BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY,

LUZON PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION, and PILIPINAS SHELL

CORPORATION
VS.
CONGRESSMAN ENRIQUE T. GARCIA
G.R. No. 92024

I. Summary of Facts

Former Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC), now called Luzon Petrochemical

Corporation (LPC), incorporated by group of Taiwanese investors, applied for registration
with the Board of Investments (BOI) in February 1988 as a new domestic producer of
petrochemicals (naptha) in the Philippines. Upon its approval in February 24, 1988, BPC was
granted various incentives such as tax exemption on raw materials, repatriation of liquidation
of investments, and remittance of earnings for its status as a pioneer project.

In February 1989, a year after the BPC began its production in Bataan, amendments to
the application were proposed by its major investor Chairman A.T. Chiong of USI Far East
concerning increase of investment amount, change of fuel feedstock, and more notably the
transfer of site from Bataan to Batangas. But Congressman Enrique Garcia of the Second
District of Bataan reacted with this change and he then requested a copy of BPC’s original
and amended application documents regarding the changing of site.

The BPC’s original application for registration was published in Philippine Daily
Inquirer but the amended application, changing the site from Bataan to Batangas, was not.
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 protected the confidentiality of those documents absent consent to disclose.
The BOI subsequently approved the amended application without holding a second hearing or
publishing notice of the amended application. Cong. Garcia filed a petition before the
Supreme Court.

II. Issues Involved

1. Whether or not Board of Investments (Executive Branch )committed a grave abuse
of discretion in yielding to the application of the investors without considering the
national interest.
2. Whether or not the respondents denied the public of transparency by blocking access
to the original and amended application for registration of BPC.

III. Ruling of the Court

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a foreign investment group’s
applications to build a petrochemical plant had to be disclosed, but any trade secrets and other
confidential information could be redacted. 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 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 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.

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.

IV. Relate the Ruling of the Jurisprudence to the Media Law Involved in the Case

Although we have the freedom of expression in our Constitution, the right to information
for the people has subjected to limitations. In this case, the Court emphasized 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.