Garcia vs.

Board of Investments (BOI)

191 SCRA 288
November 1990
FACTS:
Former Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC), now Luzon Petrochemical Corporation, formed by a
group of Taiwanese investors, was granted by the BOI for the transfer of its proposed plant site from
Bataan to Batangas and the shift of the plants feedstock or fuel for its petrochemical plant from
naphta only to naptha and/or liquefied petroleum gas. In February 1989, one year after the BPC
began its production in Bataan, the corporation applied to the BOI to have its plant site transferred
from Bataan to Batangas. Despite vigorous opposition from petitioner Cong. Enrique Garcia and others,
the BOI granted private respondent BPCs application, stating that the investors have the final choice
as to where to have their plant site because they are the ones who risk capital for the project.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the BOI committed a grave abuse of discretion in yielding to the application of the
investors without considering the national interest
COURT RULING:
The Supreme Court found the BOI to have committed grave abuse of discretion in this case, and
ordered the original application of the BPC to have its plant site in Bataan and the product naphta as
feedstock maintained.
The ponente, Justice Gutierrez, Jr., first stated the Courts judicial power to settle actual controversies
as provided for by Section 1 of Article VIII in our 1987 Constitution before he wrote the reasons as to
how the Court arrived to its conclusion. He mentioned that nothing is shown to justify the BOIs action
in letting the investors decide on an issue which, if handled by our own government, could have been
very beneficial to the State, as he remembered the word of a great Filipino leader, to wit: .. he would
not mind having a government run like hell by Filipinos than one subservient to foreign dictation.
Justice Grio Aquino, in her dissenting opinion, argued that the petition was not well-taken because the
1987 Investment Code does not prohibit the registration of a certain project, as well as any decision of
the BOI regarding the amended application. She stated that the fact that petitioner disagrees with BOI
does not make the BOI wrong in its decision, and that petitioner should have appealed to the President
of the country and not to the Court, as provided for by Section 36 of the 1987 Investment Code.
Justice Melencio-Herrera, in another dissenting opinion, stated that the Constitution does not vest in
the Court the power to enter the realm of policy considerations, such as in this case.