GARCIA v.

BOARD OF INVESMENTS

G.R. No. 88637, September 7, 1989

Facts: The Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC) is subsidized by Taiwanese investors, in

their application to the Board of Investments as a producer of petrochemicals it indicated Bataan
as the plant site. One of the terms and conditions for the registration of the project was the use
of "naphtha cracker" and "naphtha" as feedstock or fuel for its petrochemical plant. The
petrochemical project was to be a joint venture with PNOC. BPC was issued a Certificate of
Registration on February 24, 1988 by BOI. However, the Chairman of USI Far East Corporation,
the major investor in BPC sent a letter to the BOI containing their desire to relocate the project
to Batangas instead of Bataan. The petitioner, Congressman Garcia and some of the officials of
Bataan greatly opposed the relocation. BPC then filed to the BOI a request to approve their
petition to amend to investment application. The petitioner then requested for the Department of
Trade and Industry to furnish him a copy of the original application and all of its attachment and
amendments. The DTI replied that the investors declined to give their consent to the release of
the documents. The BOI then approved the revision of the registration of BPC wherein the site
will be moved from Bataan to Batangas.

Issue: Whether or not the respondents violated due process and extra limitation of power and
discretion?

Ruling: Yes. The Omnibus Investment Code of 1987 mandates the holding of "consultations
with affected communities whenever necessary" the Code also provides, "Whenever necessary,
the Board, through the People’s Economic Councils, shall consult the communities affected on
the acceptability of locating the registered enterprise within their community." The BOI failed to
conduct consultations and even depriving the petitioner the right of freedom of information for
his community will be affected by the project. It is in the best interest of the petitioner to obtain
the documents necessary since it was within the scope of his power, as the representative of his
community for him to decide whether the community can benefit from it. The community has the
right to be heard. Furthermore, the BOI failed to complete the publication requirement wherein
the oppositors like the petitioner to object or comment on the project. The BOI also failed to
conduct hearings amended application deprived the oppositors, like the petitioner, of due
process and amounted to a grave abuse of discretion on the its part.