Statutory Construction
RATIO/RELEVANT LEGAL
TITLE AND DATE PETITIONER/S RESPONDENT/S FACTS
Manila Prince Manila Prince Respondent Government
Hotel vs. GSIS Hotel Service Insurance System
267 SCRA 408 (GSIS) decided to auction
(1997) 30% to 51% of shares in the
Government Manila Hotel Corporation
Service (MHC). Only two bidders
Insurance participated in the sale, held
System, Manila on September 18, 1995: a)
Hotel petitioner Manila Prince Hotel
Corporation, Corporation, a Filipino
Committee on corporation which offered
Privatization and P41.58 per share for 51%; and
Office of the Renong Berhad, a Malaysian
Government firm that offered to purchase
Corporate the same amount for P44.00
Counsel per share.
Pending Renong Berhad’s
declaration as the winning
bidder, petitioner matched the
former’s bid in a letter to the
GSIS dated October 28, 1995.
In a subsequent letter,
petitioner sent a P33-Mcheck
as bid security, which the
GSIS refused. On October 17,
1995, petitioner filed for
prohibition and mandamus.
On October 18, the Court
issued a TRO on the sale.
Petitioner contends that, under
ISSUE/S HELD
Whether Par. The Supreme Court ruled in the
2 of Section affirmative. It admits that a provision
10, Article XII which lays down the basic principle,
of the 1987 such as those found in Art. II of the
Constitution Constitution, is usually not self-
is not self- executing. However, the Court also
executing held that a provision which is
complete and becomes operative
without aid of an enabling
legislation, or that which supplies
sufficient rule by means of which
the right it grants may be enjoyed or
protected, is self-executing. Thus, a
constitutional provision is self-
executing if the nature or extent of
right conferred, and the liability
imposed are fixed by the
constitution itself. Par. 2, Sec. 10,
Art. XII of the Constitution is
mandatory, positive command,
which is complete and requires not
further implementing laws for its
enforcement. Thus, it may be
invoked by MHC in the present
case.
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
DOCTRINE/S
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.— A provision
which lays down a general
principle, such as those found in
Art. II of the1987 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. Thus
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.
 Statutory Construction

Par. 2 of Sec. 10, Article XII of

Constitution could have very well
the 1987 Constitution, the
used the term natural resources, but
ManilaHotel is
also to the cultural heritage of the
part of the national patrimony.
Filipinos. Manila Hotel has become
Respondents’ arguments can
a landmark—a living testimonial of
be summarized thus: a) said
Philippine heritage. While it was
provision is not self-
restrictively an American hotel when
executing; b) the Manila Hotel
it first opened in 1912, it
does not fall under the
immediately evolved to be truly
national patrimony; c)
Filipino. The Supreme Court
the mandate of the
directed a ceased and desist
Constitution is addressed to
ordered to respondent from selling
the State, not the GSIS; and
the 51% shares of Manila Hotel
d) petitioners’
Corp. to Renong Berhad and accept
prayers for prohibition and
the matching bid of the petitioner.
mandamus should fail.
Francisco Jr. vs. Ernesto B. The House Of An impeachment complaint Whether or The second impeachment complaint A lawyer cannot, without violating
House of Francisco, Jr., Representatives, against Chief Justice Hilario not the against Chief Justice Hilario G. the ethics of his profession.
Representative Nagmamalasaki Represented By Davide and seven Asociate certiorari Davide, Jr. which was filed by Advertise his talents or skill as in a
G.R. No. 160261 t Na Mga Speaker Jose G. Justices was filed on 2 June jurisdiction of Representatives Gilberto C. manner like a merchant advertising
November 10, Manananggol De Venecia, The 2003 but was dismissed by the court may Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. his goods. The prescription against
2003 Ng Mga Senate, The House Committee on be invoked to Fuentebella with the Office of the advertising of legal services or
Manggagawang Represented By Justice on 22 October 2003 determine the Secretary General of the House of solicitation of legal business rests
Pilipino, Inc., Its Senate President for being insufficient in validity of the Representatives on October 23, on the fundamental postulate that
Officers And Franklin M. substance. On 23 October second 2003 is barred under paragraph 5, the practice of law is a profession.
Members, Drilon, 2003, Representative Gilbert impeachment section 3 of Article XI of the
Petitioner-In- Representative Teodoro and Felix Fuentabella complaint Constitution The services offered by respondent
Intervention, Gilberto C. filed a new impeachment pursuant to include various legal problems
World War Ii Teodoro, Jr. And complaint against the Chief Article XI of wherein a client may avail of
Veterans Representative Justice. Thus arose the instant the legalservices from simple
Legionaries Of Felix William B. petitions against the House of Constitution. documentation to complex litigation
The Philippines, Fuentebella, Representatives et al, most of and corporate undertakings. Most
Inc., Petitioner- Respondents. which contend that the filing of of these services areexclusive
In-Intervention Jaime N. the second impeachment functions of lawyers engaged in the
Soriano, complaint is unconstitutional practice oflaw. Only a person duly
Respondent-In- as it violates the provision of admitted as a member of the
 Statutory Construction

Intervention, Section 5, Article XI of the barand who is in good and regular

Senator Aquilino Constitution, “no impeachment standing is entitled to practice law.
Q. Pimentel, proceedings shall be initiated
Respondent-In- against the same official more
Intervention. than once within the period of
one year.” Senator Aquilino
Pimintel Jr, filed a Motion to
Intervene, stating that the
consolidated petitions be
dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction of the Court and
that the sole power, authority
and jurisdiction of the Senate
as the impeachment court be
recognized and upheld
pursuant to the provision of
Article XI of the Constitution.
Aguirre v. Rana,
B.M. No. 1036, 10
June 2003
Santos v. Llamas,
A.C. No. 4749, 20
January 2000
Michael Medado,
B.M. No. 2540, 24
September 2013
Caronan v.
Caronan, A.C. No.
11316, 12 July
2016
Diao, A.C. No.
244., 29 March
1963
Argosino, B.M. No.
712, 19 March
1997
 Statutory Construction

Muneses, B.M.
No. 2112, 24 July
2012
Cunanan, 18
March 1954
Pimentel v. Legal
Education Board,
G.R. No. 230642,
10 September
2019, and 9
November 2021