Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition vs. National Power Corporation

Quasi-judicial officials who have publicly prejudged the merits of a pending case before them are disqualified from further acting on that case, as their continued participation would constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

The Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) was the regulatory body tasked with licensing nuclear facilities under Republic Act No. 5207. The National Power Corporation (NPC) constructed the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 (PNPP-1) in Bataan and sought to convert its construction permit into an operating license. Petitioners, including the Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition and former Senator Lorenzo M. Tañada, were citizens and taxpayers who opposed the plant's operation and participated in PAEC licensing proceedings as intervenors or oppositors.

The Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 (PNPP-1) was a nuclear power plant constructed in Bataan by the National Power Corporation (NPC). On June 27, 1984, NPC filed a motion with the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) seeking to convert its construction permit for PNPP-1 into an operating license. PAEC formally admitted the motion for conversion by order dated February 26, 1985, and commenced licensing proceedings designated as PAEC Licensing Proceedings No. 1-77. Petitioners participated in the hearings, consuming approximately 153 hours out of the 205 hours of hearings conducted before the Court intervened.

Two separate petitions were filed before the Supreme Court. In G.R. No. 68474, the Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition and others filed an action on September 1, 1984 for mandamus and injunction, praying that PAEC and NPC be ordered to give public notice, hold a public hearing, and furnish copies of the contracts with Westinghouse. In G.R. No. 70632, former Senator Lorenzo M. Tañada and others filed an action on April 27, 1985 for prohibition and injunction, praying that PAEC be enjoined from hearing NPC's motion for a license to operate the Bataan Nuclear Plant.

In G.R. No. 70632, petitioners raised three principal challenges. First, they questioned the competence of the PAEC Commissioners to pass judgment on the safety of PNPP-1, citing the statutory requirement of "proven competence" for PAEC Commissioners, though they did not seek the Commissioners' ouster from office. Second, they assailed the legal sufficiency of NPC's motion for conversion, contending that it lacked information regarding NPC's financial qualifications, its source of nuclear fuel, and insurance coverage for nuclear damage, and that these deficiencies were jurisdictional infirmities incapable of cure. Third, they charged the PAEC Commissioners with bias and prejudgment.

In support of the bias charge, petitioners pointed to three official PAEC pamphlets — Exhibits "JJ," "KK," and "LL." Exhibit "JJ," a 1985 PAEC pamphlet entitled "The Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1," lauded the safety of nuclear power and stated that PNPP-1 would generate 620 megawatts, resulting in savings of US $160 million a year, and that nuclear power had an "excellect safety record." Exhibit "KK," entitled "Nuclear Power—Safe Clean Economical and Available," made numerous specific references to PNPP-1, which was to be operational in 1985, and sweepingly vouchsafed the safety of all nuclear power plants, citing the Three Mile Island incident as not having resulted in loss of life. Exhibit "LL," entitled "Nuclear Power Plant and Environmental Safety," categorically stated that the Bataan nuclear plant would not adversely affect the public or the flora or fauna in the area.

The respondent Commissioners could not escape responsibility for these pamphlets. Exhibit "JJ" was published in 1985, when the Commissioners had already been appointed to their present positions. Exhibits "KK" and "LL" were issued earlier, but the majority of the Commissioners were already occupying positions of responsibility in PAEC at the time — Commissioner Manuel Eugenio was Acting Chief of the PAEC Department on Nuclear Technology and Engineering from June 1980 to July 1984; Commissioner Quirino Navarro was PAEC Chief Science Research Specialist from May 1980 to September 1984; and Commissioner Alejandro Ver Albano was PAEC Deputy Commissioner from March 1980 to September 1984. All three pamphlets continued to be distributed by PAEC as late as March 1985, after NPC's motion for conversion had been filed and after PAEC had issued its order admitting the motion. The Court issued a temporary restraining order on August 29, 1985 enjoining PAEC from further proceeding in the licensing proceedings.

• Competence of PAEC Commissioners: Petitioners questioned the competence of respondent PAEC Commissioners to pass judgment on the safety of PNPP-1, arguing that "proven competence" was a qualification prescribed by law for PAEC Commissioners, though they did not seek the Commissioners' ouster from office.
• Legal Sufficiency of NPC's Motion: Petitioners assailed the validity of NPC's motion for conversion of its construction permit into an operating license, contending that it contained no information regarding NPC's financial qualifications, its source of nuclear fuel, and insurance coverage for nuclear damage, and that these deficiencies were jurisdictional infirmities which could not be cured.
• Bias and Prejudgment: Petitioners charged respondent PAEC Commissioners with bias and prejudgment, pointing to official PAEC pamphlets that they argued clearly indicated a pre-judgment that PNPP-1 was safe.

• Competence of PAEC Commissioners: Whether the competence of PAEC Commissioners to pass judgment on the safety of PNPP-1 is subject to judicial inquiry absent a challenge to the validity of their appointment.
• Legal Sufficiency of NPC's Motion: Whether the deficiencies in NPC's motion for conversion — lack of information on financial qualifications, source of nuclear fuel, and insurance coverage — constitute jurisdictional infirmities that cannot be cured.
• Bias and Prejudgment: Whether the PAEC Commissioners exhibited bias and prejudgment warranting their disqualification from further acting in the licensing proceedings.
• Re-opening of Hearings: Whether PAEC should be ordered to re-open the hearing on PNPP-1 to allow petitioners to complete cross-examination and presentation of evidence.

• Competence of PAEC Commissioners: No. 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; competence is a matter of judgment addressed solely to the appointing power.
• Legal Sufficiency of NPC's Motion: No, the deficiencies are not jurisdictional. The deficiencies may be remedied and supplied in the course of the hearing before PAEC, where NPC may submit pertinent testimonies and documents subject to controversion and counterproof by petitioners.
• Bias and Prejudgment: Yes. The PAEC pamphlets clearly indicate prejudgment that PNPP-1 is safe, and the Commissioners would be acting with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction were they to sit in judgment on the plant's safety absent the requisite objectivity.
• Re-opening of Hearings: Yes. PAEC, once reconstituted, was ordered to re-open the hearing on PNPP-1 to give petitioners sufficient time to complete cross-examination and presentation of evidence, with authority to issue subpoenas and prescribe a reasonable time schedule.

• Competence of PAEC Commissioners: The Court reasoned 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 competence is not considered a qualification the absence of which would vitiate the appointment, it is a matter of judgment addressed solely to the appointing power. Because petitioners did not seek the Commissioners' ouster from office, the question of their competence could not be judicially inquired into, and the first issue was resolved against petitioners.

• Legal Sufficiency of NPC's Motion: Petitioners contended that the identified deficiencies — lack of information on financial qualifications, source of nuclear fuel, and insurance coverage — were jurisdictional infirmities incapable of cure. The Court disagreed, holding that these deficiencies may be remedied and supplied in the course of the hearing before PAEC. NPC may submit pertinent testimonies and documents when the PAEC hearing is re-opened, subject to controversion and counterproof by petitioners. The deficiencies were therefore not fatal to the application but were curable through the administrative process.

• Bias and Prejudgment: The Court found merit in the charge of bias and prejudgment based on three official PAEC pamphlets. Exhibit "JJ" (1985) specifically lauded PNPP-1's safety and benefits, stating that nuclear power had an "excellect safety record." Exhibit "KK" made specific references to PNPP-1, which was the only nuclear plant under construction in the Philippines at the time of its publication, and sweepingly vouchsafed all nuclear power plants, including PNPP-1. Exhibit "LL" categorically stated that the Bataan nuclear plant would not adversely affect the public or the environment. The Commissioners could not escape responsibility: Exhibit "JJ" was published in 1985 when they already held their positions; Exhibits "KK" and "LL" were issued earlier but the majority of Commissioners were already in positions of responsibility at PAEC; and all three pamphlets continued to be distributed as late as March 1985, after NPC's motion for conversion was filed and after PAEC admitted the motion. The Court held that even if there were doubts about prejudgment, those doubts should be resolved in favor of a course of action assuring an unquestionably objective inquiry, given the circumstances and the number of people vitally interested. Having prejudged PNPP-1's safety, the Commissioners would be acting with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction if they sat in judgment on the plant's safety absent the requisite objectivity.

• Re-opening of Hearings: The Court ordered PAEC, once reconstituted, to re-open the hearing on PNPP-1 to give petitioners sufficient time to complete cross-examination of expert witnesses on quality assurance, to cross-examine witnesses they had failed to cross-examine on and after August 9, 1985, and to complete presentation of their evidence. This was based on the paramount need for reasonable assurance that PNPP-1's operation would not pose undue risk to health and safety, which dictated that the inquiry be characterized by sufficient latitude unfettered by technical rules of evidence, pursuant to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 5207, and in keeping with due process requirements in administrative proceedings. PAEC was directed to issue necessary subpoenas and subpoena duces tecum and to prescribe a reasonable time schedule assuring the parties sufficient latitude to adequately present their case consistently with dispatch. NPC was to be given the opportunity to correct or supply deficiencies in its application or evidence.

• Disqualification for Bias and Prejudgment in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings — A quasi-judicial officer who has publicly prejudged the merits of a case pending before them is disqualified from further acting on that case, as their participation would constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Court applied this doctrine by finding that PAEC's official pamphlets demonstrated prejudgment of PNPP-1's safety, warranting restraint of the Commissioners from further acting in the licensing proceedings. Where doubts exist as to whether prejudgment has occurred, those doubts should be resolved in favor of a course of action that will assure an unquestionably objective inquiry, considering the circumstances and the number of people vitally interested.

• Judicial Inquiry into Competence of Appointees — 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. Competence, if not a qualification the absence of which would vitiate the appointment, is a matter of judgment addressed solely to the appointing power.

• Curability of Application Deficiencies in Administrative Proceedings — Deficiencies in an application filed before an administrative body are not jurisdictional infirmities if they can be remedied and supplied in the course of the hearing, subject to controversion and counterproof by opposing parties.

• Latitude in Administrative Proceedings Affecting Public Safety — Proceedings involving potential risks to public health and safety must be conducted with sufficient latitude to achieve the end in view, unfettered by technical rules of evidence, in keeping with due process requirements in administrative proceedings.

• "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." — This states the rule limiting judicial inquiry into the competence of public officials to cases where the validity of the appointment itself is challenged.

• "Having thus prejudged the safety of the PNPP-1 respondent PAEC Commissioners would be acting with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction were they to sit in judgment upon the safety of the plant, absent the requisite objectivity that must characterize such an important inquiry." — This is the ratio decidendi for the disqualification of the PAEC Commissioners, establishing that prejudgment of merits constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

• "even if it be assumed that there are some doubts regarding the conclusion that there has been a prejudgment of the safety of PNPP-1 the doubts should be resolved in favor of a course of action that will assure an unquestionably objective inquiry, considering the circumstances thereof and the number of people vitally interested therein." — This establishes the standard for resolving doubts about bias in proceedings of significant public interest, favoring assurance of objective inquiry.

• Subido vs. Sarmiento, 108 Phil. 150 — Cited in the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Aquino for the proposition that a citizen and taxpayer generally cannot invoke judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action. Not relied upon by the majority.
• Tañada and Macapagal vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 — Cited in the dissenting opinion for the proposition that the operation of a nuclear plant is a political question involving policy as to which the Executive Department has discretionary authority. Not relied upon by the majority.

• Section 34, Republic Act No. 5207 — Cited by the Court as authority for conducting the inquiry into the safety aspects of PNPP-1 unfettered by technical rules of evidence, to achieve the end in view with sufficient latitude, consistent with due process in administrative proceedings.
• Section 36, Republic Act No. 5207 (in relation to Section 9, Judiciary Revamp Law) — Cited in the dissenting opinion for the proposition that PAEC decisions are reviewable by the Appellate Court. Not relied upon by the majority.

• Justice Teehankee
• Justice Concepcion Jr.
• Justice Melencio-Herrera
• Justice De la Fuente
• Justice Cuevas
• Justice Abad Santos (concurring separately, adding that the Court cannot compel the President to designate another body or appoint temporary commissioners due to separation of powers; what the Court should do is restrain the Commissioners, leaving the President to decide what to do thereafter)

Justices Escolin and Alampay took no part.

• Chief Justice Aquino — Dissented, arguing that G.R. No. 68474 had become moot and academic and that G.R. No. 70632 should be dismissed for lack of merit. He contended that petitioners as citizens and taxpayers had no legal standing to file the petition, citing Subido vs. Sarmiento; that prohibition does not lie because PAEC was acting within its jurisdiction; that the Court has no original jurisdiction to issue injunction; that the matter of operating a nuclear plant is a political question; that no justiciable controversy was involved; and that PAEC decisions are reviewable by the Appellate Court under Section 9 of the Judiciary Revamp Law in relation to Section 36 of Republic Act No. 5207. He argued petitioners should resort to other forums for their opposition.

• Justice Patajo — Dissented, voting to dismiss G.R. No. 68474 as moot and academic and G.R. No. 70632 as premature. He argued that the competence of PAEC Commissioners had not been properly challenged before them and that prohibition is not the proper remedy to question the qualifications of one properly appointed to office. He was inclined to believe the pamphlets referred to the safety of nuclear plants per se and not particularly to the Bataan plant, and trusted that the Commissioners could still be objective. He also raised the practical dilemma of who would try the case if the Commissioners were disqualified, questioning whether the Court could compel the President to designate another body or appoint temporary commissioners.

• Justice Gutierrez Jr. — Concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that Commissioner Reynaldo Suarez should not be included in the Court's restraint. He noted that Suarez, a former Nueva Ecija Regional Trial Court Judge and practising lawyer, was qualified as the "law member" of the Commission, and that all except one of the pamphlets were issued before his appointment, with no showing of his involvement in the one exception.