Manila Prince Hotel v.

GSIS
Fact:
The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the
privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation 50
dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51%
of the issued and outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel (MHC). In a close
bidding held on 18 September 1995 only two bidders participated: Manila
Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51%
of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares 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/strategic partner and the execution of the necessary contracts, the
Manila Prince Hotel matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by
Renong Berhad in a letter to GSIS dated 28 September 1995. Manila Prince
Hotel sent a managers check to the GSIS in a subsequent letter, but which
GSIS refused to accept. On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that GSIS
has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the
MHC may be hastened by GSIS and consummated with Renong Berhad,
Manila Prince Hotel came to the Court on prohibition and mandamus.
Issue:
1. w/n the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10,
are self-executing.
2. w/n the 51% share is part of the national patrimony.
Held:
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, isselfexecuting. Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and
extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the
constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and
construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject
is referred to the legislature for action.

The rule is that a self-executing provision of the constitution does not

necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any legislation must
be in harmony with the constitution, further the exercise of constitutional
right and make it more available. Subsequent legislation however does not
necessarily mean that the subject constitutional provision is not, by itself,
fully enforceable. 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. 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. It also refers to
Filipinos intelligence in arts, sciences and letters. In the present case, 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, a
concourse for the elite, it has since then become the venue of various
significant events which have shaped Philippine history. In the granting of
economic rights, privileges, and concessions, especially on matters involving
national patrimony, when a choice has to be made between a qualified
foreigner and a qualified Filipino, the latter shall be chosen over the
former.The Supreme Court directed the GSIS, the Manila Hotel Corporation,
the Committee on Privatization and the Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel to cease and desist from selling 51% of the Share of the MHC to
Renong Berhad, and to accept the matching bid of Manila Prince Hotel at
P44 per share and thereafter execute the necessary agreements and document
to effect the sale, to issue the necessary clearances and to do such other acts
and deeds as may be necessary for the purpose.