Title
Garcia vs. Board of Investments
Case
G.R. No. 88637
Decision Date
Sep 7, 1989
BOI approved BPC's petrochemical plant transfer from Bataan to Batangas without public hearing or consultation, violating due process and statutory requirements. SC ruled for transparency, ordered publication, access to records, and hearings.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 13638)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Reservation and Development of Bataan Petrochemical Zone
    • Proclamation No. 361 (Mar. 6, 1968), as amended by Proclamation No. 630 (Nov. 29, 1969), reserved 388 hectares at Lamao, Limay, Bataan for an industrial estate.
    • P.D. No. 1803 (Jan. 16, 1981) enlarged the reserved area by 188 hectares (total 576 ha), under PNOC administration as the Petrochemical Industrial Zone.
  • Establishment and Registration of Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC)
    • Taiwanese investors formed BPC and applied to the BOI to establish a petrochemical complex in Bataan using naphtha as feedstock.
    • On Feb. 24, 1988, BOI issued a Certificate of Registration granting pioneer status and incentives (tax exemptions, repatriation of proceeds, etc.). Congress, through petitioner’s initiative, passed a bill eliminating the 48% ad valorem tax on naphtha feedstock.
  • Proposed Amendments to BPC’s Registration
    • In January 1989, BPC’s major investor signaled intent to amend its registration: increase investment from US$220 M to US$320 M; boost production capacities; change feedstock to “naphtha and/or LPG”; and transfer the plant site from Limay, Bataan to Batangas (citing insurgency, labor unrest, LPG depot access).
    • Formal amendment request filed April 11, 1989. Prominent Bataan congressmen, the provincial governor, civic groups and PNOC objected. Petitioner sought copies of BPC’s applications; BOI denied consent-based disclosure. On May 25, 1989, BOI approved the amendments without publication or hearing.
  • Petition to the Supreme Court
    • On June 26, 1989, Congressman Enrique T. Garcia filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction, alleging:
      • Grave abuse of discretion and violation of due process in approving amendments sans notice/hearing.
      • Denial of transparency by refusing document access.
      • Violation of P.D. Nos. 949/1803 by authorizing site transfer.
      • Partiality toward BPC.
    • The Court, noting purely legal issues and economic importance, decided to resolve the merits without awaiting injunction hearing.

Issues:

  • Did BOI’s approval of BPC’s amended registration without publication and hearing amount to grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process?
  • Does petitioner, as representative of the affected community, have legal interest and right of access to BPC’s application records?
  • Did the site transfer and feedstock change contravene P.D. Nos. 949 and 1803 establishing Bataan’s petrochemical zone?
  • What procedural remedies must BOI afford when an amended registration effectively constitutes a new application?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.