Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 131 views

    Garcia V Boi 191 Scra 288 Digest

    Uploaded by

    JJ Cool
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Board of Investments (BOI) violated Congressman Garcia's constitutional right of access to information regarding a proposed petrochemical plant. The BOI denied Garcia's request to view documents related to the Bataan Petrochemical Corporation's (BPC) original and amended applications to establish a plant, first in Bataan and then in Batangas. While the Omnibus Investments Code keeps such applications confidential, the Court found it had jurisdiction to order their disclosure. The Court also determined that BPC's change of site constituted a new application requiring public notice and hearing. However, the Court excluded trade secrets, commercial information, and matters of national security from disclosure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Garcia V Boi 191 Scra 288 Digest

    Uploaded by

    JJ Cool
    131 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Board of Investments (BOI) violated Congressman Garcia's constitutional right of access to information regarding a proposed petrochemical plant. The BOI denied Garcia's request to view documents related to the Bataan Petrochemical Corporation's (BPC) original and amended applications to establish a plant, first in Bataan and then in Batangas. While the Omnibus Investments Code keeps such applications confidential, the Court found it had jurisdiction to order their disclosure. The Court also determined that BPC's change of site constituted a new application requiring public notice and hearing. However, the Court excluded trade secrets, commercial information, and matters of national security from disclosure.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Garcia v Boi 191 Scra 288 Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Board of Investments (BOI) violated Congressman Garcia's constitutional right of access to information regarding a proposed petrochemical plant. The BOI denied Garcia's request to view documents related to the Bataan Petrochemical Corporation's (BPC) original and amended applications to establish a plant, first in Bataan and then in Batangas. While the Omnibus Investments Code keeps such applications confidential, the Court found it had jurisdiction to order their disclosure. The Court also determined that BPC's change of site constituted a new application requiring public notice and hearing. However, the Court excluded trade secrets, commercial information, and matters of national security from disclosure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    131 views2 pages

    Garcia V Boi 191 Scra 288 Digest

    Uploaded by

    JJ Cool
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Board of Investments (BOI) violated Congressman Garcia's constitutional right of access to information regarding a proposed petrochemical plant. The BOI denied Garcia's request to view documents related to the Bataan Petrochemical Corporation's (BPC) original and amended applications to establish a plant, first in Bataan and then in Batangas. While the Omnibus Investments Code keeps such applications confidential, the Court found it had jurisdiction to order their disclosure. The Court also determined that BPC's change of site constituted a new application requiring public notice and hearing. However, the Court excluded trade secrets, commercial information, and matters of national security from disclosure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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.

    You might also like