Dee, Manuel Jr.

2021400127

Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

Doctrine:

The case provides and articulates on what constitutes “national patrimony”,

the characteristics of the Constitution, and the implications of State Principles and
Policies.

Facts:

Respondent decided to sell 30% to 51% the issued and outstanding shares of
Manila Prince Hotel through a public bidding. The winning bidder would provide
management expertise among others to strengthen the profitability and
performance of the Manila Hotel. Only two bidders participated the petitioner,
Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation and Renong Berhad, A
Malaysian firm. The latter, gave a higher bid than the petitioner and thus, wins the
bid. However, the petitioner, through a letter, matched the bid of Renong Berhad
but was refused. Hence, petitioner petitions the Court issue prohibition and
mandamus.

Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, Article XII, par. 2 of the Constitution and
submits that the Manila Hotel, to all intents and purposes, has become a part of the
national patrimony as it has been identified with the Filipino nation and has
practically become a historical monument, reflecting the vibrancy of Philippine
heritage and culture. Respondents on the other hand, maintain that Art. XII, Sec. 2
of the Constitution is not a self-executing provision and requires implementing
legislation. Further, should it be on the contrary, Manila Hotel is not part of our
national patrimony as it only refers to lands of the public domain, waters, minerals,
coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna and all marine wealth in its territorial
sea, and exclusive marine zone as cited in the first and second paragraphs of Sec.
2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution. It also adds that the GSIS possesses a personality of
its own separate and distinct from the Philippines as a State.
Issue:

1. Whether or not Art. XII is ineffective in the absence of an implementing

legislation.
2. Whether or not the Manila Hotel is part of our “national patrimony”.
3. Whether or not the GSIS in this act, is possessed with a separate and
distinct personality.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:

1. No. A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and

administration of nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute, and unalterable
except by the authority by which it emanates. A provision which lays down
a general principle is usually not self-executing, but 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.

2. No. 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. The Manila Hotel
bore witness to the experience of the Filipinos for decades and hence, the
existence of the Hotel is in the interest of the public.

3. No. The sale of 51% of the MHC could only be carried out with prior
approval of the State acting through the Committee on Privatization. As
such, the sale of the assets of the GSIS and the MHC are considered “state
action” with its categories being: (1) when the activity it engages in is
a public function; (2) when the government is so significantly involved with
the private actor as to make the government responsible for his action; and
(3) when the government has approved or authorized the action. The sale
falls under the second and third categories and hence, a transaction of the
State which is subject to the Constitution.