NUCLEAR FREE PHILIPPINE COALITION, ET AL. vs.

to result in lower occupational and public risks than fossil

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION fired (coal or oil) stations.

The second pamphlet (Exh. "KK") is entitled "NUCLEAR

POWER-SAFE CLEAN ECONOMICAL AND AVAILABLE." On
(1) Petitioners question the competence of respondent
the surface, it merely propagates the use of nuclear power
PAEC (Philippine Atomic Energy Commission)
in general. But its numerous specific references to the
Commissioners to pass judgment on the safety of the
PNPP-1 "which will be operational in 1985." and its
Nuclear Power Plant-1 PNPP-1. (2) Also, petitioners assail
advantages give credence to the charge that Exhibit "KK"
the validity of the motion (application) filed by the National
was in reality designed to project PNPP-1 as safe, among
Power Corporation (NPC) for the conversion of its
other
construction permit into an operating license for PNPP-1
on the principal ground that it contained no information When Exhibit "KK" was published, PNPP-1 was the only
regarding the financial qualifications of NPC, its source of nuclear plant under construction in the Philippines. It is the
nuclear fuel, and insurance coverage for nuclear damage. Philippine nuclear plant specifically mentioned therein that
(3) There was bias and prejudgment. was to be operational in 1985. Therefore, when the
pamphlet states that nuclear power is working now in
1. The first issue must be resolved against the
other countries and "it should work for us too" because it
petitioners. Where the validity of an appointment is not
is "safe" and economical", it is logical to conclude that the
challenged in an appropriate proceeding, the question of
reference is to no other than the nuclear power to be
competence is not within the field of judicial inquiry. If not
generated at the PNPP-1
considered a qualification the absence of which would
vitiate the appointment, competence is a matter of Also worth quoting is the following passage in Exhibit "KK"
judgment that is addressed solely to the appointing power. which sweepingly vouch safes all nuclear power plants,
including the PNPP-1:
2. Petitioners contend that the deficiencies they have
indicated are jurisdictional infirmities which cannot be No member of the public has ever been injured during the
cured. The Court believes however that said deficiencies last 25 years that commercial nuclear reactors have been
may be remedied and supplied in the course of the hearing generating electricity. As is to be expected in any complex
before PAEC. For this purpose, respondent-applicant NPC system as nuclear power plants, there have been failure of
may submit pertinent testimonies and documents when equipment and human errors. However in every instance,
the PAEC hearing is re-opened, subject to controversion the safety equipment designed into the nuclear reactor self
and counterproof of herein petitioners. terminated the accident without injury to the operators or
the public. The Three Mile Island Incident, serious as it was,
3. There is merit in the charge of bias and
did not result in the loss of life nor did it result in the
prejudgment. The PAEC pamphlets- particularly Annexes
exposure of anyone beyond permissible limits.
"JJ", "KK" and "LL" of the petition (G.R. 70632)-clearly
indicate the pre-judgment that PNPP-1 is safe. The designers of nuclear plants assume failure to occur,
and provide multiple safeguards protection against every
Exhibit "JJ" is an official PAEC 1985 pamphlet entitled
conceivable malfunction
"PNPP-l." It gives an overview specifically of PNPP-1, lauds
the safety of nuclear power, and concludes with a The third pamphlet (Exh. "LL") is entitled NUCLEAR POWER
statement of the benefits to be derived when the PNPP-1 PLANT and ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY. Speaking specifically
start operation. of the PNPP-1 it categorically states that the Bataan
nuclear plant will not adversely affect the public or the
. . .When the PNPP-1 starts operating, it will generate a
flora or fauna in the area. One of the stated reasons in
power of 620 megawatts enough to supply 15 percent of
support of the conclusion is that it does not cause chemical
the electricity needs in Luzon. This is estimated to result in
pollution of air or water, it does not emit sulfur dioxide or
savings of US $ 160 million a year, representing the amount
nitrogen oxides like plants fired by fossil fuels such as coal
of oil displaced.
and oil, Besides, even coal fired plants may emits
Aside from being a reliable source of electricity, nuclear radioactive particles of uranium and thorium because
power has an excellect safety record and has been found these may be found naturally associated with coal
deposits.
Comparatively therefore, a nucelar power plant is the correct or supply deficiencies in this application or
cleanest and the safest environmently no other technology evidence in support thereof.
in modern times has been developed with so dominant
concern for public safety as nuclear power.

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.

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.

The Court therefore Resolved to RESTRAIN respondent

PAEC Commissioners from further acting in PAEC Licensing
Proceedings No. 1-77.

In G.R. No. 68474, the urgent motion for mandatory

injunction and/or restraining order, the second urgent
motion for mandatory injunction dated August 12, 1985,
and the various pleadings and other documents submitted
by the parties relative thereto, and considering the
paramount need of a reasonable assurance that the
operation of PNPP-1 will not pose an undue risk to the
health and safety of the people, which dictates that the
conduct of the inquiry into the safety aspects of PNPP-1 be
characterized by sufficient latitude, the better to achieve
the end in view, unfettered by technical rules of evidence
(Republic Act 5207, section 34), and in keeping with the
requirements of due process in administrative
proceedings, the Court Resolved to ORDER respondent
PAEC (once reconstituted) to re-open the hearing on PNPP-
1 so as to give petitioners sufficient time to complete their
cross-examination of the expert witnesses on quality
assurance, to cross-examine the witnesses that petitioners
have failed to cross-examine on and after August 9, 1985,
and to complete the presentation of their evidence, for
which purpose, respondent PAEC shall issue the necessary
subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to compel the
attendance of relevant witnesses and/or the production of
relevant documents. For the said purposes, the PAEC may
prescribe a time schedule which shall reasonably assure
the parties sufficient latitude to adequately present their
case consistently with the requirements of dispatch. lt is
understood that the PAEC may give NPC the opportunity to