Statutory construction cases
Regional Director or his duly authorized representative
Parties:
MARTIN CENTENO, petitioner,
VS
HON. VICTORIA VILLALON-PORNILLOS, Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, and THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
respondents.
Facts:
> a civic organization known as the Samahang Katandaan
ng Nayon ng Tikay launched a fund drive for renovating
the chapel of Barrio Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan. Petitioner
Centeno, the chairman of the group, solicited from Judge
Adoracion G. Angeles, a resident of Tikay of P1,500.00. It
is admitted that the solicitation was made without a
permit from the DSWD. As a consequence Judge Angeles
filed a complaint against Centeno for violation of PD No.
1564.
>Petitioners’ contention: claiming that Presidential Decree
No. 1564 only covers solicitations made for charitable or
public welfare purposes, but not those made for a religious
purpose such as the construction of a chapel.
On December 29, 1992, the MTC held petitioner Centeno
and guilty for violation of PD No. 1564, or the Solicitation
Permit Law and sentencing them to each pay a fine of
P200.00.
> Centeno appealed to the Regional Trial Court.
Respondent Judge Villalon-Pornillos affirmed the decision
of the lower court but modified the penalty, because of the
perversity of the act committed which caused damage and
prejudice to the complainant, by sentencing petitioner
Centeno to suffer an increased penalty of imprisonment of
6 months and a fine of P1,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
This reached this highest tribunal
Petitioner questions the applicability of PD No. 1564
Petitioner’s contention:
(1) The term "religious purpose" is not expressly included in
the provisions of the statute, hence what the law does not
include, it excludes;
(2) Penal laws are to be construed strictly against the State
and liberally infavor of the accused; and
(3) to subject to State regulation solicitations made for a
religious purpose would constitute an abridgment of the
right to freedom of religion guaranteed under the
Constitution.
PD No. 1564 (which amended Act No. 4075, otherwise
known as the Solicitation Permit Law), provides as follows:
Sec. 2. Any person, corporation, organization, or association
desiring to solicit or receive contributions for charitable or
public welfare purposes shall first secure a permit from the
Regional Offices of the Department of Social Services and
Development as provided in the Integrated Reorganization
Plan. Upon the filing of a written application for a permit in
the form prescribed by the Regional Offices of the
Department of Social Services and Development, the
may, in his discretion, issue a permanent or temporary
permit or disapprove the application. In the interest of the
public, he may in his discretion renew or revoke any permit
issued under Act 4075.
ISSUE:
WON solicitations for religious purposes are within the
ambit of Presidential Decree No. 1564.
Held:
NO, considering that solicitations intended for a religious
purpose are not within the coverage of Presidential
Decree No. 1564.
 An elementary rule of statutory construction that
the express mention of one person, thing, act, or
consequence excludes all others. "expressio unius
est exclusio alterius. Where a statute, by its
terms, is expressly limited to certain matters. The
legislature would not have made specified
enumerations in a statute had the intention been
not to restrict its meaning and to confine its terms
to those expressly mentioned.
1987 Constitution, as well as several other statutes, treat
the words "charitable" and "religious" separately and
specifically spelled out "charitable" and "religious" in an
enumeration, whereas Presidential Decree No. 1564
merely stated "charitable or public welfare purposes,"
only goes to show that the framers of the law in question
never intended to include solicitations for religious
purposes within its coverage.
PD No. 1564 which is a penal law, it cannot be broad in
application since it would be prejudicial to petitioners, it is
a rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly against
the State and liberally in favor of the accused, this is not to
enable a guilty person to escape punishment through a
technicality but to provide a precise definition of forbidden
acts.
Appeal is REVERSED and petitioner Centeno is ACQUITTED
of the offense charged
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS
G.R. NO. 122156. February 3, 1997
Facts:
The controversy arose when respondent Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the
privatization program of the Philippine Government,
decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the
issued and outstanding shares of respondent Manila Hotel
Corporation (MHC). The winning bidder, or the eventual
“strategic partner,” will provide management expertise or
an international marketing/reservation system, and
financial support to strengthen the profitability and
performance of the Manila Hotel.
In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only two (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. Prior to the declaration of Renong Berhard as
the winning bidder, petitioner Manila Prince Hotel
matched the bid price and sent a manager’s check as bid
security, which GSIS refused to accept.
Apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the tender of the
matching bid and that the sale may be consummated with
Renong Berhad, petitioner filed a petition before the Court.
Issues:
Whether or not Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987
Constitution is a self-executing provision.
Rulings:
In the resolution of the case, the Court held that:
It is a self-executing provision.
Since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and
supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every
statute and contract. A provision which lays down a general
principle, such as those found in Art. 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.
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 that they can be
determined by an examination and construction of its
terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject
is referred to the legislature for action. 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.
SEC 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a
mandatory, positive command: In the grant of rights,
privileges, and concessions covering the national economy
and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified
Filipinos. “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. It is per se
judicially enforceable. When our Constitution mandates
that in 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. And when our
Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified
circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such
right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the
subject; consequently, if there is no statute especially
enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such right
enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance,
and from which all legislations must take their bearings.
Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi
remedium.
In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony
pertains to heritage. When the Constitution speaks of
national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural
resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution could have
very well used the term natural resources, but also to the
cultural heritage of the Filipinos.
Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy
and patrimony. For sure, 51% of the equity of the MHC
comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter for it
comprises the majority and controlling stock, so that
anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have actual
control and management of the hotel. In this instance, 51%
of the MHC cannot be disassociated from the hotel and the
land on which the hotel edifice stands.
WHEREFORE, respondents GSIS, MHC, are directed to
CEASE and DESIST from selling 51% of the shares of the
Manila Hotel Corporation to RENONG BERHAD, and to
ACCEPT the matching bid of petitioner MANILA PRINCE
HOTEL CORPORATION to purchase the subject 51% of the
shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation at P44.00 per share