Ruling Manila Prince Hotel Vs Gsis

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

RULING

(MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS GSIS)


Yes. Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 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 [i]n 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.
In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage. 35 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.
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 truly Filipino, Formerly a concourse for the elite, it has since then become
the venue of various significant events which have shaped Philippine history. It was
called the Cultural Center of the 1930's. It was the site of the festivities during the
inauguration of the Philippine Commonwealth. Dubbed as the Official Guest House of
the Philippine Government. it plays host to dignitaries and official visitors who are
accorded the traditional Philippine hospitality. 36
Lastly, the word qualified is also determinable. Petitioner was so considered by
respondent GSIS and selected as one of the qualified bidders. It was pre-qualified by
respondent GSIS in accordance with its own guidelines so that the sole inference here
is that petitioner has been found to be possessed of proven management expertise in
the hotel industry, or it has significant equity ownership in another hotel company, or it
has an overall management and marketing proficiency to successfully operate the
Manila Hotel. 44

It should be stressed that while the Malaysian firm offered the higher bid it is not yet the
winning bidder. The bidding rules expressly provide that the highest bidder shall only be
declared the winning bidder after it has negotiated and executed the necessary
contracts, and secured the requisite approvals. Since the "Filipino First Policy provision
of the Constitution bestows preference on qualified Filipinos the mere tending of the
highest bid is not an assurance that the highest bidder will be declared the winning
bidder. Resultantly, respondents are not bound to make the award yet, nor are they
under obligation to enter into one with the highest bidder. For in choosing the awardee
respondents are mandated to abide by the dictates of the 1987 Constitution the
provisions of which are presumed to be known to all the bidders and other interested
parties.
Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the subject constitutional provision
is, as it should be, impliedly written in the bidding rules issued by respondent GSIS, lest
the bidding rules be nullified for being violative of the Constitution. It is a basic principle
in constitutional law that all laws and contracts must conform with the fundamental law
of the land. Those which violate the Constitution lose their reason for being.
. It must be so if we are 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 Filipino First Policy is a product of Philippine nationalism. It is embodied in the 1987
Constitution not merely to be used as a guideline for future legislation but primarily to be
enforced; so must it be enforced. This Court as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution
will never shun, under any reasonable circumstance, the duty of upholding the majesty
of the Constitution which it is tasked to defend. It is worth emphasizing that it is not the
intention of this Court to impede and diminish, much less undermine, the influx of
foreign investments. Far from it, the Court encourages and welcomes more business
opportunities but avowedly sanctions the preference for Filipinos whenever such
preference is ordained by the Constitution.
Privatization of a business asset for purposes of enhancing its business viability and
preventing further losses, regardless of the character of the asset, should not take
precedence over non-material values. A commercial, nay even a budgetary, objective
should not be pursued at the expense of national pride and dignity. For the Constitution
enshrines higher and nobler non-material values. Indeed, the Court will always defer to
the Constitution in the proper governance of a free society; after all, there is nothing so
sacrosanct in any economic policy as to draw itself beyond judicial review when the
Constitution is involved. 49

You might also like