Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS (DIGEST)

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, petitioner v GSIS, respondent (DIGEST)

G.R. No. 122156; February 3, 1997

TOPIC: Non-Self Executing v Self Executing Constitutional Provisions

FACTS:

The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) decided to sell through public bidding 30%
to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel (MHC).

In a close bidding, two bidders participated: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC), a
Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC 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.

Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning bidder and the execution of the
contracts, the MPHC matched the bid price in a letter to GSIS. MPHC sent a manager’s check to
the GSIS in a subsequent letter, which GSIS refused to accept. On 17 October 1995, perhaps
apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid, MPHC came to the Court
on prohibition and mandamus.

Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the
Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical
monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture.

Respondents assert that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a
statement of principle and policy since it is not a self-executing provision and requires
implementing legislation(s).

ISSUE:

Whether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10, are self-
executing.

RULING:

Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision.
A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Article 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.

Hence, 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.

In fine, Section 10, second paragraph, 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.

Advertisements
Report this ad

Related

AJAX MARKETING, TAN, TAN, YEE AND SPS. SEE V. CA, MBC, SHERIFF OF MANILA
(DIGEST)In "Digests"

SILVERIO V REPUBLIC (DIGEST)In "Digests"

LUZON LUMBER AND HARDWARE COMPANY, INC., VS. MANUEL QUIAMBAO,

VIRGINIA SANTIAGO, AND REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION (DIGEST)In
"Digests"

November 18, 2017 thelowlylawstudentDigests1987 constitution, case digest, case digests,

consti 1, consti 2, consti digest, constitutional law, digest, manila prince hotel, manila prince
hotel vs gsis, manila prince hotel vs gsis digest, political law, selfexecuting, statcon,
statcondigest

Post navigation
Previous Post That Awkward Bit Where I Tell You About Myself
Next Post Lopez v COMELEC (DIGEST)