MANILA PRINCE HOTEL V. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) G.R. NO.

122156, 3 FEBRUARY 1997 267 SCRA 408

BELLOSILLO, J. I. FACTS: The 30% - 51% shares of Manila Hotel Corporation owner of Manila Hotel a historical heritage, owned by GSIS were sold by public bidding The two qualified bidders are Manila Prince Hotel (MPH) (petitioner) and Renong Berhad (Malaysian group) MPH (petitioner) issued a managers check through Philtrust bank amounting to 33,000,000.00 to match the bid of the Malaysian Group. GSIS (respondent) disregarded the tendered amount to match the bid and that the sale of 51% of MHC may be hastened. MHP (petitioner) filed a petition on prohibition and mandamus. October, 1995, the court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from perfecting consummating sales to the Malaysian firm. September, 1996, the instant case was accepted by the Court En Banc after it was referred to it by first division.

ISSUES: Whether or not the GSIS violated Section 10 Par. 2 Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

Decision: 1. That Sec. 10, Par. 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision and does not need implementing legislation to be carried out. 2. That the outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation are part of the national patrimony which contributes to the national economy. 3. That GSIS is included in the term State, hence, mandated to implement the stated provision under the constitution. 4. That the respondent GSIS should give preference to the petitioner, a Filipino corporation, over Renong Berhad, a foreign corporation, in the sale of the outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation.

R:D 1. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation. 2. Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony 3. It is undeniable that in this case the subject constitutional injunction is addressed among others to the Executive Department and respondent GSIS, a government instrumentality deriving its authority from the State. 4. And if the Filipino matches the bid of a foreign firm the award should go to the Filipino. It must be so if we are to give life and meaning to the Filipino First Policy provision of the 1987 Constitution