Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997
Facts:
System (GSIS) planned to sell 30% to 51% of the outstanding shares of Manila Hotel
Corporation via public bidding as part of the Philippine government's privatization program. On
September 18, 1995, there were only two (2) bidders: Manila Prince Hotel Business, a Filipino
corporation, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, which offered Php 2.42 more than the
Manila Prince Hotel Corporation bid. 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 contends that the Manila Hotel has practically become a historical monument
which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture. As a result, it has become part of
the national patrimony. Corollary, as a Filipino corporation, it should be chosen after matching
the Malaysian firm's bid offer.
Issue:
Whether or not the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10, are selfexecuting.
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.