Fact: Petitioners finally charge respondent PAEC Commissioners with bias and prejudgment.
Issue: Whether the espondent PAEC Commissioners manifested bias and prejudgment.
Held: Yes, There is merit in the charge of bias and prejudgment. The PAEC pamphlets manifest prejudgment and bias pertaining to the safety of the Power Plant. Respondent PAEC Commissioners cannot escape responsibility for these official pamphlets. Exhibit “JJ” was published in 1985, when respondent Commissioners had already been appointed to their present positions. Exhibits “KK” and “LL” were issued earlier, but the majority of respondent Commissioners even then were already occupying positions of responsibility in the PAEC. Additionally, the stubborn fact remains unrebutted that Exhibits “J.J.” “KK” and “LL” continued to be distributed by PAEC as late as March, 1985. In other words their official distribution continued after the filing of NPC’s motion for conversion on June 27, 1984 and even after PAEC had issued its order dated February 26, 1985 formally admitting the said motion for conversion. At any rate, 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.