G.R. No.

122156 February 3, 1997

Manila Prince Hotel (Petitioner) Vs. GSIS (Respondent)
Facts of the Case:
- The event happened when GSIS decided to put manila hotel’s 30% to 51% shares
to public auction. Two bidders remained, which were both Manila Prince Hotel
and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm. Initially, Renong Berhad won the bidding
as the highest, but was later on matched by manila prince with their offer of 44
Pesos per share. GSIS disregarded Manila hotel’s counter offer and decided to sell
the 51% of shares to Renong Berhad. That’s when Manila Hotel decided to come
to court on prohibition or mandamus. The petitioners argued that Manila hotel is
a symbol of the Philippines and is a historical landmark, meaning they reside as a
national territory. Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution. - The
FiIipino First Policy enshrined in the 1987 Constitution was the main defense
here by the petitioners. The respondents replied that sec. 10 is not a
self-executing law meaning that because there is no directly written law about it,
it cannot be enforced upon them.
Issues:
- Whether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10,
are self-executing.
- Whether the disposition of 51% of Manila Hotel falls under the application of Sec.
10, par. 2, Art. XII.
Decisions (Holdings)
- GSIS must CEASE and DESIST their transaction with Renong Berhad and to
allow Manila prince to purchase their same offer as Renong that is 44php per
stock.
Reasoning (Rationale)
- The courts agreed that sec. 10 is indeed a self-executing proclamation although it
is not written because it is also written in the constitution that when in doubt, the
constitution is always self-executing.
- The courts also argued that Manila Hotel is indeed a national treasure in terms of
history, and the Filipino First policy so does apply.