Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No.

122156, 03 Feb 1997

Facts:
● Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the privatization
program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation No. 50 dated 8
December 1986 GSIS decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the
issued and outstanding shares of respondent MHC
● 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.
● Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning bidder/strategic
partner and the execution of the necessary contracts, MPH in a letter to
respondent GSIS dated 28 September 1995 matched the bid price of P44.00 per
share tendered by Renong Berhad.
● On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that respondent GSIS has disregarded
the tender of the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be
hastened by respondent GSIS and consummated with Renong Berhad,
petitioner came to this Court on prohibition and mandamus.
● The petitioner invokes its constitutional rights under Section 10(2), Article XII of
the Constitution - “in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions, covering
the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to
qualified Filipinos”

Issue:
W/N Section 10(2), Article XII of the Constitution is self-executing or not.

Ruling:
Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a statement of
principle and policy since it is not a self-executing provision and requires
implementing legislation(s). Thus, for the said provision to operate, there must be
existing laws “to lay down conditions under which business may be done.”
A constitutional provision is self-executing if: n-d-no
- 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.
Tondo Medical Center Employees Association vs Court of Appeals G.R. No. 167324
July 17, 2007

Facts:
● DOH launched the HSRA, a reform agenda developed by the HSRA Technical
Working Group. It provided for five general areas of reform: (1) to provide fiscal
autonomy to government hospitals; (2) secure funding for priority public health
programs; (3) promote the development of local health systems and ensure its
effective performance; (4) strengthen the capacities of health regulatory
agencies; and (5) expand the coverage of the National Health Insurance
Program (NHIP)
● Petitioners questioned the first reform agenda involving the fiscal autonomy of
government hospitals, particularly the collection of socialized user fees and the
corporate restructuring of government hospitals.
● Petitioners alleged that the implementation of the aforementioned reforms had
resulted in making free medicine and free medical services inaccessible to
economically disadvantaged Filipinos. Thus, they alleged that the HSRA is void
for being in violation of the following constitutional provisions: Sec.
1,5,9,10,11,13,15,18, Article II, Constitution of the Philippines

Issue:
● W/N HSRA violated several provisions of Article II of the Constitution

Ruling:
● Court of Appeals ruled that the HSRA cannot be declared void for violating several
provisions in Article II which directly or indirectly pertain to the duty of
the State to protect and promote the people’s right to health and well-being. It
reasoned that the aforementioned provisions of the Constitution are not
self-executing; they are not judicially enforceable constitutional rights and
can only provide guidelines for legislation.