MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, petitioner v GSIS, respondent G.R. No. 122156; February 3, 1997
Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
National Patrimony
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, petitioner v
GSIS, respondent (privatization)
G.R. No. 122156; February 3, 1997
TOPIC: Non-Self Executing v Self
Executing Constitutional Provisions
FACTS:
The Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS) decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued
and outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel (MHC).
In a close bidding, two bidders
participated: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC), a Filipino corporation,
which offered to buy 51% of the MHC 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 and the execution of the contracts, the MPHC
matched the bid price in a letter to
GSIS. MPHC sent a manager’s check to the GSIS in a subsequent letter, which
GSIS refused to accept. On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that GSIS has
disregarded the tender of the matching bid, MPHC came to the Court on
prohibition and mandamus.
Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second
par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the Manila Hotel has been
identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical
monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture.
Respondents assert that Sec. 10,
second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a statement of
principle and policy since it is not a self-executing provision and requires
implementing legislation(s).
ISSUE:
Whether the provisions of the
Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10, are self-executing.
RULING:
Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987
Constitution is a self-executing provision.
A provision which lays down a general
principle, such as those found in Article II of the 1987 Constitution, is
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.
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.
Comments
Post a Comment