Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, 267 SCRA 408, Feb. 3, 1997.
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, 267 SCRA 408, Feb. 3, 1997.
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, 267 SCRA 408, Feb. 3, 1997.
1. The GSIS, as part of the privatization program 1. Whether GSIS is mandated to YES. GSIS is mandated to abide the dictates of the Constitution on
under Proclamation No. 50, aimed to auction abide the dictates of the National Economy and Patrimony
30%-51% shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation Constitution on National
(MHC). The chosen bidder, a "strategic partner," Economy and Patrimony. It should be stressed that while the Malaysian firm offered the higher bid it
would enhance management, international is not yet the winning bidder. The bidding rules expressly provide that the
marketing, and provide financial backing. In the highest bidder shall only be declared the winning bidder after it has
18 September 1995 bid, two contenders negotiated and executed the necessary contracts, and secured the
emerged: Manila Prince Hotel Corp., offering requisite approvals. Since the Filipino First Policy provision of the
P41.58 per share for 51% of MHC, and Renong Constitution bestows preference on qualified Filipinos the mere tending of
Berhad, a Malaysian firm with ITT-Sheraton, the highest bid is not an assurance that the highest bidder will be declared
bidding P44.00 per share for the same amount. the winning bidder. Resultantly, respondents are not bound to make the
2. Pending Renong Berhad's declaration as the award yet, nor are they under obligation to enter into one with the highest
winning bidder/strategic partner and contract bidder. For in choosing the awardee, respondents are mandated to abide
execution, on 28 September 1995, the petitioner by the dictates of the 1987 Constitution the provisions of which are
matched Renong Berhad's bid of P44.00 per presumed to be known to all the bidders and other interested parties.
share in a letter to GSIS. On 10 October 1995,
the petitioner sent a P33 million manager's check Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the subject
as Bid Security, which GSIS rejected. Concerned constitutional provision is, as it should be, impliedly written in the bidding
that GSIS might proceed with the sale to Renong rules issued by respondent GSIS, lest the bidding rules be nullified for
Berhad, petitioner sought a prohibition and being violative of the Constitution. It is a basic principle in constitutional
mandamus in this Court on 17 October 1995, law that all laws and contracts must conform with the fundamental law of
leading to a temporary restraining order issued the land. Those which violate the Constitution lose their reason for being.
on 18 October 1995. The case was accepted by
the Court En Banc on 10 September 1996 and Certainly, the constitutional mandate itself is reason enough not to award
set for oral arguments with amici curiae. the block of shares immediately to the foreign bidder notwithstanding its
3. The petitioner argues that the Manila Hotel, submission of a higher, or even the highest, bid. In fact, we cannot
intertwined with national identity and history, is a conceive of a stronger reason than the constitutional injunction itself.
part of the national patrimony and economy,
invoking Sec. 10, Art. XII of the 1987
Constitution. Petitioner asserts that since 51% of
the Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) shares carry Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision.
ownership of its government-controlled business,
Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates
the transaction falls under national economy.
Petitioner claims preferential treatment after any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by
matching the Malaysian firm's bid, citing bidding the legislative or by the executive branch or entered by private persons for
rules. private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus,
4. Respondents counter that Sec. 10, Art. XII needs since the Constitution is the fundamental and supreme law of the nation, it
implementing laws, considering Manila Hotel is is deemed written in every statute and contract.
not covered under "national patrimony." They
assert the Constitution addresses the State, not A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in
respondent GSIS. Moreover, selling 51% MHC Article II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a
shares doesn't violate the Constitution, and provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid
petitioner's reliance on the bidding rule is of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient
misplaced, as Renong Berhad's award is 2. Whether the provisions of the rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is
uncertain. Constitution, particularly Article self-executing.
5. Respondents contend against prohibition due to XII Section 10, are self-
lack of grave abuse of discretion and against executing. Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to
mandamus, stating petitioner lacks a clear legal enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all
right, and respondents lack a binding duty. 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.