Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No.

122156, February 3, 1997

DECISION
(En Banc)

BELLOSILLO, J.:

I. THE FACTS

Pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government, the

GSIS sold in public auction its stake in Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). Only 2
bidders participated: petitioner 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.

Petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court to compel the GSIS to
allow it to match the bid of Renong Berhad. It invoked the Filipino First
Policy enshrined in §10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which
provides that “in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the
national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified
Filipinos.”

II. THE ISSUES

1. Whether §10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is a

self-executing provision and does not need implementing legislation to
carry it into effect;
2. Assuming §10, paragraph 2, Article XII is self-executing, whether
the controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation form part of our
patrimony as a nation;
3. Whether GSIS is included in the term “State,” hence, mandated to
implement §10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the Constitution; and
4. Assuming GSIS is part of the State, whether it should give preference
to the petitioner, a Filipino corporation, over Renong Berhad, a foreign
corporation, in the sale of the controlling shares of the Manila Hotel
Corporation.

III. THE RULING

[The Court, voting 11-4, DISMISSED the petition.]

 1. YES, §10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is a
self-executing provision and does not need implementing legislation to
carry it into effect.

Sec. 10, second par., of Art XII is couched in such a way as not to make it
appear that it is non-self-executing but simply for purposes of style. But,
certainly, the legislature is not precluded from enacting further laws to enforce
the constitutional provision so long as the contemplated statute squares with the
Constitution. Minor details may be left to the legislature without impairing the
self-executing nature of constitutional provisions.

xxx xxx xxx

Respondents . . . argue that the non-self-executing nature of Sec. 10, second par.,
of Art. XII is implied from the tenor of the first and third paragraphs of the same
section which undoubtedly are not self-executing. The argument is flawed. If the
first and third paragraphs are not self-executing because Congress is still to
enact measures to encourage the formation and operation of enterprises fully
owned by Filipinos, as in the first paragraph, and the State still needs legislation
to regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national
jurisdiction, as in the third paragraph, then a fortiori, by the same logic, the
second paragraph can only be self-executing as it does not by its language
require any legislation in order to give preference to qualified Filipinos in the
grant of rights, privileges and