TITLE : February 3, 1997

G.R. No. 122156

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL petitioner,
Vs.
GSIS, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, respondents

FACTS:
Pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation No. 50
dated December 8, 1986, the GSIS,petitioner, decided to sell 30 up to 51 % of the shares of
Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC).
There are only two bidders participated; 1) Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino
corporation, which offered 51% of MHC shares at P41.58 per share and 2) Renong Berhad, a
Malaysian firm, which bid for the same shares at P44.00 per share more than the bid of petitioner.
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as winning bidder, the petitioner matched the bid price
and sent a check to serve as Bid Security but the respondent refused to accept.
Perhaps apprehensive that respondent disregarded the matching of bid price by the petitioner and
that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be hastened by the respondent GSIS and consummated by
Renong Berhad, the petitioner came to the court on prohibition and mandamus.
The court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from perfecting and
consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm.
The petitioner invoked Sec. 10, second par., Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution also known as The
Filipino First Policy because of its bid to acquire 51% shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation
which owned the historic Manila Hotel.
The respondent GSIS opposed that the provision is not self-executing and that Manila Hotel does
not fall under the term national patrimony.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Sec. 10, second par. Art. XII of the Constitution is not self-executing.
2. Whether or not the 51% share of Manila Hotel falls under the term national patrimony.

RULINGS:
No. Since Sec. 10, second par.,Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is mandatory, positive command
which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for
its enforcement. It is per sejudicially 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 that qualified Filipinos shall be preferred.
Yes. When our Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural
resources but also to the cultural heritage of our country.Manila Hotel has become a landmark-a
living testimonial of Philippine heritage. It has become a mute witness of 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.Verily,
Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony. Likewise, 51 % shares of
MHC comprises the majority and controlling stock which gives the actual control and management
of the hotel whoever acquires it. It cannot also be disassociated from the hotel and the land on
which the hotel stands.
Wherefore, the respondents are directed to cease and and desist from selling 51% of the shares of
MHC to Renong Berhad, and accept the matching bid of petitioner Manila Prince Hotel at 44.00 per
share.