GR 194239 So; (June, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 194239, June 16, 2015
West Tower Condominium Corporation, et al. vs. First Philippine Industrial Corporation, et al.
FACTS
This case involves a Dissenting Opinion by Justice Leonen regarding the ponencia’s decision on a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan. The dissent states that the Writ of Kalikasan has served its purpose and is now functus officio, as the pipeline leaks have been found and remedied. Various administrative agencies (Department of Energy, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Science and Technology, Department of Public Works and Highways) have identified the necessary next steps to ensure a precautionary level of risk and prevent future leaks. A Certification was issued on October 25, 2013. Furthermore, separate civil and criminal cases related to the matter are pending.
ISSUE
The core issue addressed in the dissent is whether the Supreme Court, after the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan and subsequent actions by executive agencies, should continue to intervene by ordering the repetition of procedures, thereby potentially violating the principle of separation of powers.
RULING
Justice Leonen dissents from the ponencia’s decision. The ruling of the dissent is that the Court should not continue to intervene. The dissent holds that:
1. The Writ of Kalikasan is functus officio as its purpose has been achieved.
2. The Court must respect the principle of separation of powers. The Constitution vests executive power, including control over the relevant administrative agencies, in the President. The judiciary has no power to execute laws or supervise executive agencies; its role is to settle actual controversies and interpret the law.
3. The Court should defer to the technical expertise and specialized knowledge of administrative agencies, which have committed to and are legally required to undertake the necessary preventive steps. The Court is not authorized to doubt or check these technical conclusions without basis.
4. Judicial review of administrative actions is justified only under specific exceptions (e.g., denial of due process, grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness), which are not present here as the agencies acted based on substantial evidence and proper procedure.
5. The rest of the execution and monitoring should be left to the responsible executive agencies.