Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No.

101083, July 30, 1993)

FACTS:

The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their parents. The first
complaint was filed as a taxpayer's class suit at the Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila), of the
Regional Trial Court, National capital Judicial Region against defendant (respondent) Secretary
of the Department of Environment and Natural Reasources (DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they
are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the
country's virgin tropical forests. They further asseverate that they represent their generation as
well as generations yet unborn and asserted that continued deforestation have caused a distortion
and disturbance of the ecological balance and have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.

Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the respondent, his agents, representatives
and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in
the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving
new TLAs.

Defendant, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint had no
cause of action against him and that it raises a political question.

The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling that granting of the relief prayed
for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the Constitution.

Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari and asked the court
to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent RTC Judge gravely
abused his discretion in dismissing the action.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.

(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue.
(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment of contracts.

RULING:

First Issue: Cause of Action.

Respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal right
violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. The Court did not
agree with this. The complaint focuses on one fundamental legal right -- the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology which is incorporated in Section 16 Article II of the Constitution. The said
right carries with it the duty to refrain from impairing the environment and implies, among many
other things, the judicious management and conservation of the country's forests. Section 4 of
E.O. 192 expressly mandates the DENR to be the primary government agency responsible for the
governing and supervising the exploration, utilization, development and conservation of the
country's natural resources. The policy declaration of E.O. 192 is also substantially re-stated in
Title XIV Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987. Both E.O. 192 and Administrative Code
of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as the bases for policy formation, and have
defined the powers and functions of the DENR. Thus, right of the petitioners (and all those they
represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as DENR's duty to protect and advance
the said right.

A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to
respect or protect or respect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the
granting of the TLA, which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their
right to a balance and healthful ecology. Hence, the full protection thereof requires that no
further TLAs should be renewed or granted.

After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the Court finds it to be adequate enough
to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights.

Second Issue: Political Issue.

Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution provides for the expanded
jurisdiction vested upon the Supreme Court. It allows the Court to rule upon even on the wisdom
of the decision of the Executive and Legislature and to declare their acts as invalid for lack or
excess of jurisdiction because it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause.

The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an instrument by which the state regulates
the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. It is
not a contract within the purview of the due process clause thus, the non-impairment clause
cannot be invoked. It can be validly withdraw whenever dictated by public interest or public
welfare as in this case. The granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it
property or property rights.

Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limit by the

exercise by the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and
general welfare. In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the State.

The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED and the RTC decision is
SET ASIDE.
CASE: Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Secretary
Angelo Reyes in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy, et.al. (G.R. No.
180771 and 181527)
DATE: 21 April 2015
PONENTE: J. Leonardo-De Castro

FACTS

 On 13 June 2002, the Government of the Philippines, acting through the Department of
Energy (DOE) entered into a Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract-102 (GSEC-
102) with Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX).
 The studies included surface geology, sample analysis, and reprocessing of seismic and
magnetic data. Geophysical and satellite surveys as well as oil and gas sampling in Tañon
Strait was conducted.
 On 12 December 2004, DOE and JAPEX converted GSEC-102 to Service Contract No.
46 (SC-46) for the exploration, development, and production of petroleum resources in a
block covering approximately 2,850 sqm. offshore the Tañon Strait.
 From 9-18 May 2005, JAPEX conducted seismic surveys in and around Tañon Strait,
including a multi-channel sub-bottom profiling covering approximately 751 kms. to
determine the area’s underwater composition.
 During the 2nd sub-phase of the project, JAPEX committed to drill one exploration well.
Since the same was to be drilled in the marine waters of Aloguisan and Pinamungajan
where the Tañon Strait was declared a protected seascape in 1988, JAPEX agreed to
comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment requirements under Presidential
Decree No. 1586 (PD 1586), entitled “Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement
System, Including Other Environmental Management Related Measures and For Other
Purposes.”
 On 31 January 2007, the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) of the Tañon Strait
issued Resolution No. 2007-01 where it adopted the Initial Environmental Examination
commissioned by JAPEX, and favourably recommended the approval of the latter’s
application for an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).
 On 6 March 2007, DENR-EMB Region VII granted an ECC to DOE and JAPEX for the
offshore oil and gas exploration project in Tañon Strait.
 From 16 November 2007 to 8 February 2008, JAPEX drilled an exploratory well with a
depth of 3,150 meters near Pinamungajan town.
 On 17 December 2007, two separate original petitions were filed commonly seeking that
the implementation of SC-46 be enjoined for violation of the 1987 Constitution.
 The petitioners in G.R. No. 180771 are the “Resident Marine Mammals” which inhibit
the waters in and around the Tañon Strait, joined by “Stewards” Gloria Estenzo Ramos
and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio as their legal guardians and friends seeking their protection.
Also impleaded as unwilling co-petitioner is former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
In G.R. No. 181527, the petitioners are the Central Visayas Fisherfolk Development
Center (FIDEC), a non-stock, non-profit, non-governmental organization established for
the welfare of the marginal fisherfolk in Region VII and representatives of the
 subsistence fisherfolk of the municipalities of Aloguinsan and Pinamungajan, Cebu.
Their contentions are:
- A study made after the seismic survey showed that there is a drastic reduce in fish
catch by 50-70% attributable to the destruction of the “payao” or the artificial
reef.
- The ECC obtained by the respondents is invalid because there is no public
consultations and discussions prior to its issuance.
- SC-46 is null and void for having violated Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution, considering that there is no general law prescribing the standard or
uniform terms, conditions, and requirements for service contracts involving oil
exploration and extraction
- FIDEC alleges that it was barred from entering and fishing within a 7-kilometer
radius from the point where the oilrig was located, an area grated than the 1.5-
kilometer radius exclusion zone stated in the Initial Environmental Examination
 The respondents in both petitions are: the late Angelo T. Reyes, DOE Secretary; Jose L.
Atienza, DENR Secretary; Leonardo Sibbaluca, DENR-Region VII Director and
Chairman of Tañon Strait PAMB; JAPEX, a Japanese company; and Supply Oilfield
Services, Inc. (SOS) as the alleged Philippine agent of JAPEX. Their counter-allegations
are:
- The “Resident Marine Mammals” and “Stewards” have no legal standing to file
the petition.
- SC-46 is constitutional.
- The ECC was legally issued.
- The case is moot and academic since SC-46 is mutually terminated on 21 June
2008.

ISSUES

1. WON the case is moot and academic

2. WON Petitioners have a legal standing
3. WON SC-46 is unconstitutional

RULING

1. No. The Court makes clear that the “moot and academic” principle is not a magic formula
that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Despite the termination of
SC-46, the Court deems it necessary to resolve the consolidated petitions as it falls within
the exceptions. Both petitioners allege that SC-46 is violative of the Constitution, the
environmental and livelihood issues raised undoubtedly affect the public’s interest, and
the respondents’ contested actions are capable of repetition.

2. Yes. In our jurisdiction, locus standi in environmental cases has been given a more
liberalized approach. The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allow for a
“citizen suit,” and permit any Filipino citizen to file an action before our courts for
violation of our environmental laws on the principle that humans are stewards of nature:
 “Section 5. Citizen suit. – Any Filipino citizen in representation of
others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action
to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon the
filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a
brief description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring
all interested parties to manifest their interest to intervene in the case
within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the
order once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines or
furnish all affected baragngays copies of said order.

Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No. 9003 shall be
governed by their respective provisions. (Emphasis supplied)”

Although the petition was filed in 2007, years before the effectivity of the Rules
of Procedure for Environmental Cases, it has been consistently held that rules of
procedure may be retroactively applied to actions pending and undetermined at the time
of their passage and will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is
adversely affected, inasmuch as there is no vested rights in rules of procedure.

Moreover, even before the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases became
effective, the SC had already taken a permissive position on the issue of locus standi in
environmental cases. In Oposa, the SC allowed the suit to be brought in the name of
generations yet unborn “based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar
as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.”

It is also worth noting that the Stewards in the present case are joined as real
parties in the Petition and not just in representation of the named cetacean species.

3. Yes. Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides in part:

“The President may enter into agreement with foreign-owned

corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and
conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local
scientific and technical resources.

The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into
in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its
execution.” (Emphases supplied)

The disposition, exploration, development, exploitation, and utilization of

indigenous petroleum in the Philippines are governed by Presidential Decree No. 87 (PD
87) or the Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972. Although the Court finds that
PD 87 is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a general law, the absence of the two
other conditions, that the President be a signatory to SC-46, and that the Congress be
notified of such contract, renders it null and void.

SC-46 appears to have been entered into and signed by the DOE through its then
Secretary Vicente S. Perez, Jr. Moreover, public respondents have neither shown nor
alleged that Congress was subsequently notified of the execution of such contract.

Service contracts involving the exploitation, development, and utilization of our

natural resources are of paramount interest to the present and future generations. Hence,
safeguards were out in place to insure that the guidelines set by law are meticulously
observed and likewise eradicate the corruption that may easily penetrate departments and
agencies by ensuring that the President has authorized or approved of the service
contracts herself.

Even under the provisions of PD 87, it is required that the Petroleum Board, now
the DOE, obtain the President’s approval for the execution of any contract under said
statute.

The SC likewise ruled on the legality of SC-46 vis-à-vis other pertinent laws to
serve as a guide for the Government when executing service contracts.

Under Proclamation No. 2146, the Tañon Strait is an environmentally critical

area, having been declared as a protected area in 1998; therefore, any activity outside the
scope of its management plan may only be implemented pursuant to an ECC secured
after undergoing an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) to determine the effects of
such activity on its ecological system.

Public respondents admitted that JAPEX only started to secure an ECC prior to
the 2nd sub-phase of SC-46, which required the drilling of the exploration well. This
means that no environmental impact evaluation was done when the seismic surveys were
conducted. Unless the seismic surveys are part of the management plan of the Tañon
Strait, such surveys were done in violation of Section 12 of NIPAS Act and Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 1586.

While PD 87 may serve as the general law upon which a service contract for
petroleum exploration and extraction may be authorized, the exploitation and utilization
of this energy resource in the present case may be allowed only through a law passed by
Congress, since the Tañon Strait is a NIPAS area. Since there is no such law specifically
allowing oil exploration and/or extraction in the Tañon Strait, no energy resource
exploitation and utilization may be done in said protected seascape.
MMDA V. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF MANILA BAY [2011]

Facts: On January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies, for
the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. The complaint alleged that the
water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law,
specifically Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code. In their
individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect of petitioners in
abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of, among others: (1)
Respondents’ constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced ecology; (2) The Environment
Code (PD 1152); (3) The Pollution Control Law (PD 984); (4) The Water Code (PD 1067); (5) The
Sanitation Code (PD 856); (6) The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825); (7) The Marine
Pollution Law (PD 979); (8) Executive Order No. 192; (9) The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law
(RA. 6969); (10) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations; (11) The Trust Doctrine
and the Principle of Guardianship; and (12) International Law Inter alia, respondents, as
plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit

Issues: a) Whether or not pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only
to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. b) Whether
or not the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by
mandamus.

Held: Regional Trial Court’s Order to Clean Up and Rehabilitate Manila Bay On September 13,
2002, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondents. Finding merit in the complaint, the
Court ordered defendant-government agencies, jointly and solidarily, to clean up and
rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to SB classification to make it fit for swimming,
skin-diving and other forms of contact recreation. To attain this, defendant-agencies, with
defendant DENR as the lead agency, are directed, within six (6) months from receipt hereof, to
act and perform their respective duties by devising a consolidated, coordinated and concerted
scheme of action for the rehabilitation and restoration of the bay. In particular: Defendant
MWSS is directed to install, operate and maintain adequate [sewerage] treatment facilities in
strategic places under its jurisdiction and increase their capacities. Defendant LWUA, to see to
it that the water districts under its wings, provide, construct and operate sewage facilities for
the proper disposal of waste. Defendant DENR, which is the lead agency in cleaning up Manila
Bay, to install, operate and maintain waste facilities to rid the bay of toxic and hazardous
substances. Defendant PPA, to prevent and also to treat the discharge not only of ship-
generated wastes but also of other solid and liquid wastes from docking vessels that contribute
to the pollution of the bay. Defendant MMDA, to establish, operate and maintain an adequate
and appropriate sanitary landfill and/or adequate solid waste and liquid disposal as well as
other alternative garbage disposal system such as re-use or recycling of wastes. Defendant DA,
through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, to revitalize the marine life in Manila
Bay and restock its waters with indigenous fish and other aquatic animals. Defendant DBM, to
provide and set aside an adequate budget solely for the purpose of cleaning up and
rehabilitation of Manila Bay. Defendant DPWH, to remove and demolish structures and other
nuisances that obstruct the free flow of waters to the bay. These nuisances discharge solid and
liquid wastes which eventually end up in Manila Bay. As the construction and engineering arm
of the government, DPWH is ordered to actively participate in removing debris, such as carcass
of sunken vessels, and other non-biodegradable garbage in the bay. Defendant DOH, to closely
supervise and monitor the operations of septic and sludge companies and require them to have
proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic
tanks. Defendant DECS, to inculcate in the minds and hearts of the people through education
the importance of preserving and protecting the environment. Defendant Philippine Coast
Guard and the PNP Maritime Group, to protect at all costs the Manila Bay from all forms of
illegal fishing. The Court of Appeals Sustained the RTC’s Decision The MWSS, Local Water
Utilities Administration (LWUA), and PPA filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) individual
Notices of Appeal. On the other hand, the DENR, Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Philippine Coast Guard (PCG),
Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group, and five other executive departments and
agencies filed directly with this Court a petition for review under Rule 45. In the light of the
ongoing environmental degradation, the Court wishes to emphasize the extreme necessity for
all concerned executive departments and agencies to immediately act and discharge their
respective official duties and obligations. Indeed, time is of the essence; hence, there is a need
to set timetables for the performance and completion of the tasks, some of them as defined for
them by law and the nature of their respective offices and mandates.. It is not yet too late in
the day to restore the Manila Bay to its former splendor and bring back the plants and sea life
that once thrived in its blue waters. But the tasks ahead, daunting as they may be, could only be
accomplished if those mandated, with the help and cooperation of all civic-minded individuals,
would put their minds to these tasks and take responsibility. This means that the State, through
petitioners, has to take the lead in the preservation and protection of the Manila Bay. So it was
that in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. the Court stated that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of
transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. Even assuming the absence of a
categorical legal provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the
men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of
Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible. Anything
less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them. By a Decision of September 28, 2005, the
CA denied petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto, stressing that the
trial court’s decision did not require petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions
under existing law

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS GSIS

Facts:

The controversy arose when respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),
pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government, decided to sell through
public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent Manila Hotel
Corporation (MHC). The winning bidder, or the eventual “strategic partner,” will provide
management expertise or an international marketing/reservation system, and financial support
to strengthen the profitability and performance of the Manila Hotel.

In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 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. Prior to the declaration of Renong Berhard as the
winning bidder, petitioner Manila Prince Hotel matched the bid price and sent a manager’s
check as bid security, which GSIS refused to accept.

Apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that the sale may
be consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner filed a petition before the Court.

Issues:
Whether or not Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision.
Whether or not the Manila Hotel forms part of the national patrimony.
Whether or not the submission of matching bid is premature
Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents in refusing the
matching bid of the petitioner.

Rulings:

In the resolution of the case, the Court held that:

It is a self-executing provision.
Since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is
deemed written in every statute and contract. A provision which lays down a general principle,
such as those found in Art. II of the 1987 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.

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. Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is
necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of
the constitution are self-executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring
legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and
practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law.

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. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in
operation. It is per se judicially enforceable. When our Constitution mandates that in the grant
of rights, privileges, and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the State shall
give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that – qualified Filipinos shall be preferred.
And when our Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified circumstances an
action may be maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation
on the subject; consequently, if there is no statute especially enacted to enforce such
constitutional right, such right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance, and
from which all legislations must take their bearings. Where there is a right there is a remedy.
Ubi jus ibi remedium.

The Court agree.

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 Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources, but also
to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.

It also refers to Filipino’s intelligence in arts, sciences and letters. In the present case, 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, a concourse for the elite, it has
since then become the venue of various significant events which have shaped Philippine
history.

Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony. For sure, 51% of
the equity of the MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises
the majority and controlling stock, so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have
actual control and management of the hotel. In this instance, 51% of the MHC cannot be
disassociated from the hotel and the land on which the hotel edifice stands.

It is not premature.

In the instant case, where a foreign firm submits the highest bid in a public bidding concerning
the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony,
thereby exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there is no question that the Filipino will have to be
allowed to match the bid of the foreign entity. And if the Filipino matches the bid of a foreign
firm the award should go to the Filipino. It must be so if the Court is to give life and meaning to
the Filipino First Policy provision of the 1987 Constitution. For, while this may neither be
expressly stated nor contemplated in the bidding rules, the constitutional fiat is omnipresent to
be simply disregarded. To ignore it would be to sanction a perilous skirting of the basic law.

The Court does not discount the apprehension that this policy may discourage foreign
investors. But the Constitution and laws of the Philippines are understood to be always open to
public scrutiny. These are given factors which investors must consider when venturing into
business in a foreign jurisdiction. Any person therefore desiring to do business in the Philippines
or with any of its agencies or instrumentalities is presumed to know his rights and obligations
under the Constitution and the laws of the forum.

There was grave abuse of discretion.

To insist on selling the Manila Hotel to foreigners when there is a Filipino group willing to match
the bid of the foreign group is to insist that government be treated as any other ordinary
market player, and bound by its mistakes or gross errors of judgement, regardless of the
consequences to the Filipino people. The miscomprehension of the Constitution is regrettable.
Thus, the Court would rather remedy the indiscretion while there is still an opportunity to do so
than let the government develop the habit of forgetting that the Constitution lays down the
basic conditions and parameters for its actions.

Since petitioner has already matched the bid price tendered by Renong Berhad pursuant to the
bidding rules, respondent GSIS is left with no alternative but to award to petitioner the block of
shares of MHC and to execute the necessary agreements and documents to effect the sale in
accordance not only with the bidding guidelines and procedures but with the Constitution as
well. The refusal of respondent GSIS to execute the corresponding documents with petitioner
as provided in the bidding rules after the latter has matched the bid of the Malaysian firm
clearly constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

Hence, respondents GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL

CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT
CORPORATE COUNSEL are directed to CEASE and DESIST from selling 51% of the shares of the
Manila Hotel Corporation to RENONG BERHAD, and to ACCEPT the matching bid of petitioner
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL CORPORATION to purchase the subject 51% of the shares of the Manila
Hotel Corporation at P44.00 per share and thereafter to execute the necessary agreements and
documents to effect the sale, to issue the necessary clearances and to do such other acts and
deeds as may be necessary for the purpose.