G.R. No.

92024 November 9, 1990

CONGRESSMAN ENRIQUE T. GARCIA (Second District of Bataan), petitioner,

vs.
THE BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY,
LUZON PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION, and PILIPINAS SHELL
CORPORATION, respondents.

Abraham C. La Vina for petitioner.

Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for Luzon Petrochemical Corporation.

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles for Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
Corporation.

FACTS:

The Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC), a Taiwanese private corporation, applied

for registration with the Board of Investments (BOI) in February 1988 as a new
domestic producer of petrochemicals in the Philippines. It originally specified the
province of Bataan as the site for the proposed investment but later submitted an
amended application to change the site to Batangas. Unhappy with the change of the
site, Congressman Enrique Garcia of the Second District of Bataan requested a copy of
BPC’s original and amended application documents. The BoI denied the request on the
basis that the investors in BPC had declined to give their consent to the release of the
documents requested, and that Article 81 of the Omnibus Investments Code protects
the confidentiality of these documents absent consent to disclose. The BoI
subsequently approved the amended application without holding a second hearing or
publishing notice of the amended application. Garcia filed a petition before the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the BoI committed grave abuse of discretion in yielding to the wishes of
the investor, national interest notwithstanding.

RULING:

The Court ruled that the BoI violated Garcia’s Constitutional right to have access to
information on matters of public concern under Article III, Section 7 of the
Constitution. The Court found that the inhabitants of Bataan had an “interest in the
establishment of the petrochemical plant in their midst [that] is actual, real, and vital
because it will affect not only their economic life, but even the air they breathe”  The
Court also ruled that BPC’s amended application was in fact a second application that
required a new public notice to be filed and a new hearing to be held.

Although Article 81 of the Omnibus Investments Code provides that “all applications
and their supporting documents filed under this code shall be confidential and shall
not be disclosed to any person, except with the consent of the applicant,” the Court
emphasized that Article 81 provides for disclosure “on the orders of a court of
competent jurisdiction”. The Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to order disclosure of
the application, amended application, and supporting documents filed with the BOI
under Article 81, with certain exceptions.

The Court went on to note that despite the right to access information, “the
Constitution does not open every door to any and all information” because “the law
may exempt certain types of information from public scrutiny”. Thus it excluded “the
trade secrets and confidential, commercial, and financial information of the applicant
BPC, and matters affecting national security” from its order. The Court did not provide
a test for what information is excluded from the Constitutional privilege to access
public information, nor did it specify the kinds of information that BPC could withhold
under its ruling.