Topic: Non-Self Executing v Self Executing Constitutional Provisions

Case: MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS GSIS

Doctrine: The Filipino First Policy enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, i.e., in the grant of
rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the
State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, is invoked by petitioner in its bid to
acquire 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) which owns the
historic Manila Hotel. Opposing, respondents maintain that the provision is not self-
executing but requires an implementing legislation for its enforcement. Corollarily, they
ask whether the 51% shares form part of the national economy and patrimony covered
by the protective mantle of the Constitution.
FACTS:
Pursuant to the privatization program of the government, the shares of GSIS, owner of
51% of the shares of Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC), was sold by GSIS through public
bidding. Manila Prince Hotel and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, participated in the
bidding, and both of them offered to buy 51% of MHC shares. Renong Berhad offered a
higher bid.

COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER:
Petitioner invokes Article XII, Section 10(2) of the Constitution and submits that Manila
Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical
monument that reflects the vibrance of Philippine heritage and culture.

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
Respondents argued that Article XII, Section 10(2) is merely a statement of principle
and policy since it is not a self-executing provision and requires implementing
legislation. Respondents added that even if the provision is self-executing, the hotel
does not fall under the term "national patrimony."

DECISION OF LOWER COURT:

DECISION OF APPELLATE COURT:

ISSUE/S:
Whether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10, are self-
executing.
RULING:
Section 10, second paragraph, Article 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 in operation. It is per se judicially enforceable. When
our Constitution mandates that in the grant of rights, privileges, and concession
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.
Topic: Stare Decisis
Case: GSIS v BUENVIAJE-CARREON
Doctrine: The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It
requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of its Supreme
Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases
by all courts in the land. The doctrine is based on the principle that once a question of
law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further
argument.

FACTS:

The GSIS Investigation Unit issued a Memorandum dated 31 May 2005 concerning the
alleged unauthorized concerted activity and requiring respondent to explain in writing
why she should not be administratively dealt with.

In the Formal Charge dated 4 June 2005 signed by the GSIS President and General
Manager Winston F. Garcia (Garcia), respondent was directed to submit her written
answer and was placed under preventive suspension for ninety (90) days.

Instead of answering the Formal Charge, respondent, together with eight (8) other
charged employees, chose to respond to the 31 May 2005 Memorandum. Respondent
essentially admitted that her presence outside the office of the Investigation Unit was to
show support for Atty. Velasco, the Union President and to witness the case hearing of
Atty. Velasco and Atty. Molina.

COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER:
The GSIS noted that respondent has not filed any Answer nor submitted any responsive
pleading to the Formal Charge. Respondent was found to have participated in a
concerted mass action prohibited by law and staged on 27 May 2005 at the
Investigation Unit Office to show support for Atty. Molina who had a scheduled hearing
during that time.

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
The respondent asserted that her right to due process was violated when GSIS
proceeded to render judgment on the case after she failed to submit her answer to the
Formal Charge. Moreover, she averred that Garcia acted as the complainant,
prosecutor and judge at the same time in the GSIS resolution. She insisted that no
substantial evidence exist to hold her guilty of Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
DECISION OF LOWER COURT:
N/A
DECISION OF APPELLATE COURT:
On 20 February 2009, the Court of Appeals denied the petition and adopted the ruling of
the Court of Appeals Seventh Division dated 31 August 2007 in the case entitled GSIS
v. Dinna Villariza, which according to the appellate court, has substantially the same
facts and issues raised with the instant case.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals seriously erred in ruling that the GSIS
cannot apply suppletorily the provisions of the rules of court on the effect of failure to
deny the allegations in the complaint and failure to file an answer, where the respondent
in an administrative case did not file an answer to the formal charge or any responsive
pleading.

RULING:
The very case cited by the Court of Appeals to support its findings and conclusions was
elevated to the Court via a petition for review and We decided it last 27 July 2010. That
petition was entitled GSIS v. Villaviza, docketed as G.R. No. 180291.11 The issues
raised by GSIS herein have been settled by our ruling in Villaviza. The respondents
therein, like herein respondent, were all charged under one Formal Charge for Grave
Misconduct and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Villaviza and
the instant case have the same factual antecedents and both went through the same
procedure before reaching this Court. The issues raised in both cases are substantially
the same.12 The rule of stare decisis is applicable.
Topic: Stare Decisis
Case: LAZATIN v OMBUDSMAN
Doctrine: The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It
requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of the
Supreme Court thereof. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in
subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the
principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be
deemed settled and closed to further argument

FACTS:
On July 22, 1998, the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the
Ombudsman filed a Complaint-Affidavit docketed as OMB-0-98-1500, charging herein
petitioners with Illegal Use of Public Funds as defined and penalized under Article 220
of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Section 3, paragraphs (a) and (e) of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended.

COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER:
The complaint alleged that there were irregularities in the use by then Congressman
Carmello F. Lazatin of his Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) for the calendar year
1996, i.e., he was both proponent and implementer of the projects funded from his CDF;
he signed vouchers and supporting papers pertinent to the disbursement as Disbursing
Officer; and he received, as claimant, eighteen (18) checks amounting to
₱4,868,277.08. Thus, petitioner Lazatin, with the help of petitioners Marino A. Morales,
Angelito A. Pelayo and Teodoro L. David, was allegedly able to convert his CDF into
cash.

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
petitioners asseverate that the Ombudsman had no authority to overturn the OSP's
Resolution dismissing the cases against petitioners because, under Section 13, Article
XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman is clothed only with the power to watch,
investigate and recommend the filing of proper cases against erring officials, but it was
not granted the power to prosecute. They point out that under the Constitution, the
power to prosecute belongs to the OSP (formerly the Tanodbayan), which was intended
by the framers to be a separate and distinct entity from the Office of the Ombudsman.
Petitioners conclude that, as provided by the Constitution, the OSP being a separate
and distinct entity, the Ombudsman should have no power and authority over the OSP.
Thus, petitioners maintain that R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), which
made the OSP an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman, should be
struck down for being unconstitutional.

DECISION OF LOWER COURT:

DECISION OF APPELLATE COURT:

ISSUE:
Whether or not the constitutionality of R.A. 6770 should be revisited, and the doctrine of
stare decisis therefore be set aside
RULING:
The constitutionality of R.A. 6670 has already been upheld in Acop v. Office of the
Ombudsman (1995) Camanag v Guerrero, and Office of the Ombudsman v Valera –
based its ratio Decidendi on Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman, declaring OSP as a
mere component of the Office of the Ombudsman Perez v Sandiganbayan - authority of
the Ombudsman to prosecute based on R.A. 6770 was authorized by the Constitution,
and the Congress was within its powers to prescribe the Ombudsman with such
authority

The doctrine of stare decisis cannot be set aside. Stare decisis et non quieta movere.
Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.