GR No.

122156
Manila Prince Hotel, petitioner, vs. Government Service Insurance System, Manila Hotel Corporation, Committee
on Privatization and Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, respondents.
Ponente

Bellosillo, J.
Facts

Respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) decided to sell 30%-51% of the issued and
outstanding shares of respondent Manila Hotel Corporation in a public bidding. This was pursuant to the
privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation No. 50 dated 8 December 1986. The
bidding took place on September 18, 1995 between 2 bidders: petitioner Manila Prince Corporation (MPC), a
Filipino corporation and Renong Berhard, a Malaysian firm with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator. Both firms
offered to buy 51% or 15,300,000 shares but MPC bid P41.58 per share while Renong Berhard bid P44.00 per share,
or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner. Prior to the declaration of the winning bidder, the highest bidder must have
executed the necessary contracts with GSIS and MHC by October 23, 1995 (reset to November 3, 1995) or lose the
right to the Block Shares to other Qualified Bidders. On September 28, 1995, prior to the declaration of Renong
Barhard as the Winning Bidder, petitioner matched the bid price of P44.00. On October 10, 1995, MPC sent a
managers check issued by Philtrust Bank for Thirty-three Million Pesos (P33,000,000.00) as Bid Security to match
the bid of the Malaysian Group, Messrs. Renong Berhad. Still not formally accepted by GSIS, petitioner filed for
prohibition and mandamus on October 17, 1995, invoking the Filipino First policy enshrined under par. 2, Sec. 10,
Art. 12 of the 1987 Constitution. The following day, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining
respondents from perfecting and consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm.

Doctrine

The winning bid is rightfully awarded to the Manila Prince Hotel because the Constitution, the most fundamental
and paramount law of the nation, has established its right to be given preference as a qualified Filipino.
Issue

i. Whether the Filipino First Policy needs an implementing agency to be enforced
ii. Whether the Filipino First Policy applies to the sale of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation
Held

i. No. The Filipino First policy, otherwise known as Sec. 10, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution does not need an
implementing agency because the Constitution, as the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation,
is deemed written in every statute and contract. Further, the language used in the provisions of the FFP does not
indicate that the subject must be referred to legislature for action. Unless it is expressly provided that a
legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption is that all provisions of the
constitution are self-executing. Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive
command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for
its enforcement.

ii. Yes. Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, 1987 Constitution states, In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions
covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. National
Patrimony under the Filipino First Policy does not only pertain to natural resources but also to cultural heritage.
The Manila Hotel falls under national patrimony because it is by and large a part of the Filipinos cultural
heritage. It has been the site of numerous monumental events in Filipino history and continues to be to the
present day. Shares of MHC are also unquestionably a part of the national economy because it would entail
ownership of the business of the hotel, which is owned by GSIS, a government owned and controlled
corporation. Lastly, MPC can be identified as a qualified Filipino because a qualified Filipino is defined as
citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned
by such citizens. It simply means that preference shall be given to those citizens who can make a viable
contribution to the common good, because of credible competence and efficiency.