G.R. No. 88637 September 7, 1989
CONGRESSMAN ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. THE BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC), a joint venture with Taiwanese investors and the Philippine National Oil Company, was granted a Certificate of Registration by the Board of Investments (BOI) in 1988 for a pioneer petrochemical complex to be located in Limay, Bataan. The registration included fiscal incentives and was predicated on using naphtha from the nearby Bataan Refinery as feedstock. The project was supported by legislation, introduced by petitioner Congressman Enrique Garcia, eliminating taxes on naphtha used for petrochemicals. However, in 1989, BPC sought to amend its registration to transfer the plant site to Batangas, increase its investment and capacity, and change its feedstock to include liquefied petroleum gas, citing insurgency concerns and the presence of an LPG depot in Batangas.
Petitioner Garcia, along with other Bataan officials, vigorously opposed the transfer. He requested copies of BPC’s amended application from the BOI, but the request was denied as BPC withheld consent. Despite the opposition and without a formal public hearing, the BOI approved the amendments on May 25, 1989. Garcia filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging grave abuse of discretion for the approval without due process, refusal to furnish documents, and disregard for the declared policy of locating the industry in the Bataan Petrochemical Industrial Zone.

ISSUE

Whether the Board of Investments committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the amendments to BPC’s registration without a formal hearing and over the objections of local stakeholders.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the BOI. The Court held that the requirement for consultation with affected communities under Article 33 of the Omnibus Investments Code is qualified by the phrase “whenever necessary,” vesting discretion in the BOI to determine its necessity. The BOI’s approval was an exercise of its administrative expertise in evaluating the project’s economic and technical viability, including considerations of peace and order and feedstock availability. The absence of a formal hearing did not violate due process, as the petitioner and other opponents were able to submit their positions in writing and through correspondence, which the BOI considered. The Court emphasized that administrative agencies possess specialized knowledge, and their factual determinations, absent clear, manifest, and grave abuse of discretion, are not subject to judicial overturn. The BOI’s decision to prioritize the project’s overall success and contribution to national industrialization over the original locational preference was within its statutory mandate.