[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
183 views1 page

Tanada Vs PAEC

The Supreme Court granted the taxpayers' petition for prohibition and restrained the PAEC from acting on Napocor's application for an operating license for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. The Court held that the PAEC Commissioners would be abusing their discretion and lacking jurisdiction if they determined the safety of the plant, given that official pamphlets they published had already indicated a prejudgment that the plant was safe. An impartial tribunal is required to make such an important determination regarding nuclear safety.

Uploaded by

ivy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
183 views1 page

Tanada Vs PAEC

The Supreme Court granted the taxpayers' petition for prohibition and restrained the PAEC from acting on Napocor's application for an operating license for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. The Court held that the PAEC Commissioners would be abusing their discretion and lacking jurisdiction if they determined the safety of the plant, given that official pamphlets they published had already indicated a prejudgment that the plant was safe. An impartial tribunal is required to make such an important determination regarding nuclear safety.

Uploaded by

ivy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Tanada vs PAEC

G.R. No. 70632 (141 SCRA 307) February 11, 1986

TOPIC: Impartial Court or Tribunal


FACTS:
Petition for prohibition brought by taxpayers, questioning the (1) competence of members of the PAEC to
pass judgment on the safety of the Bataan Power Plant and charging them w/ bias and prejudgment, based
on their publications stating that the plant was safe (2) the validity of Napocor's motion/application for the
conversion of its construction permit into an operating license for PNPP-1 was assailed, and (3) PAEC
Commissioners were charged with bias and prejudgment.

ISSUE: Whether the PAEC Commissioner may sit in judgment in determining the safety of PNPP-1.

HELD:
Petition granted and PAEC restrained from acting in the proceedings for issuance of license.
The 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 because they already have prejudged the safety of PNPP-1.
The PAEC Commissioners cannot escape responsibility from the official pamphlets, which clearly indicate the
prejudgment that PNPP-1 is safe.

You might also like