Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS

Case: Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS
Subject Matter: Environment and Natural Resources

Petitioner: Manila Prince Hotel
Respondents: GSIS
Summary:
1. Ubi jus ibi remedium - As long as there is a right, there is a remedy. Art. 12, Sec. 10 (2) is self-executory because there is a right being upheld or granted.
2. Cultural heritage - The Constitutional Commission considered cultural heritage as a part of our national patrimony. 
3. State action - Any act that is considered as a state action is mandated to adhere  to the constitution.
Facts:

Petitioner is a Filipino Corporation that wanted to acquire 51% of shares from the bidding conducted by the respondents in its implementation of privatization of government-owned corporations such as Manila Hotel Corporation. Manila Hotel Corporation is the owner of Manila Hotel – a establishment that has become a part of the Filipino’s historical heritage. In the bidding of shares, petitioner was defeated at first by Rehong Barhad, a foreign corporation because of the higher bid that the latter placed over the shares than the former. However, despite of the fact that petitioner matched the bid that Rehong Barhad has, GSIS upheld its decision to grant the shares to the latter. As a result, petitioner wanted the Court to intervene because of the Filipino first policy enshrined by the constitution on the grant of rights, concessions, and privileges. GSIS responded that Filipino first policy only applies to those that are part of the national economy and patrimony and Manila Hotel Corporation is not a part of it.

Issues:

Is the petitioner entitled to Filipino first policy on national economy and patrimony even if:

1. there is no enabling law;

2. the term national patrimony only refers to lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coals, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and all marine wealth in its territorial sea, and exclusive marine zones and not to landmarks such as Manila Hotel; and

3. 51% of the shares and not land or the building are sold ?

Ruling: 

1. Yes, petitioner is entitled to the preference in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering national economy and patrimony in the absence of enabling legislation. The wording of qualified Filipinos is only a manner of style. This meant that the grant of rights, privileges and concessions is a mandatory and positive command. Unlike other provisions of the constitution which only highlight the legislative basis or principle or Res ipsa loquitor, provisions such as Art. XII, Sec 10(2) are enforceable because in declaration of anything related to rights, if there are no statute enforced to enforce such constitutional right, such right enforces itself pursuant to ubi jus ibi remedium principle.

2. Yes, petitioner is entitled because national patrimony refers also to historical landmarks such as Manila Hotel. According to the Constitutional Commission, patrimony of the nation also refers to cultural heritage. Manila Hotel is a part of Filipino’s cultural heritage because it is a venue of various historically significant events in the Philippine History. It was also called as the Cultural Center of 1930s and was dubbed the official Guest House of the Philippine Government. For more than 8 decades, according to the Court, it was a mute witness to the history of Filipinos as a sovereign nation.

3. Yes, petitioner is entitled because even if respondent is selling shares and not the building or the land where it stands, the petitioner is a qualified Filipino. A qualified Filipino includes not only the individuals but Filipino-controlled entities or entities fully-controlled by Filipinos. Even if a foreigner is more qualified on certain aspects, the Filipino will still be preferred as long as he can make a viable contribution to the common good. In the case, petitioner is a qualified Filipino which means it is to be given preference over its foreign competitor in the bidding. In addition, the transaction between respondent and petitioner is a state action because (1) there is exercise of public function, (2) when the government is involved with the private actor as to make government responsible for his action, and (3) when the government has approved or authorized such action. In the case, it is the public function of GSIS to carry out the bidding for privatization and that it is the one that gives approval to the results of the bid after assessing who is more qualified. Being a state action, the transaction is subject to the constitutional command found in Art. XII, Sec. 10(2).

Law:

Art. XII, Sec. 10(2) of the Philippine Constitution
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.cr