and installation targets had not yet been established. The Energy Regulatory Commission denied the opposition on October 3, 2011, holding that the petition involved quasi-legislative—not quasi-judicial—power and that publication requirements were satisfied. The Foundation for Economic Freedom's motion for reconsideration was denied on November 10, 2011. It then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on December 13, 2013, ruling that it had become moot and academic because the Energy Regulatory Commission had already approved the FIT Rates in Resolution No. 10, Series of 2012, and that certiorari was an improper remedy because the case involved quasi-legislative functions.

Meanwhile, the Energy Regulatory Commission issued Resolution No. 10, Series of 2012 on July 27, 2012, approving FIT Rates: wind at PhP 8.53/kWh, biomass at PhP 6.63/kWh, solar at PhP 9.68/kWh, and hydro at PhP 5.90/kWh, each with specified degression rates. The Energy Regulatory Commission subsequently issued Resolution No. 15, Series of 2012, amending the FIT Rules and designating the National Transmission Corporation as the FIT Allowance Administrator, replacing the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines. On December 16, 2013, the Energy Regulatory Commission issued Resolution No. 24, Series of 2013, providing the FIT Guidelines for collecting and disbursing the FIT Allowance.

On July 30, 2014, the National Transmission Corporation filed an application with the Energy Regulatory Commission for approval of the FIT Allowance for years 2014 and 2015, seeking provisional authority to impose a rate of PhP 0.0406/kWh. The Energy Regulatory Commission granted the application on October 7, 2014, provisionally approving the FIT Allowance effective in the January 2015 billing for all on-grid consumers. Ancheta thereafter filed a Petition for Prohibition and Certiorari under Rule 65, docketed as G.R. No. 215579, questioning the provisional approval and arguing grave abuse of discretion, undue expansion of Republic Act No. 9513, invalid delegation of legislative power, and invalid exercise of police power.

On April 30, 2014, the Department of Energy issued a certification increasing the installation target for solar energy from 50 MW to 500 MW, citing increased private sector interest, a predicted critical power supply during the summers of 2015 and 2016, and the short installation period of solar projects. The National Renewable Energy Board endorsed the certification to the Energy Regulatory Commission, which issued Resolution No. 6, Series of 2015, decreasing the solar FIT from PhP 9.68/kWh to PhP 8.69/kWh. On April 7, 2015, the Department of Energy issued another certification increasing the wind installation target from 200 MW to 400 MW, citing a surge in investments and the need to boost power supply. The Energy Regulatory Commission adjusted the wind FIT from PhP 8.53/kWh to PhP 7.40/kWh.

The National Transmission Corporation subsequently filed applications to collect the FIT Allowance for 2016 to 2018. The Energy Regulatory Commission provisionally approved a 2016 FIT Allowance of PhP 0.1240/kWh on February 16, 2016, and a 2017 FIT Allowance of PhP 0.1830/kWh. On December 7, 2017, AGHAM and Palmones filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65, docketed as G.R. No. 235624, seeking to nullify Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9513, the Department of Energy Certifications increasing installation targets, the Energy Regulatory Commission's Decisions and Orders setting solar and wind FIT Rates, and the Orders provisionally approving the 2016 and 2017 FIT Allowance. The three cases were consolidated on September 10, 2019.

• Propriety of Rule 65: Petitioners Ancheta, Citizenwatch, and AGHAM maintained that Rule 65 petitions for certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to assail the constitutionality of the FIT Rules, FIT Guidelines, and Energy Regulatory Commission Orders, given the alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondents, and that such acts need not be in the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions.
• Justiciability: Petitioners argued that all requisites of judicial review were present: an actual case or controversy existed because the FIT Allowance was already being imposed on electricity consumers; the issues were ripe for adjudication; they had legal standing as consumers directly affected; and the constitutional issue was raised at the earliest opportunity and constituted the very lis mota of the case.
• Prematurity of FIT System: Foundation for Economic Freedom, Citizenwatch, and Meralco insisted that the FIT Rules, FIT Guidelines, and the setting of the FIT Allowance were premature because the Renewable Portfolio Standard, its rules, installation targets, and the maximum penetration limits study should have been established first as conditions precedent.
• Invalid Delegation of Legislative Power: Ancheta, Citizenwatch, and AGHAM argued that the delegation of legislative power under Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 9513 did not comply with the completeness and sufficient standard tests, rendering it an invalid delegation. AGHAM specifically contended that Section 6 lacked sufficient standards to guide the National Renewable Energy Board.
• Ultra Vires Issuances — Advance Collection: Ancheta, Citizenwatch, and Meralco asserted that the Energy Regulatory Commission exceeded its authority and unduly expanded Republic Act No. 9513 by providing for the advanced collection of the FIT Allowance from consumers before actual generation, delivery, or consumption of renewable energy, arguing that the law only authorizes payment for electricity actually produced.
• Ultra Vires Issuances — DOE Certifications: AGHAM argued that the Department of Energy gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Certifications increasing installation targets because it lacked authority under either the EPIRA or Republic Act No. 9513, and that the Certifications were issued without prior notice and hearing or public consultations.
• Invalid Exercise of Police Power / Taxation: Ancheta and Citizenwatch contended that the FIT Allowance was a tax measure lacking a public purpose because it benefited only renewable energy developers, and that even if it were an exercise of police power, the means employed were unreasonable, oppressive, and arbitrary. AGHAM similarly challenged Section 6 as an invalid exercise of police power for being confiscatory and unreasonable.
• Due Process Violations: Petitioners argued that respondents violated both substantive and procedural due process: substantively, the issuances were unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive; procedurally, the Department of Energy Certifications were issued without prior notice and hearing, and the National Renewable Energy Board failed to comply with publication requirements for its Petition to Initiate.
• Injunctive Relief: AGHAM and Citizenwatch prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, asserting a clear and unmistakable right not to be deprived of property without due process, material and substantial violation of that right, urgent necessity, and the absence of an adequate remedy.

• Improper Remedy: The Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and National Transmission Corporation argued that certiorari or prohibition is not the proper remedy to question the Petition to Initiate or the FIT Rules and FIT Guidelines because these were issued pursuant to the Energy Regulatory Commission's rule-making power—a quasi-legislative function—and that there was no showing of grave abuse of discretion.
• No Actual Case or Controversy: The Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Board, and DREAM argued that AGHAM was questioning the wisdom of the assailed issuances, which is non-justiciable, and that AGHAM failed to indicate opposing legal claims or violated rights; they also contended that the AGHAM Petition was not yet ripe because the Renewable Portfolio Standard came into effect only on December 31, 2017.
• Hierarchy of Courts: The Energy Regulatory Commission and Department of Energy contended that Ancheta violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts by directly filing a Petition for Certiorari in the Supreme Court, and that no compelling or exceptional circumstance warranted direct resort.
• Mootness: The Energy Regulatory Commission and Department of Energy argued that Foundation for Economic Freedom's Petition in G.R. No. 214042 was already moot and academic because the Energy Regulatory Commission had promulgated a Decision terminating the proceedings and setting the FIT System in motion.
• Lack of Standing: The Energy Regulatory Commission and DREAM argued that AGHAM had no locus standi, having failed to allege or show any injury sustained from the implementation of the assailed issuances, and that the invocation of transcendental importance was insufficient.
• RPS Not a Prerequisite: The Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and National Renewable Energy Board insisted that the Renewable Portfolio Standard, its rules, installation targets, and the maximum penetration limits study were not prerequisites to the establishment of the FIT System or the determination of initial FIT rates, as the two mechanisms have different objectives and are treated separately under the law.
• Valid Delegation: Respondents maintained that Republic Act No. 9513 was complete in all essential terms and conditions, that Section 2 provided sufficient standards, and that the determination of specific rates and details was properly left to the specialized expertise of the Energy Regulatory Commission and the National Renewable Energy Board.
• Advance Collection Valid: The National Transmission Corporation and National Renewable Energy Board argued that Republic Act No. 9513 prohibited neither the FIT Guidelines nor the advance collection of the FIT Allowance, and that payment would not be made to developers until renewable energy was actually produced and delivered; the Energy Regulatory Commission and Department of Energy clarified that petitioners were confusing collection and payment.
• DOE Certifications Valid: The Energy Regulatory Commission, National Renewable Energy Board, and DREAM maintained that the Department of Energy Certifications were valid, filled in the gaps of Republic Act No. 9513, were issued within the Department of Energy's authority under both the EPIRA and Republic Act No. 9513, and were supported by legitimate considerations including impending power shortages.
• Valid Police Power: The Energy Regulatory Commission and Department of Energy countered that the FIT Allowance was not a tax but a valid exercise of police power imposed for a regulatory purpose—accelerating the development of emerging renewable energy resources—and that it satisfied the lawful subject and lawful means tests.
• Due Process Complied With: Respondents argued that they held numerous hearings, public consultations, meetings, and focus group discussions; posted notices on the Energy Regulatory Commission website; and issued decisions only after consideration of all parties' contentions. They also maintained that the National Renewable Energy Board complied with publication requirements for its Petition to Initiate.
• Forum Shopping: The Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and National Transmission Corporation argued that Foundation for Economic Freedom committed forum shopping by filing its Petition-in-Intervention in G.R. No. 215579, raising issues already passed upon by the Energy Regulatory Commission and the Court of Appeals.
• No Basis for Injunction: Respondents argued that petitioners failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right, that the alleged injury was quantifiable and capable of pecuniary estimation, and that the issuance of injunctive relief would prejudge the case and prejudice electricity consumers by discouraging renewable energy production.

• Propriety of Rule 65: Whether petitions for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 are proper remedies to question the constitutionality of statutory provisions and the validity of administrative issuances, even if the acts in question were not done in the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions.
• Judicial Review — Actual Case or Controversy: Whether there is an actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication.
• Judicial Review — Hierarchy of Courts: Whether a direct resort to the Supreme Court is justified notwithstanding the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
• Judicial Review — Mootness: Whether the Foundation for Economic Freedom's Petition in G.R. No. 214042 is moot and academic.
• Judicial Review — Legal Standing: Whether petitioners have legal standing to bring the constitutional challenges.
• Judicial Review — Earliest Opportunity: Whether the issue of constitutionality was raised at the earliest opportunity.
• Judicial Review — Lis Mota: Whether the issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota of the case.
• Prerequisites to FIT System: Whether the determination of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, the adoption of Renewable Portfolio Standard Rules, the conduct of a maximum penetration limit study, and the determination of installation targets are prerequisites to implementing the FIT System and determining FIT rates and allowance.
• Validity of Delegation — FIT System: Whether there is a valid delegation of legislative power in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9513 covering the FIT System.
• Validity of Delegation — RPS: Whether there is a valid delegation of legislative power in Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9513 covering the Renewable Portfolio Standard.
• Ultra Vires — Advance Collection: Whether respondents gravely abused their discretion and exceeded their delegated powers in providing for the advanced collection of the FIT Allowance in the FIT Rules and FIT Guidelines.
• Ultra Vires — DOE Certifications: Whether the Department of Energy acted within its authority in issuing the Certifications increasing the installation targets for solar and wind energy.
• Nature of FIT Imposition: Whether the implementation of the FIT System is a valid exercise of police power or taxation power.
• Due Process — Substantive: Whether consumers were deprived of their property without due process of law.
• Due Process — Procedural: Whether respondents complied with procedural due process requirements, including notice, hearing, and publication.
• Forum Shopping: Whether the Foundation for Economic Freedom committed forum shopping when it filed its Petition-in-Intervention in G.R. No. 215579.
• Injunctive Relief: Whether there is a basis for granting petitioners' applications for injunctive relief.

• Propriety of Rule 65: Yes. Rule 65 petitions for certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to address grave abuse of discretion by any branch or instrumentality of the government, even if the acts were not done in the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution.
• Judicial Review — Actual Case or Controversy: Yes. An actual case or controversy exists because the assailed issuances are already in effect and being implemented, with amounts already being collected from electricity consumers, presenting a clear conflict of opposing legal claims.
• Judicial Review — Hierarchy of Courts: Yes. Direct resort to the Supreme Court is justified under recognized exceptions: the case presents issues of first impression involving the constitutionality of particular provisions of Republic Act No. 9513, there is urgency due to the impact on electricity bills, and the issues involve the advancement of public policy affecting the public sphere.
• Judicial Review — Mootness: Yes, the exceptions to the mootness rule apply. The issues involve alleged violations of constitutional rights, are of paramount public interest, require formulation of controlling principles, and are capable of repetition yet evading review.
• Judicial Review — Legal Standing: Yes, relaxed. Ancheta and Palmones have standing as electricity consumers directly subjected to the charges. While Foundation for Economic Freedom and AGHAM failed to show direct injury, the rule on legal standing was relaxed given the impact of the assailed issuances on millions of Filipino electricity consumers.
• Judicial Review — Earliest Opportunity: Yes. Petitioners raised the issue of constitutionality at the first instance in their pleadings before the Supreme Court, which is the earliest opportunity for pleading the constitutional issue before a competent body that could resolve it.
• Judicial Review — Lis Mota: Yes. Petitioners are not raising the question of constitutionality collaterally; they raise violations of their constitutional right to due process and assert the overstepping of powers by other branches of government, making the constitutional issue indispensable to resolution.
• Prerequisites to FIT System: No. The determination of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, its rules, installation targets, and the maximum penetration limits study are not prerequisites to the establishment of the FIT System or the determination of the initial FIT rates, as the law does not specify that one must precede the other and both are required to be established within one year from effectivity.
• Validity of Delegation — FIT System: Yes. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9513 passes the completeness and sufficient standard tests: it specifies the legislative policy of accelerating the development of emerging renewable energy resources, designates the Energy Regulatory Commission and National Renewable Energy Board as implementing agencies, and provides limits and boundaries on their authority.
• Validity of Delegation — RPS: Yes. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9513, read in conjunction with Section 2 (Declaration of Policies), Section 4 (Definition of Terms), and Section 27 (Creation of NREB), provides sufficient standards that limit the authority of the National Renewable Energy Board.
• Ultra Vires — Advance Collection: No grave abuse of discretion. The Energy Regulatory Commission acted within the bounds of its delegated power in providing for the advanced collection of the FIT Allowance, as the law does not prohibit it, and payment to developers remains conditioned on actual metered deliveries.
• Ultra Vires — DOE Certifications: No grave abuse of discretion. The Department of Energy acted within the scope of its authority as the lead implementing agency under Republic Act No. 9513 and the EPIRA in issuing the Certifications increasing installation targets.
• Nature of FIT Imposition: The FIT System is a valid exercise of police power, not taxation. Its primary purpose is regulatory—to accelerate the development of emerging renewable energy resources—rather than revenue generation, and it satisfies the lawful subject and lawful means tests.
• Due Process — Substantive: No deprivation without due process. Under the rational basis test applicable to economic legislation, the questioned issuances rationally advance legitimate government interests in reducing fossil-fuel dependence and protecting health and environment.
• Due Process — Procedural: Yes, complied with. The Energy Regulatory Commission held hearings, public consultations, and focus group discussions, posted notices on its website, and issued decisions after considering all parties' contentions. The National Renewable Energy Board complied with publication requirements for its Petition to Initiate.
• Forum Shopping: Moot and academic. The consolidation of the cases averted the evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping.
• Injunctive Relief: No. Petitioners failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right, the alleged injury was quantifiable and capable of pecuniary estimation, and the issuance of injunctive relief would prejudge the main case.

• Propriety of Rule 65: While Rule 65, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court more explicitly state that certiorari and prohibition address grave abuse of discretion of judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial bodies, Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution expanded the scope of judicial power to include the duty to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. This expanded certiorari jurisdiction, rooted in the experience of martial law when the political question doctrine was used to evade judicial review, means that courts can no longer evade the duty to settle matters by claiming they constitute political questions. Rule 65 has been consistently acknowledged as the de facto modality for invoking this expanded jurisdiction, and petitions thereunder may be filed to review, prohibit, or nullify acts of legislative and executive officials, especially where constitutional issues are involved.

• Judicial Review — Actual Case or Controversy: An actual case or controversy requires a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution, and must not be moot, academic, or based on extra-legal considerations. Here, petitioners question the constitutionality of provisions of Republic Act No. 9513 and the validity of acts and issuances already in effect and being implemented. Respondents do not deny that amounts are already being collected from consumers. The parties present opposing legal claims that may be resolved by the Court, not theoretical circumstances or a request for an advisory opinion.

• Judicial Review — Hierarchy of Courts: The doctrine of hierarchy of courts operates to prevent inordinate demands on the Supreme Court's time and attention, prevent docket overcrowding, and prevent delay. However, it is not an iron-clad rule. Recognized exceptions include genuine issues of constitutionality requiring immediate attention, issues of transcendental importance, cases of first impression, cases better decided by the Court, time-sensitive matters, review of acts of constitutional organs, lack of other plain and adequate remedies, and questions dictated by public welfare and advancement of public policy. This case falls under these exceptions: it presents issues of first impression involving the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9513 provisions, there is urgency due to the impact on electricity bills, and the issues involve questions relating to the advancement of public policies affecting the public sphere.

• Judicial Review — Mootness: A case becomes moot when a supervening event causes the resolution of the issue to lose its practical value. However, courts will decide moot cases if there is a grave violation of the Constitution, the exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest are involved, the constitutional issue requires formulation of controlling principles, or the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. All these exceptions are present: petitioners allege violations of constitutional rights, the issues are of paramount public interest, resolution is necessary to guide the bench, bar, and public, and the issues are capable of repetition yet evading review.

• Judicial Review — Legal Standing: Legal standing requires a personal and substantial interest in the case, meaning the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act. Exceptions allow taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators to sue under certain conditions. Ancheta and Palmones, as electricity consumers subjected to the charges, stand to suffer direct and material injury. Foundation for Economic Freedom and AGHAM failed to show such injury, and mere invocation of transcendental importance is insufficient where factual issues are present. Nevertheless, the rule on legal standing was relaxed given the impact of the assailed issuances on millions of Filipino electricity consumers, and the Court would be remiss in its constitutional duty to further delay resolution.

• Judicial Review — Earliest Opportunity: The earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve it. Petitioners raised the issue of constitutionality at the first instance in their pleadings before the Supreme Court, and the issue could not have been resolved by the Department of Energy, Energy Regulatory Commission, or National Renewable Energy Board.

• Judicial Review — Lis Mota: The constitutional issue must be indispensable to the resolution of the case. Courts avoid resolving constitutionality if the case can be ruled on other grounds. Here, petitioners are not raising the question collaterally; they raise violations of their constitutional right to due process and assert the overstepping of powers by other branches of government, making the constitutional issue the very lis mota.

• Prerequisites to FIT System: A plain reading of Republic Act No. 9513 reveals that neither the Renewable Portfolio Standard nor the FIT System provisions specify that one is a prerequisite to the other. Both are required to be established within one year from effectivity. The Implementing Rules and Regulations provide that the FIT shall be applied to renewable energy resources used in compliance with the Renewable Portfolio Standard, but this only means that those who comply with the Renewable Portfolio Standard are entitled to the FIT—it does not preclude the development of the FIT System. The two mechanisms have different objectives: the FIT System incentivizes production through a fixed tariff, while the Renewable Portfolio Standard requires sourcing a fraction of electricity from renewable energy. They are found in separate provisions within the same chapter, alongside other independent mechanisms. As to the maximum penetration limits study under Section 20, it pertains to priority dispatch for intermittent renewable energy resources and is concerned with transmission and distribution, not with generation entitlement to the FIT. However, the FIT Rules do require that installation targets—which must be consistent with the Renewable Portfolio Standard—be considered in determining the FIT. For the initial FITs, the FIT Rules allow the National Renewable Energy Board to base calculations on a reference cost study, a different mode that does not require prior establishment of the Renewable Portfolio Standard.

• Validity of Delegation — FIT System: The delegation of legislative power to specialized administrative agencies is permitted as an exception to the non-delegation principle, given the increasing complexity of modern government tasks. For a valid delegation, the law must pass the completeness test (complete in all terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature) and the sufficient standard test (fixes a standard sufficiently determinate and determinable to which the delegate must conform). Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9513 enumerates specific State policies—accelerating renewable energy development, increasing utilization, encouraging development to reduce harmful emissions, and establishing necessary infrastructure—that serve as guidelines. Section 7 specifies the legislative policy of accelerating the development of emerging renewable energy resources, designates the Energy Regulatory Commission and National Renewable Energy Board, and provides limits: priority connections, priority purchase and payment, a fixed tariff for not less than twelve years, and application to renewable energy used in compliance with the Renewable Portfolio Standard. These standards are complete and specific enough to establish the intent and map the boundaries of delegated authority.

• Validity of Delegation — RPS: Section 6, while not as detailed as Section 7, specifies the policy that all stakeholders shall contribute to the growth of the renewable energy industry. Read in conjunction with Section 2 (Declaration of Policies), Section 4 (defining the Renewable Portfolio Standard as a "market-based policy"), and Section 27 (enumerating the National Renewable Energy Board's powers), sufficient standards are present. The market-based nature of the Renewable Portfolio Standard calls for shifting data and statistics that administrative agencies are better equipped to handle—the "minutiae of everyday life" that Congress cannot be expected to deal with promptly.

• Ultra Vires — Advance Collection: The FIT Rules and FIT Guidelines provide that FITs due to eligible renewable energy plants shall be paid by on-grid electricity consumers through the FIT Allowance, but that renewable energy plants shall be paid based on actual metered deliveries. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9513 specifies priority payment for electricity produced from emerging renewable energy resources but does not prohibit the advanced collection of amounts from consumers. What the law requires is that electricity must first be produced before being entitled to the FIT. The advanced collection through the FIT Allowance is not contrary to the policies of Republic Act No. 9513, which aims to accelerate renewable energy development. The FIT Allowance is analogous to the Universal Charge upheld in Gerochi vs. Department of Energy, which was ruled a valid exercise of police power. The FIT Rules and Guidelines—providing for advanced collection from consumers and payment only on the basis of actual metered deliveries—are within the Energy Regulatory Commission's authority.

• Ultra Vires — DOE Certifications: Republic Act No. 9513 designates the Department of Energy as the lead agency to implement its provisions and to promulgate the Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Department of Energy's powers under the EPIRA further include formulating policies for efficient supply and economical use of energy, encouraging private sector investments in renewable energy, and exercising supervision and control over energy projects. While the FIT Rules state that installation targets are set by the National Renewable Energy Board, Section 27 of Republic Act No. 9513 provides that the National Renewable Energy Board recommends specific actions to facilitate implementation of the National Renewable Energy Program by the Department of Energy. Ultimately, it is the Department of Energy that implements the National Renewable Energy Program. The FIT Guidelines also authorize the FIT Administrator to request data from the Department of Energy. Considering these powers, the Department of Energy acted within the scope of its authority in issuing the Certifications.

• Nature of FIT Imposition: Police power is the power of the State to interfere with life, liberty, or property for the benefit of general welfare; its main objective is to regulate conduct or behavior for the common good. Taxation's main objective is revenue generation. The conservative and pivotal distinction rests in the purpose: if revenue is primary and regulation incidental, the imposition is a tax; if regulation is primary and revenue is incidentally raised, it is not. The FIT System's purpose under Section 7 is to accelerate the development of emerging renewable energy resources—not to generate revenue for the State. The amounts collected ensure payment of a fixed tariff to those who produce electricity from renewable energy, thereby incentivizing participation. This is consistent with the ruling in Gerochi that the Universal Charge under the EPIRA was an exercise of police power. The FIT System and Renewable Portfolio Standard satisfy the lawful subject test (the interests of the public generally require the exercise of police power, as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is constitutionally guaranteed) and the lawful means test (the incentivization of renewable energy developers is reasonably necessary and directly related to the purpose, and petitioners failed to show that implementation is arbitrary, oppressive, or detrimental).

• Due Process — Substantive: Substantive due process inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. Three tests apply: rational basis (valid if rationally furthering a legitimate governmental interest), heightened scrutiny (extensive examination of governmental interest and availability of less restrictive means), and strict scrutiny (compelling governmental interest and no less restrictive means). The rational basis test applies to economic legislation. Here, the regulations involve billing of amounts from electricity consumers to incentivize renewable energy development, with ultimate objectives that are economic and environmental. The questioned issuances have a legitimate government interest that they rationally advance, as shown by the Department of Energy's stated reasons for increasing installation targets: increased private sector interest, predicted power supply shortages, short installation periods of solar projects, and the possibility of entry of other solar technologies. Whether there is a better method is a matter of policy and wisdom, which the Court has no power to review.

• Due Process — Procedural: The Energy Regulatory Commission held hearings, public consultations, meetings, and focus group discussions; posted notices on its website; and issued decisions after considering all parties' contentions. As to the National Renewable Energy Board's Petition to Initiate, it was published twice for two consecutive weeks in two newspapers of general circulation, with the last publication not later than ten days before the first hearing. The Petition to Initiate was filed to determine the FIT Rate, which differs from the FIT Allowance. The FIT Rate is not a charge to the public for any service; it is the FIT Allowance that directly affects electricity rates. The setting of the FIT Allowance requires a separate petition filed by the National Transmission Corporation. Therefore, the notice and publication requirements complied with by the National Renewable Energy Board for its Petition to Initiate are sufficient.

• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping exists when there is identity of parties, rights, causes of action, and relief sought in two or more pending cases, such that a judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other. Considering the consolidation of the cases, the evil sought to be avoided—contradictory decisions by different tribunals—has been averted, rendering the issue moot and academic.

• Injunctive Relief: A writ of preliminary injunction requires: (1) a clear and unmistakable right in esse; (2) a material and substantial invasion of that right; (3) urgent necessity to prevent irreparable injury; and (4) no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy. Petitioners' alleged right and its violation constitute one of the main issues being contested, so issuing injunctive relief recognizing the right as clear and unmistakable would prejudge the case. The alleged injury pertains to paying the costs of renewable energy—fixed, quantifiable amounts capable of pecuniary estimation and thus refundable if unjustly paid. Petitioners failed to establish the emergency or extraordinary circumstance required.

• Expanded Certiorari Jurisdiction (Article VIII, Section 1, 1987 Constitution) — The 1987 Constitution expanded the scope of judicial power to include the duty to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. This means courts can no longer evade the duty to settle matters by claiming they constitute political questions. Rule 65 petitions serve as the de facto modality for invoking this expanded jurisdiction, and may be filed even if the acts in question were not done in the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions.

• Completeness and Sufficient Standard Tests for Delegation of Legislative Power — The delegation of legislative power to administrative agencies is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth the policy to be executed, and (b) fixes a standard—the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable—to which the delegate must conform. A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries, and specifies the public agency to apply it. The law must pass both tests; failure to satisfy one renders the delegation invalid.

• Police Power vs. Taxation — Distinguishing Test — The conservative and pivotal distinction between police power and taxation rests in the purpose for which the charge is made. If generation of revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is merely incidental, the imposition is a tax; if regulation is the primary purpose, the fact that revenue is incidentally raised does not make the imposition a tax. Police power measures must satisfy the lawful subject test (the interests of the public generally require the exercise) and the lawful means test (the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive).

• Rational Basis Test for Economic Legislation — Under substantive due process analysis, the validity of economic legislation is reviewed using the rational basis test: the regulation is valid if it rationally furthers a legitimate governmental interest. This contrasts with heightened scrutiny (extensive examination of governmental interest and less restrictive alternatives) and strict scrutiny (compelling governmental interest and absence of less restrictive means), which apply to laws affecting fundamental freedoms or discrete and insular minorities.

• Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts — Exceptions — While the doctrine of hierarchy of courts generally requires that cases be filed first with lower courts, direct resort to the Supreme Court is allowed when: (1) there are genuine issues of constitutionality requiring immediate attention; (2) the issues are of transcendental importance; (3) the case is one of first impression; (4) the constitutional issues are better decided by the Court; (5) the time element demands urgency; (6) the petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ; (7) there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; or (8) the questions are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy. Not all exceptions must occur simultaneously.

• Mootness — Exceptions — Courts will decide cases otherwise moot and academic if: (1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest are involved; (3) the constitutional issue requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, bar, and public; or (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. For the first, second, and fourth exceptions, all three circumstances must be present.

• Legal Standing — Transcendental Importance Exception — A party without direct injury may be granted standing if the issues raised are of transcendental importance, determined by: (1) the character of the funds or assets involved; (2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition; and (3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest. However, transcendental importance cannot negate the requirement of locus standi where factual issues are present, and its plain invocation does not suffice to brush aside procedural technicalities.

• Plain-Meaning Rule (Verba Legis) — When the language of a statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. There is no room for construction—only application. This maxim, expressed as index animi sermo (speech is the index of intention) and verba legis non est recedendum (from the words of a statute there should be no departure), was applied to hold that neither the Renewable Portfolio Standard nor the FIT System provisions specify that one is a prerequisite to the other.

• "Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." — This constitutional provision, Article VIII, Section 1, is the textual basis for the Court's expanded certiorari jurisdiction, enabling judicial review of grave abuse of discretion by any government branch, not merely judicial or quasi-judicial bodies.

• "The conservative and pivotal distinction between these two powers rests in the purpose for which the charge is made. If generation of revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is merely incidental, the imposition is a tax; but if regulation is the primary purpose, the fact that revenue is incidentally raised does not make the imposition a tax." — This passage, drawn from Gerochi vs. Department of Energy and applied in this case, articulates the canonical test for distinguishing police power exactions from tax measures, and is frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on the nature of regulatory fees and charges.

• "While these provisions pertain to a tribunal's, board's, or an officer's exercise of discretion in judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions, Rule 65 still applies to invoke the expanded scope of judicial power. In Araullo v. Aquino III, this Court differentiated certiorari from prohibition, and clarified that Rule 65 is the remedy to 'set right, undo[,] and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Government, even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial[,] or ministerial functions.' " — This passage, drawn from _Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Aquino III, confirms that Rule 65 is the proper procedural vehicle for invoking the Supreme Court's expanded power of judicial review over acts of any government branch, even those exercising quasi-legislative functions.

• "Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative." — This principle of constitutional presumption was applied to uphold the FIT System and Renewable Portfolio Standard against petitioners' challenges, emphasizing that absent concrete proof of arbitrariness or oppression, the Court will not strike down legislative acts.

• Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. vs. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc., 802 Phil. 116 (2016) — Explained how Rule 65 became the remedy for the Court's exercise of its expanded scope of judicial power under the 1987 Constitution, tracing the change from the pre-1987 limitation to correction of errors of jurisdiction of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.

• Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Aquino III, 850 Phil. 1168 (2019) — Established that Rule 65 is the remedy to invoke the expanded scope of judicial power and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion by any government branch or instrumentality, even if it does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions. Also discussed the requisites of judicial review, the mootness exceptions, and the completeness and sufficient standard tests for delegation.

• Gerochi vs. Department of Energy, 554 Phil. 563 (2007) — Distinguished police power from taxation and upheld the Universal Charge under the EPIRA as a valid exercise of police power. Applied in this case as controlling precedent for the proposition that the FIT Allowance, like the Universal Charge, is a regulatory exaction rather than a tax.

• The Diocese of Bacolod vs. Commission on Elections, 751 Phil. 301 (2015) — Enumerated the exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, which the Court applied to justify direct resort in this case.

• Francisco vs. The House of Representatives — Recognized that the expanded jurisdiction under Article VIII, Section 1 was meant to ensure the potency of the power of judicial review to curb grave abuse of discretion by any branch or instrumentality of government.

• White Light Corp. vs. City of Manila, 596 Phil. 444 (2009) — Discussed the two components of due process (procedural and substantive) and the three standards of judicial review (rational basis, heightened scrutiny, strict scrutiny). Applied in this case to determine that the rational basis test governs review of the economic legislation at issue.

• Pantaleon vs. Metro Manila Development Authority, 890 Phil. 453 (2020) — Discussed the completeness and sufficient standard tests for valid delegation of legislative power to administrative agencies.

• Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. Department of Social Welfare and Development, 553 Phil. 120 (2007) — Discussed the nature of police power and the principle that property rights must bow to the primacy of police power for the general welfare.

• Planters Products, Inc. vs. Fertiphil Corp., 572 Phil. 270 — Distinguished police power from taxation based on the purpose of the exaction.

• Acosta vs. Ochoa, 865 Phil. 400 (2019) — Articulated the test for validity of a police power measure: (1) the interests of the public generally require the exercise; and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive.

• Article VIII, Section 1, 1987 Constitution — Defines judicial power as including the duty to settle actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights and to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Applied as the constitutional basis for the Court's exercise of expanded certiorari jurisdiction over quasi-legislative acts.

• Article III, Section 1, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Applied to assess whether the FIT System and related issuances complied with substantive and procedural due process.

• Article II, Section 16, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. Cited as a constitutional basis supporting the legitimate government interest in accelerating renewable energy development.

• Article XII, Sections 1 and 2, 1987 Constitution — State the goals of the national economy and the State's control over natural resources. Cited in support of the police power exercise underlying the FIT System.

• Section 2, Republic Act No. 9513 (Renewable Energy Act of 2008) — Declaration of Policies. Applied as providing the sufficient standards that guide and limit the delegated authority of the Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and National Renewable Energy Board.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 9513 — Mandates the Renewable Portfolio Standard, tasking the National Renewable Energy Board to set the minimum percentage of generation from eligible renewable energy resources within one year. Upheld as a valid delegation of legislative power and a valid exercise of police power.

• Section 7, Republic Act No. 9513 — Mandates the Feed-In Tariff System, tasking the Energy Regulatory Commission to formulate and promulgate FIT System rules within one year. Upheld as a valid delegation of legislative power and the statutory basis for the FIT Rules, FIT Guidelines, and related issuances.

• Section 20, Republic Act No. 9513 — Provides for the determination of maximum penetration limits of intermittent renewable energy-based power plants. Interpreted as pertaining to priority dispatch and transmission/distribution, not as a prerequisite to determining installation targets or FIT rates.

• Section 27, Republic Act No. 9513 — Creates the National Renewable Energy Board and enumerates its powers and functions, including recommending actions to facilitate implementation of the National Renewable Energy Program by the Department of Energy. Applied to clarify the respective roles of the NREB and DOE.

• Section 37, Republic Act No. 9136 (EPIRA) — Enumerates the powers and functions of the Department of Energy, including formulating policies for efficient energy supply, encouraging private sector investments in renewable energy, and exercising supervision over energy projects. Applied to uphold the DOE's authority to issue the Certifications increasing installation targets.

• Rule 65, Sections 1 and 2, Rules of Court — Govern petitions for certiorari and prohibition. Applied as the proper procedural vehicle for invoking the Court's expanded power of judicial review.

• Rule 7, Section 5, Rules of Court — Prohibits forum shopping. Applied to the issue of whether Foundation for Economic Freedom committed forum shopping, which was rendered moot by consolidation.

• Caguioa, J. — Concurred.
• Hernando, J. — Concurred.
• Inting, J. — Concurred.
• Zalameda, J. — Concurred.
• M. Lopez, J. — Concurred.
• Rosario, J. — Concurred.
• J. Lopez, J. — Concurred.
• Dimaampao, J. — Concurred.
• Marquez, J. — Concurred.
• Kho, Jr., J. — Concurred.
• Gesmundo, C.J. — Concurred with a separate opinion elaborating on the validity of the DOE Certifications. The Chief Justice reasoned that the Certifications do not substantially increase the burden of those governed because installation targets constitute only one factor for the NREB's consideration in recommending FITs, and the Certifications are addressed to the NREB and ERC, not to electric power industry participants. Requiring a separate notice and hearing for the setting of installation targets would be redundant and counterproductive, as the same may be questioned at the level of public participation for the NREB's and ERC's respective issuances.
• Lazaro-Javier, J. — Concurred with a separate opinion noting the collaborative effort among respondent agencies in proactively designating TransCo as FIT settlement agent and validating the early collection of the FIT Allowance. Cited Republic vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling (124 Phil. 27 [1966]) as legal cover for the FIT Allowance arrangement as a legitimate police power imposition. Expressed the personal observation that the balance is tilted too much against end-consumers, while conceding that the wisdom of the policy is not for the Court to inquire into.