G.R. No. 249678 -

Ruling

Accordingly, given the constitutional questions at hand, the Court deems it proper to relax the requirement on standing. The Court's ruling on this Petition would have far-reaching implications for the energy industry vis-à-vis the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, potentially setting a precedent on the extent of Executive power and the remedies available to challenge policies related to the environment. The Court's present disposition is in line with the Court's previous rulings in Oposa v. Factoran [88] and Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes , [89] both of which involve the invocation of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, wherein the Court eased the procedural requirements for legal standing to allow the Court to rule on the merits of each case. Hence, in liberally applying procedural rules, the requirement of legal standing is met. The constitutional issues were raised at the earliest opportunity via direct resort to the Court, risking a breach of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts Seeking judicial review at the earliest opportunity does not mean immediately elevating the matter to this Court. [90] Earliest opportunity means that the question of unconstitutionality of the act in question should have been immediately raised in the proceedings in the court below. [91] Otherwise, it will not be considered on appeal. [92] Although two years have passed since the issuance of Executive Order No. 30 before the petitioners brought the present Petition, the Court finds no reason to take this against the petitioners. Aside from the fact that IRR was issued only on April 25, 2018, [93] the length of time from Executive Order No. 30's issuance up to the filing of the Petition is not the primary consideration in determining the fulfillment of this requisite. What matters is that the Petition raised all its claims on the invalidity of Executive Order No. 30 at the soonest possible moment through the Petition. Here, the Petition was filed directly to this Court to assail the validity of Executive Order No. 30 and its IRR. However, by doing so, respondents assert a violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. [94] In response, petitioners submit that the Petition raises purely legal questions and falls under the recognized exceptions of said doctrine to justify their direct resort to the Court. [95] Given that the Petition raises a variety of substantial issuesfrom the procedural validity of Executive Order No. 30 to the expedited approval of coal-fired power plantsthe Court does not agree with the petitioners' characterization of their Petition, as it involves a blend of factual and legal questions. Despite this, the Court resolves to give due course to the Petition, considering that it involves genuine issues of constitutionality that are of transcendental importance, and must be resolved at the most immediate time. [96] The issues regarding the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 30 and its IRR are the lis mota of the case T