Case Digest (G.R. No. 92024)
Facts:
Congressman Enrique T. Garcia v. The Board of Investments, The Department of Trade and Industry, Luzon Petrochemical Corporation, and Pilipinas Shell Corporation, G.R. No. 92024, November 09, 1990, the Supreme Court En Banc, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is Congressman Enrique T. Garcia (Second District of Bataan); the respondents are the Board of Investments (BOI), the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Luzon Petrochemical Corporation (LPC) (formerly Bataan Petrochemical Corporation, BPC), and Pilipinas Shell Corporation. The petition challenges BOI’s May 23, 1989 Resolution No. 193 approving amendments to BPC’s certificate of registration: chiefly, the transfer of the proposed petrochemical plant site from Limay, Bataan to Batangas, and the change of feedstock from naphtha only to naphtha and/or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).
The antecedent facts begin with P.D. No. 1803 (January 16, 1981) reserving 576 hectares in Limay, Bataan as a Petrochemical Industrial Zone under PNOC. Taiwanese investors organized Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC) and applied to BOI for registration as a petrochemical producer specifying Limay, Bataan as site and naphtha-only feedstock; BOI issued the original certificate of registration on February 24, 1988 and accorded pioneer status and fiscal incentives. The local Bataan Refining Corporation (BRC) produces about 60% of national naphtha output; Congress and the President supported incentives (including elimination of ad valorem tax on naphtha by legislation) favoring the original configuration.
In January–February 1989 the major investor advised DTI that BPC wished to amend its registration to (1) increase capitalization and capacity, (2) change feedstock to “naphtha and/or LPG,” and (3) transfer the job site to Batangas (citing security/labor instability and proximity to a Shell LPG depot). Despite strong opposition including from petitioner and expressions of preference by President Aquino that the plant remain in Bataan, BOI approved the amendments. Petitioner challenged BOI’s action in an earlier case, docketed as G.R. No. 88637: the Court’s September 7, 1989 decision ordered BOI to publish the amended application, to allow petitioner access to records (excluding trade secrets), and to set a hearing; it denied prohibition/injunction. Subsequent motions produced resolutions (October 24, 1989, and January 17, 1990) in which the Court observed that neither P.D. Nos. 949 nor 1803 precluded a petrochemical plant elsewhere, and stated that under the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Investments Code there is no inherent “right of final choice” in the investor — the BOI must process and approve applications (Art. 7, Ch. II, Omnibus Investments Code). Petitioner moved for reconsideration; this present petition (G.R. No. 92024) proceeded to the Court relying on those earlier rulings and claiming that BOI, by effectively yielding to the investor’s asserted final choice, committed grave abuse of discretion.
At the administrative/legislative fact stag...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to decide the controversy and determine whether the BOI committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the amendments?
- Whether the foreign investor holds a legal “right of final choice” of plant site and feedstock under the 1987 Constitution or the Omnibus Investments Code?
- Did the BOI commit a grave abuse of discretion in approving the transfer of the petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas and in authorizing the change of feedst...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)