1 Manila Prince Hotel V GSIS
1 Manila Prince Hotel V GSIS
Facts:
On December 8, 1986, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) decided to sell
through public bidding 30% to 51% of the outstanding shares of Manila Hotel Corporation,
pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government. A close bidding was held on
September 18, 1995, and only two (2) bidders participated: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a
Filipino corporation, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, which bid Php 2.42 more than the
bid of the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation. As the losing bidder, MPH matched the bid price of
Php 44.00 per share which the GSIS refused to accept. On October 17, 1995, MPH came to the
Court on prohibition and mandamus, invoking Section 10, par. 2, Art. XII of the 1987
Constitution and submits that the Manila Hotel has practically become a historical monument
which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture. Hence, it has become a part of the
national patrimony. Therefore, being a Filipino corporation, it should be preferred after it has
matched the bid offer of the Malaysian firm.
Issue:
Whether or not Section 10, par. 2., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mere statement of
principle and policy since it is not a self-executing provision and requires implementing
legislation.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 10, par. 2, 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. The 1987 Constitution mandated that [i]n the
grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the State
shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that --- qualified Filipinos shall be
preferred.
The Supreme Court also argued that those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, which lays
down a general principle, are 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. 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. That is why the prevailing law is that “in case of doubt, the Constitution
should be considered self-executing rather than non-self-executing x x x Unless the contrary is
clearly intended, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a
contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be
effective. These provisions would be subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which
could make them entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing
statute.
WHEREFORE, directing GSIS to cease and desist from selling to Renong Berhad and to accept
the matching bit of Manila Prince Hotel.