Manila Prince Hotel v.
Government Service Insurance System Respondents state that such section 10 paragraph 2, article XII of
Facts
The Filipino first policy enshrined in 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, is being invoked by herein petitioners in its bid to acquire
51% of shares of the historic Manila Prince Hotel. Opposing
respondents maintain that the provision is not self-executing but,
requires an implementing legislation for its enforcement. We ask
whether or not the 51% of shares forms part of the NATIONAL
ECONOMY and PATRIMONY covered by the protective mantle of
the CONSTITUTION.
The controversy arose when GSIS, pursuat to the privatization
program under Presidential Decree No. 50, decided to sell 30% to
51% of its outstanding shares of Manila Hotel Corporation (owned
by the GSIS). A closed bidding was conducted with two
participants, Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a filipino corporation
with the offer of buying 51% of MHC at P41.58 per share, while the
other bidder Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, offered to buy 51%
at P44 per share.
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning bidder,
petitioner submitted a letter to GSIS to match the P44 offer of
Renong Berhad. In the subsequent letter, the petitioner also sent a
check from the Fil-trust bank for 33M, which was refused by
respondent.
On October 17, 1995, petitioner was apprehensive that GSIS might
disregard their matching bid, they came to the Supreme Court for
prohibition and mandamus. On October 18, 1995, the Court issued
a temporary restraining order temporarily restraining the GSIS from
perfecting and consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm. The
case was accepted by the Supreme Court En Banc on September
10, 1996.
In the main petitioner invokes section 10, second paragraph of
1987 Constitution, and submits that Manila has been identified with
the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical
monument which reflects Philippine culture and heritage.
Moreover, the petitioners avers that GSIS is a government-owned
controlled corporation, being a part of the tourism and is therefore
a part of the national economy. Thus, the transaction of 51% of
shares is covered in the term national economy and should
therefore be preferred when matched with the Malaysian firm.
Hotel has been a landmark due to many historical events such as
the 1987 constitution is mere statement of principle and policy since it being a cultural center in the 1930’s, inauguration of the Philippine
it is not a self-executing provision and requires a self-implementing Commonwealth, an Official guest house of the Philippine
legislation. The respondents further state that, such is not to be Government, the Japanese headquarters, one of the three places
considered as national patrimony as it is not a form of public of the final stand of the Japanese Forces, playing host to almost
domain, waters, minerals, etc. every political convention, and a site of a failed coup de etat where
an aspiring vice-president was proclaimed the President of the
ISSUE Philippine Republic. Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our
1.Whether or not it is self-executing national economy and patrimony.
2.whether or not it is considered national patrimony
3.Whether or not it violates the Constitution on the Filipino first 3. Such did in fact constitute a violation of the Filipino first policy as
policy it is under the constitution that at least 60 percent of the corporation
must be owned by Filipinos, section 10 paragraph 2 article XII of
RULING (Important points blah blah) the 1987 Constitution.
Under the DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY, if a “In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the
law or contract violates any form of the constitution, whether national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to
promulgated by the legislative or executive branch or entered into qualified Filipinos.”
by private persons for private purposes is null and void. Thus, the
constitution is fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the
nation.
A provision which lays down the GENERAL PRINCIPLE, such as
those found in article II of 1987 constitution is usually not self-
executing, but a provision which is COMPLETE IN ITSELF
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.
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 as to be determined by an examination or
construction of its terms.
1. Section 10, second paragraph article XII of the 1987 constitution
is a mandatory positive command which completes itself and need
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. It is per se judicially
enforceable.
UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM – where there is a right there is a remedy
2. National patrimony should not only be limited to rich natural
resources but also to cultural heritage, and also refers to
intelligence in arts, sciences and letters, therefore we should not
only develop our lands but also the mental ability or faculty of our
people. National Patrimony should also refer to heritage. Manila
DOMINO v. COMELEC
FACTS
On 25 March 1998 Domino filed his certificate of candidacy for
position of representative of the lone legislative district of the
province Sarangani indicating in therein certificate that he had
resided in the constituency where he seeks to be elected for one
year and two months immediately preceding the election.
On 30 March 1998 private respondents Narciso Ra. Grafilo Jr.,
Eddy B. Java, among others filed a petition with the COMELEC to
deny due course to or cancel certificate of candidacy alleging that
DOMINO is not a resident much less a registered voter of the
Province of Sarangani.
However, Domino maintains that he had complied with the 1 year
residency requirement and that he has been residing in Sarangani
since January 1997.
COMELEC 2nd division disqualified Domino as a candidate for the
position for lack of one year residency requirement and ordered
cancellation of the certificate of candidacy. As his voters
registration on January 22, 1997 indicated his address as from
Quezon City which negated all his protestations that he established
residence at Sarangani as early as January 1997.
Counting from January 22, 1997, up to the elections on May 1998,
Domino clearly lacks one year residency requirement under section
6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
COMELEC issued supplemental Omnibus Resolution stating that
all votes for Domino were to be counted but suspended as the
decision in disqualifying Domino had not yet become final and
executory.
Domino garnered the highest number of votes as indicated in the
Statement of Votes by the Chairman of the Provincial Board of
Canvassers. Domino filed a petition for reconsideration and was
subsequently denied by COMELEC hence, this present petition for
certiorari with a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction alleging
that COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess or lack of jurisdiction when it ruled that he did not meet the
one-year residence requirement.
ISSUE
1.Whether the decision of the Metropolitan trial court of Quezon city
declaring petitioner as resident of Sarangani and not of Quezon is
final, conclusive and binding upon the whole world, including the
COMELEC
2.Whether or not he had resided in Sarangani for more than 1 year
immediately preceding May 11, 1998
3.Whether COMELEC has jurisdiction or not
RULING
1.Such decision of the Metropolitan trial court is not final, conclusive
and binding upon the COMELEC. As under Section 78 Art. IX of
the Omnibus Election Code, COMELEC has the jurisdiction to
determine whether there is false representation as to a material fact
in the certificate of candidacy, which includes residency.
The decision of an exclusion or inclusion proceeding even if final
and unappealable does not acquire the nature of RES JUDICATA.
In the sense that it cannot bar future action that a party may take
concerning the subject passed upon in the proceeding. Thus, a
decision concerning his exclusion would not be conclusive on his
political status on his right to be a registered voter in a subsequent
election.
In, TAN COHON v. ELECTION REGISTRAR, the Court ruled that
although the decision for his inclusion has become final, it does not
constitute res adjudicata as to any matters contained herein. As it
would be ridiculous to assume that such a matter would be resolved
in a summary proceeding, even if the City Court had granted his
inclusion, it does not bar further actions and his Filipino citizenship
is still open to be questioned.
REQUISITES FOR RES JUDICATA
1.in the first and second action there must be identity
of the parties
2.Identity of the subject matter
3.identity of the causes of action
As neither private respondent (Grafilo, et. al) or intervenor
(COMELEC) is a party in the exclusion proceedings in the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City that were filed by Domino
and his wife to exclude them from the voters list.
Moreover, the MeTC of Quezon CIty exceeded jurisdiction when
they declared Domino as a registered voter of Sarangani.
2.Domino did not reside in Sarangani for 1 year to qualify.
The word residence means domicile; DEFINITION
1.not only an intention to reside in the the fixed place
but, also personal presence thereto
2.coupled with conduct indicative of such personal
presence in that place
RULES OF DOMICILE
1.must have a residence or domicile somewhere
2.when once established it remains until a new one is
acquired
3.a man can have only one residence or domicile at a
time
PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS OF DOMICILE
1.physical presence in the locality involved
2.intention to adopt it as a domicile
3.such must concur (exist at the same time) in order to
establish a new domicile
In the present case, in showing the compliance of residency
requirement, both intent and actual presence in one district one
intends to represent must satisfy the length of time prescribed by
the fundamental law.
An act of registering as voter of a precinct is not conclusive but
gives rise to a strong presumption. Registration in 1998 was
scheduled for two consecutive weeks, however, he did not register.
Moreover, his actions falls short of the 1 year requirement, such as
buying a house on November 4, 1997, cancellation of previous
registration in Oct 22 1997 and application for transfer registration
in Aug 30 1997.
3.it is bereft of merit as under section 78 article IX of the Omnibus
election code has jurisdiction over a petition to deny due course of
cancel certificate of candidacy.