GARCIA VS BOARD OF INVESTMENTS

G.R. No. 92024 November 9 1990

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 BPCs 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 Garcias 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 BPCs 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.