(C1HlA\]P’1rlFlI£ ltlt

coNsTITUTIoNAL PnonsIoNs
RELATIUE TO TOURISM
zszaezisxxzazs
The discussion in this chapter will focus on some provisions of
the 1987 Philippine Constimtion as applied in our field of smdy.
Our Constimtion contains eighteen articles but we will limit the
discussions on two (2) Articles only, the Bill of Rights (Article
III) and the National Economy and Patrimony (Article XII). The
Constimtion of the Philippines was approved by the people on
February 2, 1987.

Definition of the Constitution

The Constitution is the basic and highest law of the land

to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons,
including the highest officials of the land, must defer or comply. No
act shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with
the constitution. The constimtion must ever remain supreme. All
must bow to the mandate of this law.1
The fundamental conception in other words is that it is
the Supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in
accordance with which all private rights must be determin ed and
all public authority administered.2

Supremacy of the Constitution

Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law

(sfnttffie)or contract violates any norm of the constitution, that law
[statttte) or contract, whether promulgated by the legislativ e or by
the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private
purposes, is null and void (not vs/id) and without any force and

Cruz, Isagani, Philippine Political Law, 2002

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

7
 tion is the hindamental, paranouxt,
ehect. Thus, since the Constim
deemed wri£en in every stakte
and su preme law of the nation, it is
and contract.3
of lhe 1987 Phils P'te
For example, Section 2, Article VII
Constitiltion provides,
»«›2re cl«ctzü rrrsiJentiinless he is n natural- OTH citizcz
read Ond write,
of the Fliiliy|›iffCS, n i’¢gistercd »oI¢r, abl* !D
the ûnj of tlicélection, and n resident ofqlhz Philippincz%
itiiiiteüialtly prdcEd!’It$ 5V*h e!* !!’ *-
To qualify as President, a person must satisfy the above quote¢
provision clearly states the following requirements:
• He/She must be namral born citizen of the Philippines;
• A registered voter;
• Able to read and write;
• At least forty years of age on the day of the election;
• A resident of the Philippines for at least ten years
immediately preceding such election.
Assuming that Congress passed a law, say RA 1234 which
provides that,
“No person Shall become President unless he is a lawyer.”
Is the law (RA 12341 constitutional?
No. Clearly, being a lawyer is not one of the qualificaho ns
prescribed by the Constitution; therefore the law passed by the
Congress is unconstitutional [menning it is not in accordance ioith
tht
ConstltHlloft.)

AnTI crE III - BILL OF RI GHTS

Application and Furpose of the Bill of Rights

One of the provisions of the Constimti
on that finds
in the Hos pi talit y and Tou
applicable rism Industry is Article III,
Bill of Ri{Jl*'*’ However, before going to diNerent secÙ ons of le
same, one mu st
understan d the
basic principles of this article.
The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the
individual and the state. Its concer is not the relation between
n
Manila Prince Hotel versuscsis, G.R. NO.
122156, February 3, 1997
individuals, between a private individual and other individuc9 •
What the Bill Of RiglxtS dOes is to declare some forbidden zones ifl
the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder.4
In its simplest term, the Bill of Rights limits the powers of the
government. Hence, it Cannot be invoked if one who violated the
same is a privcote or entity. The provisions of the Bill of
iiadivi3ual
Rights c.on only be rised or invoked the one who violated it is the
if
gorernnleiat.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against
.arbitr.cry .end discriminatory use of political power. This bundle
of rights 6uarantees the preservation of our natural rights which
include personal liberty and security •6•inst invasion by the
goveriNmeiat or any of its branches or instrumentalitiesq5

Illustrative Case:

Yrasuegi vs. Phil. Airlines, G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008

Tacts: Mr. X is nn internntional flight steward of Phi/ippine

2tirJines, Inc. IYAL). He sfands /ve ,/eef and eight inches
(5’8“) with a lnrge body fiatne. Under the Cabin and Crew
Ad›ninisfralion Matlunl of PAL, fsle weight Io be mninfnined
by nIl emplofi88S shelf be 166 poutids. Dxring fbe fi›7ic lie
was hired, Mr. X met the weight requirement. However, nftef
II COllpl8 Of yenrs, Mr. X weighed 205 pounds which is beyotid
fhe 166 poicnds limit. Mr. X was given n chance to fosc
weight, but iiistend of foslng his weight lie gniised more.
Tlierenfter, Mr. X ions lernlinnled ,/or ViOlD)iRg the COHlpHny
rlfJfiS. He fil0d HR illegal diSlNiSSfl) CfIS8 agninst PAL. One of
the nrgilnietits ofMr. X is tlint ltte ro»rpa›ty fHleS LTD
dlSCTimiRntOF p, it iS HOt fair. lii other tvords, Mr. X is
invokitig section 1 of the Bill Of RU IS Of the Constitution.
Ss Mr. X correct in invoking section 1 of the Bill Of Rights
ngainst Yhilippiile Airlines Itic. xliich is a yrivnte etitity?
Ruling: Mr. X is not correct in invoking the bill ojfrighfs.
The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked agains t acts Of
private individuals (like PAL, a private entity). The equal protection
erects no shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or
* People versus Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991
DiOSd tdO Jose AllddO'U’erSUSHOn.RClberto C. Diokno, G. R.No.113630,May 5, 1994
 wrongful.
Priv£lle ho e gge lous, Ca*^*Ot ViOlate
the equal pr tions, no matter
£tC w
otection guarantee.”
Article 3, Section 1. No person shail be deprived of his life,
liberty, or property without due process of
law, ftOZ*y shall any
person be denied the equal protection Of the IaWS.
TlNero care two ri6 •ts th.of arc gticofico I end by the abO
Ve I'OV1SiOn,

namely:
1. The R'6lit to Due Process; and
2. The Right to Equal Protection of the Law.

Two Kinds of Person in Law

1. Natural Person (ExnmpJe: Human Being)

2. Juridical Person/Artificial being (Exnmple: Corporation such
as Lyceum of the Philippines Inc., San Miguel Corporation,
etc.)
Clearly, when section 1 of the Bill of Rights says ”Person” it may
refer either to namral person or juridical person. Thus, to rephrase
the provision, “No nntural persan or juridical person shnll be deprived
of life, liberty, Dr property without due process of lnw nor shnll nny
natural or juridical person be denied the equnl protection of the Inw.“

Concept of Due Process of Law in its Procedural Aspect

Due process of law means a law that hears before it condemns;

which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment orfiy after
trial.6 Due process of law contemplates notice and opportunity to
be heard before judgment is rendered, afiecting one's person or
propertyq7
Cleary, to say that due prrcess is observed —
1. There must be notice; and
2. There must be hearing or the opportunity to be heard before
judgment is rendered.
In the £tbsenCe of any of tlaeforegoing requirements there will be
no due p DCESS. Therefore, if there is no li/e process, the vernment
go
 Mariano Albert versus University P
ublishing Co. Inc. G.R. No. L-19118 January 30
1965
' Lopf2Z vS. Director of Lands, 47
Ph:I. 23,32
cannot take away the life, liberty, or property of any person. On
the contrary, if there is dxe Q£0Cess, then the government may take
away the life, liberty or property of a person.

Exnitiple:

Facts: Mr. X is engaged in the business OpTravel and Tour Services.

Sri tthe year) 2001, the Regional Director OJ Bureau of
Internal Revenue fBJfl) issued a IeGer of authority to the
BSi1 Disfricf officer in order to assess, review, and to
examine the books of OCCOHRIS OJ Mr. X. Without any
preliminary assessment notice or any /innf demand
issued to Mr.X, the BIR immediately Ordered the closure Of
the business ofMr. X.
Issue: Is the BIR correct in immediately ordering the closxre of the
hxsiness of Mr. X?
Ruting: No, the BIR failed to observe the due process of law. The
BJE must first gire nofice fo Mr. X of his violation and
give him the opportunity to be heard bef0re imposing the
order to close fhe business.

Illustrative Cnse:

City of Manila versus Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005

pagJ ; y7,e Ciiy of Manila pdsssd on ordinance prohibiting the

establishment 0Y 0pVrati0n rj°bxSiHeSS W iCh pY0vides
certain forms of nmusement, entertainment, services anh
fncilities in Lrmita-Malate area.
Under the said ordinance, the owners and or operatOTS
0f hotels nnd inns thai were nlread y established in
Lrmita- Maiate area shall be closed down within 3 monfhs
fiom the approval of the said ordinance or frons,/er said
hotels or inns to any place outside of the Ermita-Malate or
convert said husinesses fo other kinds of business such as
antique sh0p, coffee shop, restaurant, or flower shop.
Malate Tourist DereJopmen/ Coiporaii•n qu0StlOR6d the said
ordinance for being violative of-the Due process requirement.
Sssue: Is there a viOlatiDH of Dxe Process?
X/‹ling: Ye7. ’rfzcre is n »iolati0n of Due §f0C8SS. 9 0Tde ID CtO5g or
C96S9 tIlR 0§Rf0tl0ft 0f the business 0r convert Ihe hotels, /••
, coffee sfzop etc. is a form of C0ftfiScation, taking, seizur»,
or destrucli0ii without nn¿ trim or henring. Hence, !’A this
case t!i6I’6 IS t10 due process.

Three Areas Protected by Section 1

1. Life of human beings or natural persons as well as juridical

persons is protected by the Bill of Rights. As a rule the
government cannot take away the life of the person without
due process.
2. Liberty does not mean to do everything that he/she wants to do,
because no one can do exactly as he/she pleases. Otherwise, one
may kill a person. “Liberfy is fieedom to do right and never
wrong; it is ever guided by reason and the upright and hOROYDblC
CORSCI8RC0 of the individunl.*“
Liberty does not only refer to physical freedom, but it may
also include rights of the citizens to use his faculties in all lawful
ways; to live and work where he wills; to earn his livelihood by
any lawful calling; to pursue any vocation.°
3. Property may refer to personal or real, immovable or movable
objects which can be taken or disposed of, like lands, buildings,
cars, jewellery, and the like. SecHon 1 clearly protects these
properties against any unlawful taking by the government.
Thus, a parcel of land owned by Mr. X cannot be taken by the
government without due process.
Employment is considered as a pr
operty. In the case of
Gonzales versus NLRC, G.R. No.
125735 on August 26, 1999,
the Supreme Court that “Employment is not merel¿ ^
enunciated
COHtractual relationship; it has assumed the nature of property right.”
One’s employment, profession, trade or calling is a propert\
right within the protection of the Constimtional guaranty Of
due process of lawl0

Morfe versus Mutuc, G.R. No.

I--J0387, January 31, 1968
Morfe versusMut uc, G.R. No. L-20387, Ja
J0
Callarlta v. CarnatiOn nuary 31, 1968
ilippines, Inc., G.R. NO. L-70sJ 5,
October 28, 1986
Equal Protection Clause

The second sentence of Article 3 section 1 is called Equal

Protection Clause. The equal protection clause simply means
people of the same class shall be treated alike, under like
circumstances and conditions both as to the privileges conferred
and liabilities enforced." It does not mean absolute equality, for
otherwise there would be injustice.

Exa›nyle:
Pefra is the otv›Ier of n restnxrnnf osd is turning 1 million Q6SOS d
year. Pedro on the other hntiñ oxns a restaurant and is earning aISO
the sar›e omor‹sf us fhuf o,/Peira. CONSidgris that both of them have the
same iticome, the tax rateimposed on Petra for the 1 million peSOS
should be the snme tax rate to be imposedon Pedro because both of
them belong tO the sdms class.

Article 3, Section 3

(1} The privacy of communication and correspondence shall

be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court,
or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding.

Essence of Right to Privacy

The very essence of this right is simply the right to be let

alone.*2 Because of this, the government or any of its agencies as a
rule cannot intrude, interfere, or even pry with the private aKairs
of an individual. In fact %ere are many provisions in the
constitution that protect this right such as, article 3 section 2 on
the provision On warrant of arrest and search warrant. Article 3
section 6 on the right to travel and article 3 section 8 on the right
to form union or organization.

Tiu versus CA, G.R. No. 127410 January 20,

1999 ” Ople versus Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23,
1998
 In the Civil Code of the Philippines, article 26, says “Ep„y
@BYS0N Shall respect the dignity, pers0nalily, pri»acyy and EDC8 Of
min§ of iris neighbors and o!lser person.” In the same section,
anyone who is meddling and prying into the privacy of another
may be held liable. In some special penal laws, we have IiA 4200 or
the Anti-Wiretapping Act and recently the Anti-Photo and Video
Voyeurism Act of 2009 (RA 9995).

Expectationof Privacy

It must be noted that an individual cannot simply invoke the

right to privacy. A person must prove that he/she really has privacy
in ie first place. Thus, if one performs an act in public place, or it
was made for the public, there is no privacy to speak of.

The Privacy of Communication

Article 3 Section 3 guarantees the right to privacy of

communication. Any communication given in confidence or
privately to the o%er cannot be intercepted or intruded by the
government or any of its agencies. Speeches delivered in public
places, mass media and the like are not covered by the privacy of
communication simply because the same was made in the public.

The Privacy of Letters

Correspondence or communication made in writing is treated

with confidentiality. As a general rule, leCers cannot be taken
by the
government or any of its agents. In hotels, for example, all pieces
Of infOrmation %at are wri3en in
the registration book may not be
inquired into by police officer becau they are
se strictly confidential.
However, if there is a court
order such as search warrant then it
be taken and 1nqu1red
canOn ie contrary, those “int o by %e police officer.
open le
the newspapers or %ose posted inCers” socialsuc h as tare
media hosenot
pupr
blish ed in
otected
by right to privacy C{ Correspon
dence simply because the same
were made public.
Exceptions to the Right to Privacy

The right to privacy is considered a fundamental right that

must be protected from intrusion or constraint. However, right to
privacy is not absolute. The right to privacy may nevertheless
succumb Qive zray) to an opposing or overriding state interest
deemed legitimate and compelling.'3
Article 3 section 3 provides that “If Ihere is lawfiil order of the
COtlff OF Milieu public snfely or order requires otherwise, Ihen, the ri$ht
Io privncy of comtntlRicalion and correspondence may be impaired or
diminished.”

Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

The second paragraph of Article 3, section 3 is the so-called

“Doctrine of the FYuit Of the Poisonous Tree.” This means, that any
evidence obtained illegally cannot be used as evidence lerefore is
considered to be inadmissible in any proceedings.

RA 4200, AnG-Wiretapping Law

In line with the right to privacy of communication, %e

congress passed liepublic Act 4200 otherwise known as the
Anti-Wiretapping Law. Under this law, it shall be unlawful for
any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by
using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using
a device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictogrnph or wnlkie-
lafkie or tape recorder.
Under the Anti-wiretapping law, private citizens or
government oGcials or employees may be sued for the violation
of this law.
Lxample:
Facts: Mr. X is n s/aJ memher of fbg house-keeping department of
Mabuhay Hotel. On the night of February 14, HennJ, Ihe
gxesl of the holel called Mr. X to clenn his roOiri which the
laner did. Out of curiosity, and in order to acquire knowledge

’3 Gamboa versus Chan, G.R. NO. J 93636, July 24, 2012

15
 Of ihe ytlvOt0 COiTlinunica!ion between
partner xhile inside tire room, Mr. installed a I¢pp
he›ienfJ‹ ffie table near the hed; then, he left ltte room.
Issue: Ss 7Hr. X liuhle of violating RA 4200 or ffie Anti-wiretapp¡g
lnw?
Yes. The lnui is clear, any person, not bein$ authorizedby

who records s›‹C£ communication or spoken word by xsi»g

a device like tape recorder violates the anti-wiretapping
laz. Since Mr. X installed a tape retarder without the
consent of the gussls, Mr. X is liable of violating the Anti-
wiretapping law.

Exceptions to the Anti-Wiretapping Law

The government can wiretap a private conversation without

violating the Constitution and RA 4200 provided that there must
be a prior wriCen order of the court and the felony or crimes are
any of the following only;
a. Treason
b. Espionage
c. Provoking war
d. Disloyalty in case of war
e. Piracy, mutiny in the high seas
f. Rebellion
g. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion
h. Inciting to rebellion
i Sedition
j. Conspiracy to commit sedition,
k. Inciting to sedition,
l. Kidnapping

All other crimes or felony such as rape, murder, violation of the

Dangerous Drugs Act,
homicide and others cannot be wiretapped.
RA 9995 ATlti-Photo and Video
Voyeurism Act of 2009
Under this law, it Shall be
un
or law ful for any person to take photo
or video of a person or group of persons performing sexual act
any similar
activity; o, tO image of
Capture private area
Min
of
a person such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public
area, bu2ocks or female breast without the consent of the person
involved and under circumstances in which the person has a
reasonable expectation of privacy.
Also, to copy or reproduce such photo or video or recording
of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration
shall likewise be prohibited even if the person or persons involved
in the photo or sex video consents to reproduce the same.
Selling of the sex video or the photo is also not allowed. To publish
or broadcast whether in print or broadcast media, or show or
exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act
or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones
and other similar means or device is also a prohibited act even if
the person or persons involved in the photo or sex video consent(s)
to the selling, publishing or broadcasting the same.
Article 3, Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the
same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right
to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security,
public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
The said provision protects two rights, namely:
1. The Liberty of Abode (Home/residence); and
2. The Right to Travel

Liberty of Abode

The constimtion guarantees the right of the person to establish

his own residence or home. In the same manner, any person can
also change his residence or dwelling from one place to another.

Exception to the Liberty of Abode

However, the Right to Abode must be within the limit s

prescribed by law, meaning, if there is a law that disallows any
strucmre in a certain place because of good reason such as public
safety then this right may be impaired.
The Right tO Hill
e

Oy}e
pl£lce to ano ther is also a guaranteed right.
HoweTra velling from
ver,
there are cases wherein this right can be impaired or
restricted by the Bill of Rights, the right
the government. Under
paired 2liay of the following circumstances art
to travel can be im
if
present:
1. nterest of National Security;
I
2. Public Safety; and
3. Public Health.

Facts: MY. X has z s hedzlpd bz5iygSS meptin$ in lsabela, BaSilan

on December 15, 20f4. However, the Yrovincial Government
j tfpQ pp yd|yqygq pyyty g till ClltZOKS IO g0 IhCk0 050ttSP
f fJ;e py- pjy py z§ gt9y l€l glfpC0K lhC I0YY0YI5 I Oif§S
and the Armed Eorzes of the Philippines, eJerfire
December 13, 2014 until after the conflict ceases. Mr. X was
very angnj because he would lose millions o,fpesos if he would
n0t appear in the meeting. He questioned the ordinance for
the violation Of his right to travel.
Issue: Is the ordinance banning the citizens to go to JsabeJa, Basi/an
unconstitutional?
Ruling:
No, if is not unconstitutional. The Right to Trauel is
nOt an absolute right. If the safety of the public is at
risk; then, it ma1 be impaired. In the given cnse, since
there is an on- going armed conflict, which may cause
danger to Mr. X and other citizens. The ordinance is just but
proper and it does not violate the Consfifufiion.
trample 2:
a< S i XXX travel and foxrs was engaged by YYY Universiinj t0
tour their students in Ilocos Norfe on December IS, 2014.
However, the provincial government of the said provincii
issued an ordinance banning all the citizens to go ›here
eJeffive December 15, 2014 because of Ebola ViYus that
already kiSIed 20 persons. Thus, Ihe tour wos suspended.
liuling: No, it is ilot unconstitutionnl. Whi/cthe right IO fftlE0l
cnnilot be iinynired, it admits nt1 excgtion, One of whiCh
is when ptltlic henltli is at risk. Given the cnse that there
iS an existing public henlth issue thal will nfiect the
tourists nnd the citizens, the bnn is proper and does not
vlOl0t0 the
Co›tsfifxtion.

Article 3, Section 8. The right of the people, including those

employed in the public and private sectors, to fomi unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall
not be abridged.
Whether an employee is working in the government service, or
in the private entity, both has the right to form union, association,
or society provided, the purpose or objective of the union,
association, or society formed must not be contrary to law.

Right to Form Union in the Private Sector

The right to form union in the private sector is not only

constitutional but also stamtory. A company cannot prevent its
employees to form a union nor shall terminate an employee simply
because said employee formed a union.

Employees in the Private Sector have the Right to Strike

Aside from the right of the employees in the private sector to
form union, the Constitution” and the Labor Code of the
Philippines grant them the right to stage a strike !tenipornry
stoppnge of ioork through concerted nction of employees as a result of
n lnbor or industrial dispute)provided the strike must be in
accordance with law.

Employees in the Government Service do not Enjoy the

Right to Strike 1^

While employees in the government can form union, society or

association, they do not have the right to strike. The reason is that
once this right is granted to them it will greatly aHect the interest
1
* Article 13, Section 3 of the Constitution
1S
JaCinto versus Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 24540, November J4, 1997
 of some people or member of ;Tl £lnity c^S ' '*'
11r•r• yx•
go vernment s ervices they the com
need. t stag
Th ent of
Tt t1risin Canno e à
lJs, a union in the Departm
strike.

AnTJCLE XII
PATR I MO NY
NATIONAL ECO NOMY AND

Section 10. The Congress shall, U OR

recommendation of
the economic and planning agency, when
the national interest
dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations
or associations at least sixty pdf ceR1}Im Uf whose capital is
owned by such citizens, or such higher eercentage as Congress
may prescxibe, cerlain areas of investments. The Congress shall
enact measures that will encourage the formation and oeeration
oS enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of Zghts, privilèges, and concessions covering the
national economy and 9ä 88mOflÿ, the SUIT Shä 11 give preference
to qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority
inv over foreign
estments within its national Jurisdiction and in accordance
With ÎtS Rational goals and pô orities.

National Patrimony

In its plain and ordinary meani

to When the Constitution nsp
g, the term pê ltrimtjÿ {
eaks of y pertains
heritage.
it refers not only to the
natural t2 p naÑ onal patrimony,
Consût rest 3 r eS
**f the Philippi
ution could have very well fles, as this
term used the
but also to the cultural heritage 1 hir£il resources,
the Filipino 16
s.
of
Ÿll1strati»e Case:
Manila Prince Hotel versu
sG SIS, G. . No. J , J$
22
 Februaiy 3, 1997
Facts: Purzz¢zt ;p
HRdpp ProclamatiOh *I the Philippine
dot d December
1986, !hc
e
° Manila Prince Hotel versuscsis, G.R. Sÿstem (GSIS)
No. 122156. Februdry
3, 199r
 decided t0SBllthrough publicbidding 30% to 51%
oftñeissued and outstanding sñ ores ofManila Hotel
C0@0rotion (MHC). Sn a rlose bidding held on 18
Sgtember 1995, only two 21 bidders participated;
Manila Frfxce t0tel iS0@0Y0tl0ft,D
Tilipin0 C0f Df0lion, and RenongBerhad, a Malaysian
firm, with ITT-Sliernton as ifs hotel OQOFDtOY. Manila Prince
HOt0l Coporation oflered tO bH/ JlOo Of the MHC
OY 15,300,000 shnres at P41.58 per shsre
while RenongBerhad bids the same numher of shares at
P44.00 per share Or P2.42 more than the bid of MaRila
Prince HOt0l. PRIOR to the declaration ofRenongBerliad as the
winning bidder, Manila Yrince Hotel filed a petition before the
Supreme Court Io prohibit the award of the 51% shor8S tO
RenOnQBerhad contending that Manila Hotel is n NolioiinJ
PalrfltloflJ, aRd therefoY8 preference shoxld be given
Issue: to qualified filipinos such as the Manila i'rince Hotel.
Should the 51O›i› shares of MORilO HOtel be nwarded to
Ruling: RenongBerhad, a Malaysian firm?
The Supreme Court held that it should not be awarded
to RenongBerhad. When the Constitution speaks of
national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural
resources of the Yhilippines, but it nlso includes Cultural
Heritage such ns the Manila Hotel.
Under the Constitution, in the grunt of rights, privi/eges,
and concessions covering the RGtIonOI OCOROW) and
pntrimonp, ihe State shall give preference to qualified
Filipinos.
Mantra Hotel being part of nafionnJ patrimony must
Iherefore be controlled preferably by FilipiftoS 0f 0 CDY|
J0fDt10ft OF DSSOCiDIion at least 60% of its capital must be
owned hy filipino citizen. To axard the 51% shares of
Manila Hotel to hlnlnysinn)irm despite ltte existence of a
qualified filipino bidder will oiolale the Constitution.

Reasons given why Manila Hotel is part of National

Patrimony

Manila Hotel has become a landmark - a living testimonial

of Philippine heritage. While it was restrictively an American
hotel when it first opened in 1912, it immediately evolved to be
tmly Filipino. Formerly a concourse for the elite, it has since thep
become the venue of various significant events which have shaped
Philippine history. It was called the Culmral Center of the 1930’s.
lt was the site of the festivities during the inauguration Of the
Philippine Commonwealth. Dubbed as the OGcial Guest House of
the Philippine Government, it plays host to dignitaries and oAcial
visitors who are .occorded the traditional Philippine hospitality.
The history of the hotel has been chronicled in the book “The
Mniiiln Hotel: T/›c Henrt rind Memory Of n City.“ During World
War II the hotel was converted by the Japanese Military
Administration into a military headquarters. When the American
forces returned to recapmre Manila, the hotel was selected by the
Japanese together with lntramuros as the two (2) places for their
final stand. Thereafter, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the hotel became
the center of political activities, playing host to almost every
political convention. In 1970, the hotel reopened after a renovation
and reaped numerous international recognitions, an
acknowledgment of the Filipino talent and ingenuity. In 1986, the
hotel was the site of a failed coup d'état where an aspirant for vice-
president was “proclaimed“ President of the Philippine Republic.
For more than eight (8) decades, Manila Hotel has bore mute
witness to the triumphs and failures, loves and frustrations of
the Filipinos; its existence is impressed with public interest; its
own historicity associated with our struggle for sovereignty,
independence and nationhood.

Foreign Investments in the Philippines

Under the
S
h£tll be encouForei gu Investment Act
ra ged in enterprises of 1991, foreign investment
livelihood and e
that significantly expand
'•P y neRt oppormnities for the Filipino.
However, ther are investments in the Philippines which
fo reig
ners are enot
allowed to engage or invest such as mass medlâ
e
xcept recording, fä Ctice of profession, private security agencies,
maflpJäçç,jr e of
crackers fire
and other pyrotechnic devices, and
COOperatiVes a
In tOuriSmmong b ot
lshhe rs. s such
ment
est
HlaSsage clinics and Other like S S£tLLFl£f and steam bathhouses›
a
b
ut only up to forty ctJ t
percent (4 0%). Vi ie , foreign equity is alloݍed
 , ivame: ,›«=.....•=..
I
! Schedule: Score:

ACTIVITY FOR CHAPTER II

! Instruction:

; A. Write A if the first statement is absolutely correct and the second is

not correct.
B. Write B if the first statement is not correct and the second is
absolutely correct.
C. Write C if both statements (first and second) are absolutely correct.
D. Write D if both statements (first and second) are incorrect.

1. I. Equal Protection means absolute equality between

I
i
persons.
II. The right to travel may be impaired only and for the sole
reason that there is a threat to public health.

The Constitution is the fundamental law of the

ll. land. Statutes are superior laws equal to the
constitution.
3. I.
The government can wiretap a conversation in case of
i rape.
i
If the case is treason, the government may wiretap a
conversation even without court order.
4. I.
Mr. X wants to establish his restaurant business in
Boracay beach. Mr. X has all the rights to build his
II.
restaurant in any place he wants in Boracay.
Mayor X, owner and operator of a restaurant in
Holiday Hotel, does not accept applicants weighing
175 pounds. This counts as a discriminatory act and
a violation of article 3,5ection 1 of the constitution.
s. i.
A hotel employee who was terminated by an employer
without notice and hearing is violative of Due process
under the Bill of Rights.
 ii. ›uariano, a front desk
€Ied a
officer of Baygo Hotel,
3 day s becau s e he would be going
ence fOF
bsfor
of aay
a ave
le
to Borac
break, but the manger denied the
leave
e. By den y¡ng t h e app|jCatioF\ for of absence,
sam
y£ ///anager
violated the right to travel of Mariano
t
hts.
enshrin d in the bill Of *l9
e

6.
I. ment of Tourism cannot form a
Employees in the Depart
union but can allowed to stage a strike.
be
form union and
Employees of Philippine Air Lines
can can stage a strike.

y, ;.
Propertyunder article 3 section 1 includes employment.
The right to liberty under Article 3 Section 1 includes
the right to exercise one's profession in lawful ways.

8. I. The management of a company can terminate an

employee simply because the latter formed a union.
II. All evidence no matter how it was obtained by the
police office is admissible in any proceedings.

9. I. Sending a sex scandal video is a crime.

il. While the security guard was roving around the walls
of Intramuros at night, he saw two persons
performing sexual acts; the guard got his cellular
phone, and took video of the same. The guard
violated the anti-photo and video voyeurism act.

10. I. Private documents may be taken by the government

if there is a search warrant.
11. Manila Hotel is part of our National Patrimony.