18 Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, petitioner vs.
GSIS, respondent
G.R. No. 122156; February 3, 1997
Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when the
national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least
sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may
prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the
formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony,
the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction and
in accordance with its national goals and priorities.
FACTS: The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) decided to sell through public bidding 30%
to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel (MHC).
In a close bidding, two bidders participated: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC), a Filipino
corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian
firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per
share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner.
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning bidder and the execution of the
contracts, the MPHC matched the bid price in a letter to GSIS. MPHC sent a manager’s check to the
GSIS in a subsequent letter, which GSIS refused to accept. On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive
that GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid, MPHC came to the Court on prohibition and
mandamus.
Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the
Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical
monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture.
Respondents assert that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a
statement of principle and policy since it is not a self-executing provision and requires implementing
legislation(s).
ISSUE:
1. Whether Manila Hotel is part of the national patrimony.

2.Whether GSIS is mandated to abide the dictates of the Constitution on National Economy and
Patrimony
3.Whether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10, are self-executing.
RULING:
1. Yes. The Supreme Court agrees in its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to
heritage. When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural
resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources, but
also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. Manila Hotel has become a landmark— a living
testimonial of Philippine heritage.
2. It should be stressed that while the Malaysian firm offered the higher bid it is not yet the winning
bidder. Since the Filipino First Policy provision of the Constitution bestows preference on qualified
Filipinos, the mere tending of the highest bid is not an assurance that the highest bidder will be declared
the winning bidder. Consequently, respondents are not bound to make the award yet, nor are they under
obligation to enter into one with the highest bidder. For in choosing the awardee, respondents are
mandated to abide by the dictates of the 1987 Constitution the provisions of which are presumed to
be known to all the bidders and other interested parties.
Following the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the subject constitutional provision is, as it should
be, impliedly written in the bidding rules issued by respondent GSIS, lest the bidding rules be
nullified for being violative of the Constitution. It is a basic principle in constitutional law that all laws
and contracts must conform with the fundamental law of the land. Those which violate the Constitution
lose their reason for being.
Certainly, the constitutional mandate itself is reason enough not to award the block of shares immediately
to the foreign bidder even if it submitted a higher bid.
3. Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision.
A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Article II of the 1987
Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a provision which is complete in itself and becomes
operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule
by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing.
Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional
mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If the
constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature
would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law.
In fine, Section 10, second paragraph, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive
command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules
for its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in
operation.
resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. Manila Hotel has become a landmark
— a living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it was restrictively an American hotel when
it first opened in 1912, it immediately evolved to be truly Filipino, Formerly a concourse for the
elite, it has since then become the venue of various significant events which have shaped
Philippine history. It was called the Cultural Center of the 1930's. It was the site of the festivities
during the inauguration of the Philippine Commonwealth. Dubbed as the Official Guest House of
the Philippine Government. it plays host to dignitaries and official visitors who are accorded the
traditional Philippine hospitalit

18 Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

18 Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

18 Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, petitioner vs.

1. Whether Manila Hotel is part of the national patrimony.

You might also like