MANILA PRINCE HOTEL vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb.

3, 1997
Supremacy of the Constitution Filipino First Policy National Patrimony Qualified Filipinos
Pursuant to the privatization program of the government, GSIS decided to sell 30-51% of the Manila
Hotel Corporation. Two bidders participated, MPH and Malaysian Firm Renong Berhad. MPHs bid
was at P41.58/per share while RBs bid was at P44.00/share. RB was the highest bidder hence it
was logically considered as the winning bidder but is yet to be declared so. Pending declaration,
MPH matches RBs bid and invoked the Filipino First policy enshrined under par. 2, Sec. 10, Art. 12
of the 1987 Constitution**, but GSIS refused to accept. In turn MPH filed a TRO to avoid the
perfection/consummation of the sale to RB.
RB then assailed the TRO issued in favor of MPH arguing among others that:
1.
Par. 2, Sec. 10, Art. 12 of the 1987 Constitution needs an implementing law because it is merely a
statement of principle and policy (not self-executing);
2.
Even if said passage is self-executing, Manila Hotel does not fall under national patrimony.
ISSUE: Whether or not RB should be admitted as the highest bidder and hence be proclaimed as
the legit buyer of shares.
HELD: No. MPH should be awarded the sale pursuant to Art 12 of the 1987 Const. This is in light of
the Filipino First Policy.
Par. 2, Sec. 10, Art. 12 of the 1987 Constitution is self executing. The Constitution is the
fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and
contract.
Manila Hotel falls under national patrimony. Patrimony in its plain and ordinary meaning 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 our intelligence in arts,
sciences and letters. Therefore, we should develop not only our lands, forests, mines and other
natural resources but also the mental ability or faculty of our people. Note that, for more than 8
decades (9 now) 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.
Herein resolved as well is the term Qualified Filipinos which not only pertains to individuals but to
corporations as well and other juridical entities/personalities. The term qualified Filipinos 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. It certainly does NOT mandate the
pampering and preferential treatment to Filipino citizens or organizations that are incompetent or
inefficient, since such an indiscriminate preference would be counter productive and inimical to the
common good.
In the granting of economic rights, privileges, and concessions, when a choice has to be made
between a qualified foreigner and a qualified Filipino, the latter shall be chosen over the former.
**Section 10. The Congress shall, upon 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 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher
percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact

measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly
owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and
patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national
jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities.