Garcia vs. Board of Investments, 177 SCRA 374 , G.R. No. 92024 September 07, 1989

Garcia vs. Board of Investments 177 SCRA 374, G.R. No. 92024 September 07, 1989 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 the BOI and DTI gravely abused their discretion: (a) in not observing due process in approving without a hearing, the revisions in the registration of the BPC's petrochemical project; (b) in refusing to furnish the petitioner with copies of BPC's application for registration and its supporting papers in violation of the Government's policy of transparency; HELD:

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 th e 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” (p. 4). 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 (p.3).  Although Article 81 of the Omnibus Investments 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” (p.4). The C ourt 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” (p.4). Thus it excluded “the trade secrets and confidential, commercial, and financial information of the applicant BPC, and matters affecting national security” from its order (p.4). 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. In other words, due hearing is required only in connection with controversies between registered enterprises or investors therein and government agencies concerning the implementation of the Omnibus Investments Code. It does not speak at all of a hearing on applications for registration or amendments thereto.