Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 88637 September 7, 1989 CONGRESSMAN ENRIQUE T.

GARCIA, Seco ! "#$tr#ct o% &'t'' , petitioner, vs. T(E &OAR" O) IN*ESTMENTS, T(E "EPARTMENT O) TRA"E AN" IN"USTR+, &ATAAN PETROC(EMICA, CORPORATION ' ! PI,IPINAS S(E,, CORPORATION, respondents.

GRI-O.AQUINO, J.: In this petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for preli inary in!unction, the petitioner, as con"ress an for the second district of Bataan, assails the approval by the Board of Invest ents #B$I% and the &epart ent of 'rade and Industry #&'I% of the a ended application for re"istration of the Bataan Petroche ical Corporation, which see(s to transfer the site of its petroche ical co ple) fro Bataan, the ori"inal situs of choice, to the province of Batan"as. *ince the case presents purely le"al issues, and the sub!ect of the controversy vitally affects the econo ic interests of the country which should not pend for too lon", the Court, after hearin" the parties+ e)tensive oral and written ar"u ents on the petitioner+s application for preli inary in!unction, believes that it ay now decide the erits of the petition as well. Procla ation No. ,-. dated March -, ./-0, as a ended by Procla ation No. -,1 dated Nove ber 2/, ./-/, reserved a ,003hectare parcel of land of the public do ain located at 4a ao, 4i ay, Bataan for 5industrial estate purposes,5 in line with the *tate policy of pro otin" and rationali6in" the industriali6ation of the Philippines. P.&. No. .01,, dated 7anuary .-, ./0., enlar"ed the area by .00 hectares, a(in" it a total of 89- hectares, reserved for the Petroche ical Industrial :one under the ad inistration, ana"e ent and ownership of the Philippine National $il Co pany #PN$C%. 'he Bataan Refinin" Corporation #BRC for short% is a wholly "overn ent3owned corporation, located in Bataan. It produces -1; of the national output of naphtha. 'aiwanese investors in a petroche ical pro!ect for ed the Bataan Petroche ical Corporation #BPC% and applied with B$I for re"istration as a new do estic producer of petroche icals. Its application specified Bataan as the plant site. $ne of the ter s and conditions for the re"istration of the pro!ect was the use of 5naphtha crac(er5 and 5naphtha5 as feedstoc( or fuel for its petroche ical plant. 'he petroche ical pro!ect was to be a !oint venture with PN$C. BPC was issued a Certificate of Re"istration on <ebruary 2=, ./00 by B$I. BPC was accorded pioneer status and was "iven fiscal and other incentives by B$I, li(e, #.% e)e ptions fro ta) on raw aterials, #2% repatriation of the entire proceeds of li>uidation of invest ents in currency ori"inally ade and at the e)chan"e rate obtainin" at the ti e of repatriation? and #,% re ittance of earnin"s on invest ents. As additional incentive, the @ouse of Representatives approved a bill introduced by the petitioner, Con"ress an Aarcia, eli inatin" the

=0; ad valore ta) on naphtha if and when it would be used as raw aterial in the petroche ical plant. 'he chair an of BPC, 'o as '.N. @si, profusely welco ed the bill, statin"B 'his pro!ect is ai in" at a boon not only to the province of Bataan, but to the country of the Philippines in "eneral. It will support the develop ent of the Philippine petroche ical industry by providin" an ability to co pete in the world ar(et for anufactured petroche ical derivatives such as polyethylene and polypropylene products . . . #p. 9, Rollo.% @owever, in <ebruary ./0/, A. '. Chon", chair an of C*I <ar East Corporation, the a!or investor in BPC personally delivered to 'rade *ecretary 7ose Concepcion a letter dated 7anuary 28, ./0/, advisin" hi of BPC+s desire to a end the ori"inal re"istration certificate of its pro!ect by chan"in" the !ob site fro 4i ay, Bataan, to Batan"as #Anne) <, p. 8., Rollo%. News of the shift was published by one of the a!or Philippine dailies which disclosed that the cause of the relocation of the pro!ect is the insur"ency and unstable labor situation in Bataan. 'he presence in Batan"as of a hu"e li>uefied petroleu "as #4PA% depot owned by the Pilipinas *hell Corporation was another consideration. 'he con"ress en of Bataan vi"orously opposed the transfer of the proposed petroche ical plant to Batan"as. At a conference of the 'aiwanese investors with President A>uino and her *ecretary of &efense and Chief of *taff of the Ar y, the President e)pressed her preference that the Bataan petroche ical plant be established in Bataan. @owever, despite speeches in the *enate and in the @ouse opposin" the transfer of the pro!ect to Batan"as, BPC filed in the B$I on April .., ./0/ a re>uest for 5approval of an a end ent of its invest ent application ... for establishin" a petroche ical co ple) in the Philippines.5 #Anne) <, p. 8., Rollo.% 'he a end ents consisted of. #.% increasin" the invest ent a ount fro C*D221 illion to C*D,21 illion? #2% increasin" the production capacity of its naphtha crac(er, polyetheylene plant and polypropylene plant? #,% chan"in" the feedstoc( fro naphtha only to 5naphtha andEor li>uefied petroleu "as?5 #=% transferrin" the !ob site fro 4i ay, Bataan to Batan"as #Anne) <, p. 8., Rollo%. *enator Ernesto Maceda, Antonio <rancisco, vice3president and "eneral ana"er of the Bataan Refinin" Corporation, Con"ress an <elicito C. Payu o of the lst &istrict of Bataan, herein petitioner Con"ress an Enri>ue Aarcia of the *econd &istrict, the provincial Aovernor of Bataan, the 4ea"ue of Mayors and various civic and professional or"ani6ations all opposed the transfer of the pro!ect to Batan"as #pp. .1, .., .2, Rollo? Anne) F, p. 0., Rollo%. $n May =, ./0/, petitioner addressed a letter to *ecretary Concepcion of the &epart ent of 'rade and Industry #&'I%, throu"h B$I vice3chair an and ana"er 'o as Alcantara, re>uestin" for 5a copy of the a end ent reportedly sub itted by 'aiwanese investors, to their ori"inal application for the installation of the Bataan Petroche ical Plant, as well as the ori"inal application itself to"ether with any and all attach ents to said ori"inal application and the a end ent thereto.5 #Anne) G, p. 91, Rollo.% $n May 2., ./0/, B$I vice3chair an Alcantara infor ed petitioner that the 'aiwanese investors declined to "ive their consent to the release of the docu ents re>uested #Anne) $%. $n May 28, ./0/, the B$I approved the revision of the re"istration of BPC+s petroche ical pro!ect #Anne) *, p. 0=, Rollo%. $n 7une 2-, ./0/, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in this Court, with a prayer for preli inary in!unction, alle"in" that the B$I and &'I "ravely abused their discretionB

#a% in not observin" due process in approvin" without a hearin", the revisions in the re"istration of the BPC+s petroche ical pro!ect? #b% in refusin" to furnish the petitioner with copies of BPC+s application for re"istration and its supportin" papers in violation of the Aovern ent+s policy of transparency? #c% in approvin" the chan"e in the site of BPC+s petroche ical plant fro Bataan to Batan"as in violation of P& Nos. /=/ and .01, which establishes 4a ao, 4i ay, Bataan as the 5petroche ical industrial 6one?5 #d% in approvin" the chan"e in feedstoc( fro #e% in showin" "ross partiality for BPC. 'his Court is not concerned with the econo ic, social, and political aspects of this case for it does not possess the necessary technolo"y and scientific e)pertise to deter ine whether the transfer of the proposed BPC petroche ical co ple) fro Bataan to Batan"as and the chan"e of fuel fro naphtha only to 5naphtha andEor 4PA5 will be best for the pro!ect and for our country. 'his Court is not about to delve into the econo ics and politics of this case. It is concerned si ply, with the alle"ed violation of due process and the alle"ed e)tra li itation of power and discretion on the part of the public respondents in approvin" the transfer of the pro!ect to Batan"as without "ivin" due notice and an opportunity to be heard to the vocal opponents of that ove. 'he $ nibus Invest ents Code of ./09 #E)ecutive $rder No. 22-% of 7uly .-, ./09 e)pressly declares it to be the policy of the *tate 5to accelerate the sound develop ent of the national econo y ... by encoura"in" private <ilipino and forei"n invest ents in industry, a"riculture, forestry, inin", touris and other sectors of the econo y.5 <or this purpose, the Code andates the holdin" of 5consultations with affected co unities whenever necessary5 #Art. 2, subpar. 2 of the $ nibus Invest ents Code%. Correspondin"ly, Art. ,, provides thatB whenever necessary, the Board, throu"h the People+s Econo ic Councils, shall consult the co unities affected on the acceptability of locatin" the re"istered enterprise within their co unity.5 'he Code also re>uires the "publication of applications for re"istration,5 hence, the pay ent of publication and other necessary fees ... prior to the processin" and approval of such applications #Art. 9, subpar. ,, $ nibus Invest ents Code%. As provided by the law, the BPC+s application for re"istration as a 5new e)port producer of ethylene, polyethylene and polypropylene was published in the 5Philippine &aily In>uirer5 issue of &ece ber 2., ./09. 'he notice invited 5any person with valid ob!ections to or pertinent co ents on the above3 entioned application ... #to file% hisEher co entsEob!ections in writin" with the B$I within one #.% wee( fro the date of this publication5 #Anne) ., public respondent+s Co ent%. *ince the BPC+s a ended application #particularly the chan"e of location fro Bataan to Batan"as% was in effect a new application, it should have been published so that whoever ay have any ob!ection to the transfer ay be heard. 'he B$I+s failure to publish such notice and to hold a hearin" on the a ended application deprived the oppositors, li(e the petitioner, of due process and a ounted to a "rave abuse of discretion on the part of the B$I. 'here is no erit in the public respondents+ contention that the petitioner has 5no le"al interest5 in the atter of the transfer of the BPC petroche ical plant fro the province of Bataan to the province of Batan"as. 'he provision in the Invest ents Code re>uirin" publication of the investor+s application naphtha only, to naphtha and/or lpg; and

for re"istration in the B$I is i plicit reco"nition that the proposed invest ent or new industry is a atter of public concern on which the public has a ri"ht to be heard. And, when the B$I approved BPC+s application to establish its petroche ical plant in 4i ay, Bataan, the inhabitants of that province, particularly the affected co unity in 4i ay, and the petitioner herein as the duly elected representative of the *econd &istrict of Bataan ac>uired an interest in the pro!ect which they have a ri"ht to protect. 'heir interest in the establish ent of the petroche ical plant in their idst is actual, real, and vital because it win affect not only their econo ic life but even the air they will breathe. @ence, they have a ri"ht to be heard or 5be consulted5 on the proposal to transfer it to another site for the Invest ents Code does re>uire that the 5affected co unities5 should be consulted. Hhile this Court ay not re>uire B$I to decide that controversy in a particular way, we ay re>uire the Board to co ply with the law and its own rules and re"ulations prescribin" such notice and hearin". 'his Court in the cases of Taada vs. Tuvera, .,- *CRA 29 and Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission, .81 *CRA 8,1, has reco"ni6ed a citi6en+s interest and personality to procure the enforce ent of a public duty and to brin" an action to co pel the perfor ance of that duty. In this case, what the petitioner see(s is for the Board of Invest ents to hold a hearin" where he ay present evidence in support of his opposition to the BPC+s a ended application for re"istration #which a ounts to a new application% since one of the effects of the a end ent is to chan"e the site of its petroche ical plant fro Bataan to Batan"as. 'he petitioner+s re>uest for )ero) copies of certain docu ents flied by BPC to"ether with its ori"inal application, and its a ended application for re"istration with B$I, ay not be denied, as it is the constitutional ri"ht of a citi6en to have access to infor ation on atters of public concern under Article III, *ection 9 of the ./09 Constitution. 'he confidentiality of the records on BPC+s applications is not absolute for Article 0. of the $ nibus Invest ents Code provides that they ay be disclosed 5upon the consent of the applicant, or on orders of a court of co petent !urisdiction.+ As a atter of fact, a )ero) copy of BPC+s position paper dated April .1, ./0/, in support of its re>uest for the transfer of its petroche ical plant to Batan"as, has been sub itted to this Court as Anne) A of its e orandu . @owever, !ust as the confidentiality of an applicant+s records in the B$I is not absolute, neither is the petitioner+s ri"ht of access to the unli ited. 'he Constitution does not open every door to any and all infor ation. 5Cnder the Constitution, access to official records, papers, etc. is sub!ect to li itations as ay be provided by law #Art. III, *ec. 9, second sentence%. 'he law ay e)e pt certain types of infor ation fro public scrutiny #4e"aspi vs. Civil *ervice Co ission, .81 *CRA 8,1%. 'he trade secrets and confidential, co ercial and financial infor ation of the applicant BPC, and atters affectin" national security are e)cluded fro the privile"e. At the oral ar"u ent on the petitioner+s application for a preli inary action on 7uly =, ./0/, the Court was infor ed that if the B$I will hold a hearin" on the BPC+s a ended application, the petitioner will be able to present his evidence in opposition to the transfer of the pro!ect to Batan"as within a period of one wee(. After such hearin", the B$I shall render its decision which the petitioner ay appeal to the President as provided in Article ,- of the Invest ents Code. @er decision will be final and unappealable. H@ERE<$RE, the petition for certiorari is "ranted. 'he Board of Invest ents is orderedB #.% to publish the a ended application for re"istration of the Bataan Petroche ical Corporation, #2% to allow the petitioner to have access to its records on the ori"inal and a ended applications for re"istration, as a petroche ical anufacturer, of the respondent Bataan Petroche ical Corporation, e)cludin", however, privile"ed papers containin" its trade secrets and other business and financial infor ation, and #,% to set for hearin" the petitioner+s opposition to the a ended application in order

that he ay present at such hearin" all the evidence in his possession in support of his opposition to the transfer of the site of the BPC petroche ical plant to Batan"as province. 'he hearin" shall not e)ceed a period of ten #.1% days fro the date fi)ed by the B$I, notice of which should be served by personal service to the petitioner throu"h counsel, at least three #,% days in advance. 'he hearin"s ay be held fro day to day for a period of ten #.1% days without postpone ents. 'he petition for a writ of prohibition or preli inary in!unction is denied. No costs. *$ $R&ERE&. Narvasa, Gutierre , !r., Cru , Ganca"co, #adilla, $idin, Sarmiento, Cortes, %edialdea and &egalado, !!., concur. 'ernan, C.!., #aras, and 'eliciano, !!., too( no part.

Sep'r'te Op# #o $

ME,ENCIO.(ERRERA, J., dissentin"B $n .9 &ece ber ./09, a "roup of 'aiwanese investors, doin" business under the na e of Bataan Petroche ical Corporation #BPC%, filed with the Board of Invest ents #B$I% an application for re"istration as a new e)port producer of petroche icals. 'he notice of application was duly published in the Philippine &aily In>uirer on 2. &ece ber ./09. 'he application, as sub itted, specified that the a ount of the invest ent for the establish ent of a petroche ical co ple) in the Philippines was D221 illion and that the plant was to be located in Bataan usin" =. naphta as feedstoc(. $n .= 7anuary ./00, after co pliance with other le"al re>uire ents, the B$I approved the application, and issued the correspondin" Certificate of Re"istration on 2= <ebruary ./00. BPC was accorded pioneer status and beca e entitled to the incentives provided for in the $ nibus Invest ents Code. In <ebruary ./0/, BPC sou"ht to a end its application by proposin" the chan"e of plant site fro Bataan to Batan"as and the feedstoc( fro 5naphta only5 to 5naphta andEor 4PA,5 and increasin" its invest ent to D,21 illion a(in" the pro!ect the sin"le bi""est forei"n invest ent in the Philippines to date. $n .. April ./0/, BPC for ally as(ed the B$I for approval of the proposed a end ents. Petitioner, the le"islative representative of the *econd &istrict of Bataan, opposed the chan"e of the plant site in a privile"e speech before Con"ress. @e also sent letters to the B$I and the &epart ent of 'rade and Industry settin" forth his ob!ections to the transfer. In a hearin" conducted by the *enate Co ittee on Hays and Means, petitioner appeared and e)pounded on his position.

$n 28 May ./0/, the B$I approved the revisions to the re"istered petroche ical pro!ect. Earlier, or on 2. May ./0/, citin" Article 0. of the $ nibus Invest ents Code of ./09, the B$I denied petitioner+s re>uest for a copy of the revisions sub itted by the investors because the latter had declined to "ive their consent to the disclosure. $n 29 May ./0/, a eetin" was called by President A>uino in Malacanan" to discuss the transfer of the pro!ect site. Present at the eetin" were B$I officials, the petitioner and the other Con"ress an fro Bataan. Petitioner re>uested the President to reconsider the B$I decision approvin" the transfer. $n 2= 7une ./0/, the President a"ain called a eetin" with the Bataan Con"ress en, the Aovernor, and the Mayors of the province. *he as(ed the Bataan officials to withdraw their ob!ections to the transfer of the plant site to Batan"as, lest the investors pac( up and leave for, after all, Batan"as is also in the Philippines and so e of the 5downstrea 5 industries which would sprin" fro a petroche ical co ple) ay later be located in Bataan. 'he Bataan officials a"reed to drop their ob!ections, e)cept for petitioner who instituted this Petition for certiorari and Prohibition before this Court #p. .., $pposition by public respondents%. In his Petition, petitioner alle"es that the B$I co itted "rave abuse of discretion and denied hi due process when it approved, without a hearin", the a end ents to the re"istration of the BPC petroche ical pro!ect? when it denied petitioner+s re>uest for a copy of the a end ents? and when it approved the chan"e of the plant site and feedstoc( of the plant. As stated in the a!ority opinion, the Court is not concerned with the econo ic, social and political aspects of the case. In rulin" in favor of petitioner, the a!ority faults the B$I with "rave abuse of discretion and has ordered it #.% to publish the a ended application for re"istration? #2% to allow petitioner to have access to its records on the ori"inal and a ended applications for re"istration, e)cludin" trade secrets? and #,% to set for hearin" petitioner+s opposition to the a ended application. Hith all due respect, I find no "rave abuse of discretion on the part of B$I, nor denial by it to petitioner of due process. As re"ards publication, Article 8= of the $ nibus Invest ents Code providesB Art. 8=. #ublication and #osting o) Notices. I I ediately after the application has been "iven due course by the Board, the *ecretary of the Board or any official desi"nated by the Board shall re>uire the applicant to publish the notice o) the action o) the $oard thereon at his e)pense once in a newspaper of "eneral circulation in the province or city where the applicant has its principal office, and post copies of said notice in conspicuous places, in the once of the Board or in the buildin" where said office is located? settin" forth in such copies the na e of the applicant, the business in which it is en"a"ed or proposes to en"a"e or invest, and such other data and infor ation as ay be re>uired by the Board. No approval or certificate shall be valid without the publication and postin" of notices as herein provided. #Italics supplied% Clearly, it is not the application itself that is re>uired to be published but notice of the action of the Board plus the specified data. 'hus, the Notice of Publication, which appeared in the In>uirer, si ply readB Notice is hereby "iven that the application of BA'AAN PE'R$C@EMICA4 C$RP$RA'I$N ... for re"istration with the Board of Invest ents under Boo( I of the $ nibus Invest ent Code of ./09, otherwise (nown as E)ecutive $rder No. 22- as

new e)port producer of ethylene, polyethylene and polypropylene has been officially accepted on &ece ber .9, ./09 and is currently bein" processed. Any person with valid ob!ections to or pertinent co ents on the above3 entioned application ay file hisEher co entsEob!ections in writin" with the B$I within one #.% wee( fro the date of this publication. 4et this notice be published at the e)pense of the applicant ... #Anne) 5.,5 $pposition%. Absent the re>uire ent of publication of the application itself, there should be no need either to publish the a end ents to the application. 'he state ent in the a!ority opinion that the a ended application is considered a new application does not find support in the $ nibus Invest ents Code. After all the a end ent did not chan"e the essence or nature of the petroche ical pro!ect but only the site, and the feedstoc(. *pecially si"nificant, too, is the fact that the confidentiality of applications is specifically provided for in the $ nibus Invest ents Code. 'husB Art. 0.. Con)identialit" o) *pplications. I All applications and their supportin" docu ents filed under this Code shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, e)cept with the consent of the applicant or on orders of a court of co petent !urisdiction. Considerin" that all applications and their supportin" docu ents are confidential and are not to be disclosed to any person, it follows that a end ents thereto should also be considered confidential and need no publication. Hhich brin"s us to the second part of the have access to its records. a!ority disposition re>uirin" B$I to allow petitioner to

If B$I did not furnish petitioner with copy of the ori"inal application and a end ents thereto, it was because it had received a reply fro the pro!ect proponents 5advisin" us not to release the sub!ect docu ents in view of the sensitive infor ation contained therein which includes the accu ulation of the proponents+ business e)perience and (now3how5 #Anne) 5$,5 Petition%. No "rave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the B$I, therefore, for not accedin" to petitioner+s re>uest that he be furnished with copies of the ori"inal application with its a end ents and attach ents #Anne) 5G,5 Petition%. $f course, pursuant to Article 0. of the $ nibus Invest ents Code, the Court, as it does now, can order the B$I to allow petitioner to have access to its records on the ori"inal and a ended applications for re"istration. 'here see s to be no lon"er any necessity therefor, however. Attached to public respondent+s $pposition is BPC+s Position Paper, dated .1 April ./0/, wherein BPC discoursed on the si"nificant benefits to be achieved by the transfer and why 5usin" 4PA as alternative feedstoc( will be very advanta"eous to the pro!ect #Anne) 525 $pposition% In addition, petitioner already has in his possessionB #a% the approval by the B$I of the BPC application for re"istration, which includes the pre3re"istration and re"istration conditions #Anne) 5A,5 Petition%? #b% the post3 re"istration specific ter s and conditions, which the B$I i posed for the pro!ect #Anne) 5B,5 ibid.%? #c% the BPC letter to

the B$I re>uestin" approval of the a end ent of its invest ent application for re"istration for the establish ent of a petroche ical co ple) in the Philippines #Anne) 5<,5 ibid.%? and #d% the approval by the B$I on 28 May ./0/ of the revisions to the pro!ect, sub!ect to additional conditions #Anne) 5*,5 ibid.%. Moreover, in the *upple ental $pposition filed by BPC it has attached a su ary of the considerations that "uided it in proposin" the a end ents. Jirtually all the data petitioner needs, therefore, are now of record. 'he a!ority rulin" also re>uires the B$I to set for hearin" petitioner+s opposition to the a ended application so that he ay present at such hearin" all the evidence in his possession in support of his opposition to the transfer of the site of the pro!ect to Batan"as. 'he $ nibus Invest ents Code, however, does not re>uire the B$I to hold hearin"s before approvin" applications for re"istration or a end ents thereto. In fact, hearin"s would contravene Codal provisions on confidentiality. Article 9, para"raph =, cited in the a!ority opinion neither supports the necessity of hearin"s. It readsB Art. 9. Powers and &uties of the Board ))) ))) ))) #=% After due hearin", decide controversies concernin" the i ple entation of this Code that ay arise between re"istered enterprises or investors therein and "overn ent a"encies, within thirty #,1% days after the controversy has been sub itted for decisionB ... In other words, due hearin" is re>uired only in connection with controversies between re"istered enterprises or investors therein and "overn ent a"encies concernin" the i ple entation of the $ nibus Invest ents Code. It does not spea( at all of a hearin" on applications for re"istration or a end ents thereto. Additionally, Article ,= of the $ nibus Invest ents Code, in providin" that applications not acted upon by the Board within twenty #21% days fro official acceptance thereof shall be considered auto atically approved i plies that a hearin" is not at all indispensable in the atter of re"istration of enterprises. 'he intention of the law to a(e B$I proceedin"s non3adversarial and as e)peditious as possible consistent with the Codal policy to encoura"e invest ents, is clearly discernible. Besides, a hearin", as ordained, will serve no practical purpose for petitioner has already fully presented his case, the B$I has "iven it due consideration and has acted accordin"ly. 'his is concretely shown by the followin" e)chan"e of co unicationsB #.% In his letter to the *ecretary of 'rade and lndustry, who is concurrently Chair an of the Board of Invest ents, petitioner 5reiterate#d%5 his 5 ost vehe ent protest a"ainst the aneuver to transfer the Bataan Petroche ical pro!ect fro Bataan to Batan"as which, if successful, would "reatly pre!udice not only the people of Bataan, but ore i portantly, our country and "overn ent5 #Anne) +E,5 Petition%? #2% Petitioner+s letter, dated 2 May ./0/, to the *ecretary of 'rade and Industry protested the latter+s 5official position that +'he final choice #of site% is still with the proponent #the 'aiwanese%, who would, in the final analysis, provide the fundin" or ris( capital for the pro!ect5+ #Anne) 57,5 ibid.%?

#,% Attached to said co unication was petitioner+s letter, dated 2= April ./0/, addressed to the *enate Co ittee on Hays and Means "ivin" fourteen #.=% reasons why the pro!ect should not be transferred to Batan"as #Anne) 5I,5 ibid.%? #=% 'he reply3letter of the B$I to petitioner, dated .. May ./0/, too( e)ception to petitioner+s clai that the B$I and the &'I, by not vi"orously opposin" the transfer, had violated the Constitution, the $ nibus Invest ents Code and P.&. /=/ as a ended by P& .01,, and ur"ed petitioner not to proceed with his planned court action as it would only serve to 5discoura"e forei"n investors and derail efforts at econo ic recovery5 #Anne) 5M,5 ibid.%? #8% Petitioner+s letter to the B$I of .- May ./0/ rebutted point by point the ar"u ents in the B$I letter of .. May ./0/ and ar"ued that 5P& No. /=/, as a ended by P. &. No. .01,, as well as related issuances, have chosen Bataan as the site of the petroche ical pro!ect5 #Anne) 5N,5 ibid.%? #-% Petitioner+s letter to the B$I of 2/ May ./0/ for ali6ed his 5 otion for reconsideration of the B$I 5decision+ approvin" the transfer of the pro!ect fro Bataan to Batan"as, and contended that President A>uino had set it aside #Anne) 5P,5 ibid.%? #9% Petitioner+s follow3up letter to the B$I, dated ./ 7une ./0/, clai ed that the B$I decision to approve the transfer of the pro!ect had, in effect, been reversed by the President herself and that the B$I should 5refrain fro ta(in" any step to e)ecute said defunct decision5 #Anne) 5F,5 ibid.%? #0% In the B$I letter of 2. 7une ./0/ to petitioner, the for er denied that there had been a reversal by the President of the B$I decision? and that, as far as petitioner+s otion for reconsideration of the B$I decision is concerned, 5since you are not sub ittin" any new cause of action for B$I to reconsider its decision, we believe that we have sufficiently answered the >uestions you have raised in your letter dated 2 May ./0/, which has been replied to by the Mana"in" @ead of the B$I on .. May ./0/5 #Anne) 5R,5 ibid.%. All told, there can be no >uestion that petitioner has been fully heard on his ori"inal petition to the B$I to disapprove the transfer of the pro!ect site and on his otion for reconsideration. No further purpose will be served by settin" petitioner+s opposition for hearin". Neither do I thin( that 5affected co unities+ have a ri"ht to be consulted, as opined by the 'he provision pertinent thereto readsB a!ority.

Art. ,,. *pplication. I Applications shall be filed with the Board, recorded in a re"istration boo( and the date appearin" therein and sta ped on the application shall be considered the date of official acceptance. Hhenever necessary, the Board, throu"h the People+s Econo ic Councils, shall consult the co unities affected on the acceptability of locatin" the re"istered enterprise within their co unity. In other words, the re>uire ent on consultation is >ualified by the phrase 5whenever necessary.5 'he clear i plication is that the B$I ay dispense with such consultations if it believes that it can decide applications for re"istration by itself without consultation. In fine, it is y view that the B$I did not co it any "rave abuse of discretion in approvin" the a end ents to BPC+s application. Nor had it failed to observe due process in approvin" the sa e without a for al hearin", petitioner havin", in fact, been fully heard. 'he atter of deter inin"

whether the transfer of the plant site and chan"e of feedstoc( will be best for the pro!ect and the country lies with the B$I as the ad inistrative body specifically tas(ed with such atters. It is well3 settled that absent a clear, anifest and "rave abuse of discretion a ountin" to want of !urisdiction, the decision and findin"s of an ad inistrative a"ency on atters fallin" within its co petence will not be disturbed by the Courts *a"un vs. People+s @o esite and @ousin" Corp., A.R. No. ==9,0, 7une 22, ./00, .-2 *CRA =..% as the sa e fans within that a"ency+s special (nowled"e and e)pertise "ained by it fro handlin" the specific atters fallin" under its !urisdiction #Mapa vs. Arroyo et al., A.R. No. 908-8, 7uly 8, ./0/%. I vote, therefore, for the dis issal of the petition for lac( of erit, which dis issal should be i ediately e)ecutory. 'he holdin" of hearin"s will serve no purpose other than unnecessarily delay the i ple entation of the Philippines+ bi""est forei"n pro!ect, representin" a a!or step towards industriali6ation. <urther delay can only produce a chillin" effect on forei"n invest ents in the country.

Sep'r'te Op# #o $ ME,ENCIO.(ERRERA, J., dissentin"B $n .9 &ece ber ./09, a "roup of 'aiwanese investors, doin" business under the na e of Bataan Petroche ical Corporation #BPC%, filed with the Board of Invest ents #B$I% an application for re"istration as a new e)port producer of petroche icals. 'he notice of application was duly published in the Philippine &aily In>uirer on 2. &ece ber ./09. 'he application, as sub itted, specified that the a ount of the invest ent for the establish ent of a petroche ical co ple) in the Philippines was D221 illion and that the plant was to be located in Bataan usin" =. naphta as feedstoc(. $n .= 7anuary ./00, after co pliance with other le"al re>uire ents, the B$I approved the application, and issued the correspondin" Certificate of Re"istration on 2= <ebruary ./00. BPC was accorded pioneer status and beca e entitled to the incentives provided for in the $ nibus Invest ents Code. In <ebruary ./0/, BPC sou"ht to a end its application by proposin" the chan"e of plant site fro Bataan to Batan"as and the feedstoc( fro 5naphta only5 to 5naphta andEor 4PA,5 and increasin" its invest ent to D,21 illion a(in" the pro!ect the sin"le bi""est forei"n invest ent in the Philippines to date. $n .. April ./0/, BPC for ally as(ed the B$I for approval of the proposed a end ents. Petitioner, the le"islative representative of the *econd &istrict of Bataan, opposed the chan"e of the plant site in a privile"e speech before Con"ress. @e also sent letters to the B$I and the &epart ent of 'rade and Industry settin" forth his ob!ections to the transfer. In a hearin" conducted by the *enate Co ittee on Hays and Means, petitioner appeared and e)pounded on his position. $n 28 May ./0/, the B$I approved the revisions to the re"istered petroche ical pro!ect. Earlier, or on 2. May ./0/, citin" Article 0. of the $ nibus Invest ents Code of ./09, the B$I denied petitioner+s re>uest for a copy of the revisions sub itted by the investors because the latter had declined to "ive their consent to the disclosure.

$n 29 May ./0/, a eetin" was called by President A>uino in Malacanan" to discuss the transfer of the pro!ect site. Present at the eetin" were B$I officials, the petitioner and the other Con"ress an fro Bataan. Petitioner re>uested the President to reconsider the B$I decision approvin" the transfer. $n 2= 7une ./0/, the President a"ain called a eetin" with the Bataan Con"ress en, the Aovernor, and the Mayors of the province. *he as(ed the Bataan officials to withdraw their ob!ections to the transfer of the plant site to Batan"as, lest the investors pac( up and leave for, after all, Batan"as is also in the Philippines and so e of the 5downstrea 5 industries which would sprin" fro a petroche ical co ple) ay later be located in Bataan. 'he Bataan officials a"reed to drop their ob!ections, e)cept for petitioner who instituted this Petition for certiorari and Prohibition before this Court #p. .., $pposition by public respondents%. In his Petition, petitioner alle"es that the B$I co itted "rave abuse of discretion and denied hi due process when it approved, without a hearin", the a end ents to the re"istration of the BPC petroche ical pro!ect? when it denied petitioner+s re>uest for a copy of the a end ents? and when it approved the chan"e of the plant site and feedstoc( of the plant. As stated in the a!ority opinion, the Court is not concerned with the econo ic, social and political aspects of the case. In rulin" in favor of petitioner, the a!ority faults the B$I with "rave abuse of discretion and has ordered it #.% to publish the a ended application for re"istration? #2% to allow petitioner to have access to its records on the ori"inal and a ended applications for re"istration, e)cludin" trade secrets? and #,% to set for hearin" petitioner+s opposition to the a ended application. Hith all due respect, I find no "rave abuse of discretion on the part of B$I, nor denial by it to petitioner of due process. As re"ards publication, Article 8= of the $ nibus Invest ents Code providesB Art. 8=. #ublication and #osting o) Notices. I I ediately after the application has been "iven due course by the Board, the *ecretary of the Board or any official desi"nated by the Board shall re>uire the applicant to publish the notice o) the action o) the $oard thereon at his e)pense once in a newspaper of "eneral circulation in the province or city where the applicant has its principal office, and post copies of said notice in conspicuous places, in the once of the Board or in the buildin" where said office is located? settin" forth in such copies the na e of the applicant, the business in which it is en"a"ed or proposes to en"a"e or invest, and such other data and infor ation as ay be re>uired by the Board. No approval or certificate shall be valid without the publication and postin" of notices as herein provided. #Italics supplied% Clearly, it is not the application itself that is re>uired to be published but notice of the action of the Board plus the specified data. 'hus, the Notice of Publication, which appeared in the In>uirer, si ply readB Notice is hereby "iven that the application of BA'AAN PE'R$C@EMICA4 C$RP$RA'I$N ... for re"istration with the Board of Invest ents under Boo( I of the $ nibus Invest ent Code of ./09, otherwise (nown as E)ecutive $rder No. 22- as new e)port producer of ethylene, polyethylene and polypropylene has been officially accepted on &ece ber .9, ./09 and is currently bein" processed.

Any person with valid ob!ections to or pertinent co ents on the above3 entioned application ay file hisEher co entsEob!ections in writin" with the B$I within one #.% wee( fro the date of this publication. 4et this notice be published at the e)pense of the applicant ... #Anne) 5.,5 $pposition%. Absent the re>uire ent of publication of the application itself, there should be no need either to publish the a end ents to the application. 'he state ent in the a!ority opinion that the a ended application is considered a new application does not find support in the $ nibus Invest ents Code. After all the a end ent did not chan"e the essence or nature of the petroche ical pro!ect but only the site, and the feedstoc(. *pecially si"nificant, too, is the fact that the confidentiality of applications is specifically provided for in the $ nibus Invest ents Code. 'husB Art. 0.. Con)identialit" o) *pplications. I All applications and their supportin" docu ents filed under this Code shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, e)cept with the consent of the applicant or on orders of a court of co petent !urisdiction. Considerin" that all applications and their supportin" docu ents are confidential and are not to be disclosed to any person, it follows that a end ents thereto should also be considered confidential and need no publication. Hhich brin"s us to the second part of the have access to its records. a!ority disposition re>uirin" B$I to allow petitioner to

If B$I did not furnish petitioner with copy of the ori"inal application and a end ents thereto, it was because it had received a reply fro the pro!ect proponents 5advisin" us not to release the sub!ect docu ents in view of the sensitive infor ation contained therein which includes the accu ulation of the proponents+ business e)perience and (now3how5 #Anne) 5$,5 Petition%. No "rave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the B$I, therefore, for not accedin" to petitioner+s re>uest that he be furnished with copies of the ori"inal application with its a end ents and attach ents #Anne) 5G,5 Petition%. $f course, pursuant to Article 0. of the $ nibus Invest ents Code, the Court, as it does now, can order the B$I to allow petitioner to have access to its records on the ori"inal and a ended applications for re"istration. 'here see s to be no lon"er any necessity therefor, however. Attached to public respondent+s $pposition is BPC+s Position Paper, dated .1 April ./0/, wherein BPC discoursed on the si"nificant benefits to be achieved by the transfer and why 5usin" 4PA as alternative feedstoc( will be very advanta"eous to the pro!ect #Anne) 525 $pposition% In addition, petitioner already has in his possessionB #a% the approval by the B$I of the BPC application for re"istration, which includes the pre3re"istration and re"istration conditions #Anne) 5A,5 Petition%? #b% the post3 re"istration specific ter s and conditions, which the B$I i posed for the pro!ect #Anne) 5B,5 ibid.%? #c% the BPC letter to the B$I re>uestin" approval of the a end ent of its invest ent application for re"istration for the establish ent of a petroche ical co ple) in the Philippines #Anne) 5<,5 ibid.%? and #d% the approval by the B$I on 28 May ./0/ of the revisions to the pro!ect, sub!ect to additional conditions #Anne)

5*,5 ibid.%. Moreover, in the *upple ental $pposition filed by BPC it has attached a su ary of the considerations that "uided it in proposin" the a end ents. Jirtually all the data petitioner needs, therefore, are now of record. 'he a!ority rulin" also re>uires the B$I to set for hearin" petitioner+s opposition to the a ended application so that he ay present at such hearin" all the evidence in his possession in support of his opposition to the transfer of the site of the pro!ect to Batan"as. 'he $ nibus Invest ents Code, however, does not re>uire the B$I to hold hearin"s before approvin" applications for re"istration or a end ents thereto. In fact, hearin"s would contravene Codal provisions on confidentiality. Article 9, para"raph =, cited in the a!ority opinion neither supports the necessity of hearin"s. It readsB Art. 9. Powers and &uties of the Board ))) ))) ))) #=% After due hearin", decide controversies concernin" the i ple entation of this Code that ay arise between re"istered enterprises or investors therein and "overn ent a"encies, within thirty #,1% days after the controversy has been sub itted for decisionB ... In other words, due hearin" is re>uired only in connection with controversies between re"istered enterprises or investors therein and "overn ent a"encies concernin" the i ple entation of the $ nibus Invest ents Code. It does not spea( at all of a hearin" on applications for re"istration or a end ents thereto. Additionally, Article ,= of the $ nibus Invest ents Code, in providin" that applications not acted upon by the Board within twenty #21% days fro official acceptance thereof shall be considered auto atically approved i plies that a hearin" is not at all indispensable in the atter of re"istration of enterprises. 'he intention of the law to a(e B$I proceedin"s non3adversarial and as e)peditious as possible consistent with the Codal policy to encoura"e invest ents, is clearly discernible. Besides, a hearin", as ordained, will serve no practical purpose for petitioner has already fully presented his case, the B$I has "iven it due consideration and has acted accordin"ly. 'his is concretely shown by the followin" e)chan"e of co unicationsB #.% In his letter to the *ecretary of 'rade and lndustry, who is concurrently Chair an of the Board of Invest ents, petitioner 5reiterate#d%5 his 5 ost vehe ent protest a"ainst the aneuver to transfer the Bataan Petroche ical pro!ect fro Bataan to Batan"as which, if successful, would "reatly pre!udice not only the people of Bataan, but ore i portantly, our country and "overn ent5 #Anne) +E,5 Petition%? #2% Petitioner+s letter, dated 2 May ./0/, to the *ecretary of 'rade and Industry protested the latter+s 5official position that +'he final choice #of site% is still with the proponent #the 'aiwanese%, who would, in the final analysis, provide the fundin" or ris( capital for the pro!ect5+ #Anne) 57,5 ibid.%? #,% Attached to said co unication was petitioner+s letter, dated 2= April ./0/, addressed to the *enate Co ittee on Hays and Means "ivin" fourteen #.=% reasons why the pro!ect should not be transferred to Batan"as #Anne) 5I,5 ibid.%?

#=% 'he reply3letter of the B$I to petitioner, dated .. May ./0/, too( e)ception to petitioner+s clai that the B$I and the &'I, by not vi"orously opposin" the transfer, had violated the Constitution, the $ nibus Invest ents Code and P.&. /=/ as a ended by P& .01,, and ur"ed petitioner not to proceed with his planned court action as it would only serve to 5discoura"e forei"n investors and derail efforts at econo ic recovery5 #Anne) 5M,5 ibid.%? #8% Petitioner+s letter to the B$I of .- May ./0/ rebutted point by point the ar"u ents in the B$I letter of .. May ./0/ and ar"ued that 5P& No. /=/, as a ended by P. &. No. .01,, as well as related issuances, have chosen Bataan as the site of the petroche ical pro!ect5 #Anne) 5N,5 ibid.%? #-% Petitioner+s letter to the B$I of 2/ May ./0/ for ali6ed his 5 otion for reconsideration of the B$I 5decision+ approvin" the transfer of the pro!ect fro Bataan to Batan"as, and contended that President A>uino had set it aside #Anne) 5P,5 ibid.%? #9% Petitioner+s follow3up letter to the B$I, dated ./ 7une ./0/, clai ed that the B$I decision to approve the transfer of the pro!ect had, in effect, been reversed by the President herself and that the B$I should 5refrain fro ta(in" any step to e)ecute said defunct decision5 #Anne) 5F,5 ibid.%? #0% In the B$I letter of 2. 7une ./0/ to petitioner, the for er denied that there had been a reversal by the President of the B$I decision? and that, as far as petitioner+s otion for reconsideration of the B$I decision is concerned, 5since you are not sub ittin" any new cause of action for B$I to reconsider its decision, we believe that we have sufficiently answered the >uestions you have raised in your letter dated 2 May ./0/, which has been replied to by the Mana"in" @ead of the B$I on .. May ./0/5 #Anne) 5R,5 ibid.%. All told, there can be no >uestion that petitioner has been fully heard on his ori"inal petition to the B$I to disapprove the transfer of the pro!ect site and on his otion for reconsideration. No further purpose will be served by settin" petitioner+s opposition for hearin". Neither do I thin( that 5affected co unities+ have a ri"ht to be consulted, as opined by the 'he provision pertinent thereto readsB a!ority.

Art. ,,. *pplication. I Applications shall be filed with the Board, recorded in a re"istration boo( and the date appearin" therein and sta ped on the application shall be considered the date of official acceptance. Hhenever necessary, the Board, throu"h the People+s Econo ic Councils, shall consult the co unities affected on the acceptability of locatin" the re"istered enterprise within their co unity. In other words, the re>uire ent on consultation is >ualified by the phrase 5whenever necessary.5 'he clear i plication is that the B$I ay dispense with such consultations if it believes that it can decide applications for re"istration by itself without consultation. In fine, it is y view that the B$I did not co it any "rave abuse of discretion in approvin" the a end ents to BPC+s application. Nor had it failed to observe due process in approvin" the sa e without a for al hearin", petitioner havin", in fact, been fully heard. 'he atter of deter inin" whether the transfer of the plant site and chan"e of feedstoc( will be best for the pro!ect and the country lies with the B$I as the ad inistrative body specifically tas(ed with such atters. It is well3 settled that absent a clear, anifest and "rave abuse of discretion a ountin" to want of !urisdiction, the decision and findin"s of an ad inistrative a"ency on atters fallin" within its co petence will not

be disturbed by the Courts *a"un vs. People+s @o esite and @ousin" Corp., A.R. No. ==9,0, 7une 22, ./00, .-2 *CRA =..% as the sa e fans within that a"ency+s special (nowled"e and e)pertise "ained by it fro handlin" the specific atters fallin" under its !urisdiction #Mapa vs. Arroyo et al., A.R. No. 908-8, 7uly 8, ./0/%. I vote, therefore, for the dis issal of the petition for lac( of erit, which dis issal should be i ediately e)ecutory. 'he holdin" of hearin"s will serve no purpose other than unnecessarily delay the i ple entation of the Philippines+ bi""est forei"n pro!ect, representin" a a!or step towards industriali6ation. <urther delay can only produce a chillin" effect on forei"n invest ents in the country.