Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    Manila Prince Hotel vs. Gsis

    Uploaded by

    Rochedale Colasi

    Copyright:

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

    Manila Prince Hotel vs. Gsis

    Uploaded by

    Rochedale Colasi
    55 views1 page

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    55 views1 page

    Manila Prince Hotel vs. Gsis

    Uploaded by

    Rochedale Colasi

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, petitioner v GSIS, respondent

    G.R. No. 122156; February 3, 1997

    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:

    Whether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10, are self-
    executing.

    RULING:

    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.

    You might also like