Official Gazette of The Republic of The Philippines

 GOVPH
 Philippine Standard Time:

Wednesday, September 2, 2020 6:41:26 AM
source: PAGASA


OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC

OF THE PHILIPPINES
ED AT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
UNDER COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 638
 HOME
 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTIONS
 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
The Constitution of the Republic of the

Philippines
PREAMBLE
ARTICLE I National Territory
ARTICLE II Declaration of Principles and State Policies
ARTICLE III Bill of Rights
ARTICLE IV Citizenship
ARTICLE V Suffrage
ARTICLE VI Legislative Department
ARTICLE VII Executive Department
ARTICLE VIII Judicial Department
ARTICLE IX Constitutional Commissions
ARTICLE X Local Government

ARTICLE XI Accountability of Public Officers
ARTICLE XII National Economy and Patrimony
ARTICLE XIII Social Justice and Human Rights
ARTICLE XIV Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports
ARTICLE XV The Family
ARTICLE XVI General Provisions
ARTICLE XVII Amendments or Revisions
ARTICLE XVIII Transitory Provisions
Principles
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just
and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations,
promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our
posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of
truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
ARTICLE I
National Territory
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea,
the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
ARTICLE II
Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Principles
SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them.
SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the
policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
SECTION 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of
the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of
the State and the integrity of the national territory.
SECTION 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The
Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all
citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil
service.
SECTION 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property,
and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the
blessings of democracy.
SECTION 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
State Policies
SECTION 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other
states the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national
interest, and the right to self-determination.
SECTION 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy
of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
SECTION 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the
prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that
provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an
improved quality of life for all.
SECTION 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
SECTION 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for
human rights.
SECTION 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen
the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother
and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in
the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive
the support of the Government.
SECTION 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall
promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall
inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and
civic affairs.
SECTION 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
SECTION 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them.
SECTION 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
SECTION 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture,
and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total
human liberation and development.
SECTION 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the
rights of workers and promote their welfare.
SECTION 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy
effectively controlled by Filipinos.
SECTION 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages
private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.
SECTION 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.
SECTION 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities
within the framework of national unity and development.
SECTION 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral

organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.
SECTION 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-
building.
SECTION 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.
SECTION 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and
prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
SECTION 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take
positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.
SECTION 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and
implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
ARTICLE III
Bill of Rights
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
SECTION 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by
law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.
SECTION 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.
SECTION 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required
for the exercise of civil or political rights.
SECTION 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.
SECTION 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
SECTION 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors,
to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
SECTION 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
SECTION 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
SECTION 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance
shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
SECTION 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will
shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
SECTION 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
required.
SECTION 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process
of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and
the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his
failure to appear is unjustifiable.
SECTION 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases
of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
SECTION 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
SECTION 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
SECTION 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted.
SECTION 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall
be dealt with by law.
SECTION 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
SECTION 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an
act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a
bar to another prosecution for the same act.
SECTION 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
ARTICLE IV
Citizenship
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
SECTION 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who
elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed
natural-born citizens.
SECTION 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
SECTION 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by
their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
SECTION 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with
by law.
ARTICLE V
Suffrage
SECTION 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the
Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six
months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
SECTION 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the
ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without the
assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such
rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.
ARTICLE VI
The Legislative Department
SECTION 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall
consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by
the provision on initiative and referendum.
SECTION 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large
by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.
SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines,

and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a
registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately
preceding the day of the election.
SECTION 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.
No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office
for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service
for the full term for which he was elected.
SECTION 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred
and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with
the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio,
and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of
representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall
be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by
law, except the religious sector.
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and
adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each
province, shall have at least one representative.
(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.
SECTION 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a

natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years
of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the
district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year
immediately preceding the day of the election.
SECTION 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three
years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June
next following their election.
No member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.
SECTION 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators and the
Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May.
SECTION 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special

election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or
Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term.
SECTION 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be
determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of
the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such
increase.
SECTION 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the
Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for
any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
SECTION 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon
assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall
notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a
proposed legislation of which they are authors.
SECTION 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office
or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term
without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been
created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected.
SECTION 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as
counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other
administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any
contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled
corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter
before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to
act on account of his office.
SECTION 15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its
regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for
such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular
session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a special
session at any time.
SECTION 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives its
Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members.
Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may
adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and
under such penalties, as such House may provide.
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a
Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same,
excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on
any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal.
Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.
(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other,
adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall
be sitting.
SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine
Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief
Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives,
as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented
therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
SECTION 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the
Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of
Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented
therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The
Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the
Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the
Members.
SECTION 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be
constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall have been
organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments
shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its
Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it.
SECTION 20. The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be open
to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on
Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for
each Member.
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees
may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
SECTION 22. The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the
President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear
before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written
questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be
limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State
or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be
conducted in executive session.
SECTION 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session
assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the
President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise
powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by
resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
SECTION 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public
debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
SECTION 25. (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the
President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and
manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it
relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment
shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates.
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the
procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies.
(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be
supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a
corresponding revenue proposed therein.
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in
other items of their respective appropriations.
(6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public
purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be
prescribed by law.
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the general
appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the preceding
fiscal year shall be deemed reenacted and shall remain in force and effect until the general
appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.
SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall
be expressed in the title thereof.
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on
separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members
three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its
immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no
amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter,
and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented
to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return
the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at
large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all
the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the
objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by
two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of
each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or
against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the
House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall
become a law as if he had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation,
revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.
SECTION 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve
a progressive system of taxation.
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject
to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas,
tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national
development program of the Government.
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques,
non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and
exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of
all the Members of the Congress.
SECTION 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law.
(2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution,
or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary
as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces,
or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund
and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been
fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the
Government.
SECTION 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
SECTION 31. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.
SECTION 32. The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and
referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and enact
laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local
legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor signed by at least ten per centum of
the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at
least three per centum of the registered voters thereof.
ARTICLE VII
Executive Department
SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.
SECTION 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the

Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the
election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such
election.
SECTION 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of
office and be elected with and in the same manner as the President. He may be removed from
office in the same manner as the President.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no
confirmation.
SECTION 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people
for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the
day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six years thereafter. The President shall
not be eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as
such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of
the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the
service for the full term for which he was elected.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be
held on the second Monday of May.
The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of
canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the
President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate
shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all certificates in the presence
of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon
determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law,
canvass the votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or
more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by
the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice- President, and may promulgate its rules for
the purpose.
SECTION 5. Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, the Vice-President,
or the Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as
President (or Vice-President or Acting President) of the Philippines, preserve and defend its
Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of
the Nation. So help me God.” (In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.)
SECTION 6. The President shall have an official residence. The salaries of the President and
Vice-President shall be determined by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure. No
increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the
incumbent during which such increase was approved. They shall not receive during their tenure
any other emolument from the Government or any other source.
SECTION 7. The President-elect and the Vice-President-elect shall assume office at the
beginning of their terms.
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until the
President-elect shall have qualified.
If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until a
President shall have been chosen and qualified.
If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have
become permanently disabled, the Vice-President-elect shall become President.
Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or where
both shall have died or become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or, in case of
his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as President until a President
or a Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall
be selected until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent
disability, or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.
SECTION 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the
President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of
death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-
President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been
elected and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death, permanent
disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-
President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers
and disqualifications as the Acting President.
SECTION 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term for
which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the Members of
the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a
majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
SECTION 10. The Congress shall, at ten o’clock in the morning of the third day after the
vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance with its
rules without need of a call and within seven days enact a law calling for a special election to
elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than
sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed
certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article VI of this Constitution and shall become law
upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall
be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of
paragraph 4, Section 25, Article VI of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot
be suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the
vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election.
SECTION 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate
and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately
assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the
powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet
transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, the Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall
convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in accordance with its rules and without
need of call.
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session,
within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both
Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice-President shall act as the President; otherwise, the President shall continue
exercising the powers and duties of his office.
SECTION 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the state
of his health. The Members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations
and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied access to the
President during such illness.
SECTION 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or
assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly,
practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any
contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of
their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the
President shall not during his tenure be appointed as members of the Constitutional
Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or
heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries.
SECTION 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless
revoked by the elected President within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of
office.
SECTION 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end
of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary
appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public
service or endanger public safety.
SECTION 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain,
and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also
appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for
by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law,
vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the
heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress,
whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until after
disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.
SECTION 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and
offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
SECTION 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public
safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-
eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The
Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special
session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by
the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend
such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or
rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or
suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without any need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function,
nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with the invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be
judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
SECTION 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the
President may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after
conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the
Members of the Congress.
SECTION 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic
of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the
end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its
decisions on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the Government or
government-owned and controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the
foreign debt, and containing other matters as may be provided by law.
SECTION 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred
in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
SECTION 22. The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from the opening of
every regular session, as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and
sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures.
SECTION 23. The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. He
may also appear before it at any other time.
ARTICLE VIII
Judicial Department
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts
as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government.
SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the
jurisdiction of various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over
cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its
Members.
SECTION 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may
not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after
approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.
SECTION 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen
Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven
Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or
law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the
Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances,
and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When
the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine
or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be
modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is
in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require.
Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge
concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of
the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure
of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service
Law.
SECTION 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof.
SECTION 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower
collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme
Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or more a judge of
a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person may
be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the
Philippine Bar.
(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence.
SECTION 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the
Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice,
and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated
Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the
private sector.
(2) The regular Members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four
years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the
representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three
years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for one year.
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall
keep a record of its proceedings.
(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for
the Council.
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It
may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.
SECTION 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed
by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council
for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the
submission of the list.
SECTION 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office,
their salary shall not be decreased.
SECTION 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office
during good behavior until they reached the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to
discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
SECTION 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall
not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
SECTION 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en
banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for
the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice
shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties.
Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must
state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.
SECTION 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused
due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.
SECTION 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be
decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court,
and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and
three months for all other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the
last pending, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by the
Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the
record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a
decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to
such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the
case or matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.
SECTION 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the opening of each regular
session of the Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on the
operations and activities of the Judiciary.
ARTICLE IX
Constitutional Commissions
A. Common Provisions
SECTION 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service
Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
SECTION 2. No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any
other office or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the
active management or control of any business which in any way be affected by the functions of
his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in
any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
SECTION 3. The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall
not be decreased during their tenure.
SECTION 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their officials and employees in
accordance with law.
SECTION 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual
appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.
SECTION 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and
practice before it or before any of its offices. Such rules however shall not diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights.
SECTION 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or
matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or
resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the
last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the
Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision,
order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
SECTION 8. Each Commission shall perform such other functions as may be provided by law.
B. The Civil Service Commission
SECTION 1. (1) The Civil Service shall be administered by the Civil Service Commission
composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the
Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, with proven
capacity for public administration, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in
the elections immediately preceding their appointment.
(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first
appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five years, and
another Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall
be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
SECTION 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and
agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charters.
(2) Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-determining,
primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination.
(3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause
provided by law.
(4) No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any
electioneering or partisan political campaign.
(5) The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.
(6) Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection as may be provided
by law.
SECTION 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government,
shall establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity,
responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merit
and rewards system, integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and
ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability. It shall
submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.
SECTION 4. All public officers and employees shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and
defend this Constitution.
SECTION 5. The Congress shall provide for the standardization of compensation of government
officials and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charters, taking into account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the
qualifications required for their positions.
SECTION 6. No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year after such election,
be appointed to any office in the Government or any government-owned or controlled
corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.
SECTION 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity
to any public office or position during his tenure.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive
official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency
or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries.
SECTION 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional,

double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the
consent of the Congress, any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign
government.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation.
C. The Commission on Elections
SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been
candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority
thereof, including the Chairman, shall be Members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged
in the practice of law for at least ten years.
appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and the
last Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only
for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
(1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction
over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general
jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective
municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.
(3) Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including
determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and
inspectors, and registration of voters.
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and
instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the
exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in
addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and
accredit citizens’ arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall
not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means,
or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign
government shall likewise be refused registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political parties,
organizations, coalitions, or candidates related to elections constitute interference in national
affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration
with the Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by law.
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or
exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election
laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
(7) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including
limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all
forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.
(8) Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or the
imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its
directive, order, or decision.
(9) Submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive report on the conduct of each
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.
SECTION 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall
promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-
proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division,
provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en
banc.
SECTION 4. The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate the
enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other
public utilities, media of communication or information, all grants, special privileges, or
concessions granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or
regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply,
including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among
candidates in connection with the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and
credible elections.
SECTION 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election

laws, rules, and regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable
recommendation of the Commission.
SECTION 6. A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free
choice of the people, subject to the provisions of this Article.
SECTION 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid,
except for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.
SECTION 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list

system, shall not be represented in the voters’ registration boards, boards of election inspectors,
boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll
watchers in accordance with law.
SECTION 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases, the election period
shall commence ninety days before the day of the election and shall end thirty days after.
SECTION 10. Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of
harassment and discrimination.
SECTION 11. Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the expenses for
holding regular and special elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be
provided in the regular or special appropriations and, once approved, shall be released
automatically upon certification by the Chairman of the Commission.
D. Commission on Audit
SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Audit composed of a Chairman and two
Commissioners, who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, certified public accountants with not less than ten
years of auditing experience, or members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years, and must not have been candidates for any elective position
in the elections immediately preceding their appointment. At no time shall all Members of the
Commission belong to the same profession.
appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, one Commissioner for five years, and
the other Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy
shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. In no case shall any
Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
SECTION 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to
examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures
or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any
of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies,
commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b)
autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or
equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the
granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where
the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt
such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to
correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such
period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining
thereto.
(2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to
define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required
therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the
prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable
expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties.
SECTION 3. No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government or its subsidiary in
any guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the Commission
on Audit.
SECTION 4. The Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress, within the time
fixed by law, an annual report covering the financial condition and operation of the Government,
its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, and non-governmental entities subject to its audit, and recommend measures
necessary to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. It shall submit such other reports as may
be required by law.
ARTICLE X
Local Government
General Provisions
SECTION 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the
provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.
SECTION 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.
SECTION 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more
responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of
decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among
the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for
the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and
duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the
local units.
SECTION 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local
governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and
municipalities with respect to component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component
units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
SECTION 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of
revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the
Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and
charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments.
SECTION 6. Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the
national taxes which shall be automatically released to them.
SECTION 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the
utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner
provided by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.
SECTION 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall
be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was
elected.
SECTION 9. Legislative bodies of local governments shall have sectoral representation as may
be prescribed by law.
SECTION 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged,
abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established
in the Local Government Code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
SECTION 11. The Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political subdivisions,
subject to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof. The component cities and municipalities
shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executives and
legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will hereby be created
shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination.
SECTION 12. Cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, and component cities
whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials, shall be
independent of the province. The voters of component cities within a province, whose charters
contain no such prohibition, shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective provincial
officials.
SECTION 13. Local government units may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their
efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them in accordance with
law.
SECTION 14. The President shall provide for regional development councils or other similar
bodies composed of local government officials, regional heads of departments and other
government offices, and representatives from non-governmental organizations within the regions
for purposes of administrative decentralization to strengthen the autonomy of the units therein
and to accelerate the economic and social growth and development of the units in the region.
Autonomous Region
SECTION 15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the
Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas sharing
common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and
other relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national
sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.
SECTION 16. The President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to
ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
SECTION 17. All powers, functions, and responsibilities not granted by this Constitution or by
law to the autonomous regions shall be vested in the National Government.
SECTION 18. The Congress shall enact an organic act for each autonomous region with the
assistance and participation of the regional consultative commission composed of representatives
appointed by the President from a list of nominees from multisectoral bodies. The organic act
shall define the basic structure of government for the region consisting of the executive
department and legislative assembly, both of which shall be elective and representative of the
constituent political units. The organic acts shall likewise provide for special courts with
personal, family, and property law jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of this Constitution
and national laws.
The creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when approved by majority of the votes
cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only provinces,
cities, and geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the
autonomous region.
SECTION 19. The first Congress elected under this Constitution shall, within eighteen months
from the time of organization of both Houses, pass the organic acts for the autonomous regions
in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.
SECTION 20. Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution
and national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers
over:
(1) Administrative organization;
(2) Creation of sources of revenues;
(3) Ancestral domain and natural resources;
(4) Personal, family, and property relations;
(5) Regional urban and rural planning development;
(6) Economic, social, and tourism development;

(7) Educational policies;
(8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and
(9) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of
the people of the region.
SECTION 21. The preservation of peace and order within the regions shall be the responsibility
of the local police agencies which shall be organized, maintained, supervised, and utilized in
accordance with applicable laws. The defense and security of the regions shall be the
responsibility of the National Government.
ARTICLE XI
Accountability of Public Officers
SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
SECTION 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office,
on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and
employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
SECTION 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all
cases of impeachment.
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of
Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof,
which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the
proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a
majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days
from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared
for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.
(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to
affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its
contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.
(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all
the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by
the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once
within a period of one year.
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When
sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the
Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No
person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate.
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and
disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted
shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law.
(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose
of this section.
SECTION 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function
and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.
SECTION 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman, composed of
the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each
for Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the military establishment may
likewise be appointed.
SECTION 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, other than the
Deputies, shall be appointed by the Ombudsman according to the Civil Service Law.
SECTION 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of the Special
Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be
provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this
Constitution.
SECTION 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines,
and at the time of their appointment, at least forty years old, of recognized probity and
independence, and members of the Philippine Bar, and must not have been candidates for any
elective office in the immediately preceding election. The Ombudsman must have for ten years
or more been a judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same disqualifications and prohibitions as
provided for in Section 2 of Article IX-A of this Constitution.
SECTION 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President from a list of
at least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees
for every vacancy thereafter. Such appointments shall require no confirmation. All vacancies
shall be filled within three months after they occur.
SECTION 10. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have the rank of Chairman and Members,
respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions, and they shall receive the same salary, which
shall not be decreased during their term of office.
SECTION 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven years without
reappointment. They shall not be qualified to run for any office in the election immediately
succeeding their cessation from office.
SECTION 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly
on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned
or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action
taken and the result thereof.
SECTION 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and
duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public
official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper, or inefficient.
(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any
government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and expedite any
act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the
performance of duties.
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at
fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and
ensure compliance therewith.
(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as may
be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or transactions
entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and
report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action.
(5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of
its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents.
(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due
prudence.
(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the
Government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high
standards of ethics and efficiency.
(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions
or duties as may be provided by law.
SECTION 14. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its approved annual
appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.
SECTION 15. The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials
or employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by
prescription, laches, or estoppel.
SECTION 16. No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial accommodation for any business
purpose may be granted, directly or indirectly, by any government-owned or controlled bank or
financial institution to the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the
Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman, or to any
firm or entity in which they have controlling interest, during their tenure.
SECTION 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often
thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and
net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the
Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices,
and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to
the public in the manner provided by law.
SECTION 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution allegiance at all
times, and any public officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the
status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law.
ARTICLE XII
National Economy and Patrimony
SECTION 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of
opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services
produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to
raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural
development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human
and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets.
However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade
practices.
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be
given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives,
and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.
SECTION 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral
oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other
natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly
undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of
whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply,
fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the
measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and
exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens,
as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in
rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either
technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions
provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the
country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific
and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this
provision, within thirty days from its execution.
SECTION 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral
lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by
law according to the uses which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall
be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable
lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.
Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more
than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to
the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of
the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor.
SECTION 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by law the specific limits of
forest lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such
forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished,
except by law. The Congress shall provide, for such period as it may determine, measures to
prohibit logging in endangered forests and watershed areas.
SECTION 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development
policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their
ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.
SECTION 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall
contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups, including corporations,
cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and
operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and
to intervene when the common good so demands.
SECTION 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or

conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of
the public domain.
SECTION 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen

of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands,
subject to limitations provided by law.
SECTION 9. The Congress may establish an independent economic and planning agency headed
by the President, which shall, after consultations with the appropriate public agencies, various
private sectors, and local government units, recommend to Congress, and implement continuing
integrated and coordinated programs and policies for national development.
Until the Congress provides otherwise, the National Economic and Development Authority shall
function as the independent planning agency of the government.
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.
SECTION 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a
public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty per centum of whose
capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be
exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or
right be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or
repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourage equity
participation in public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign investors in the
governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its
capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must be
citizens of the Philippines.
SECTION 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials
and locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive.
SECTION 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes
all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.
SECTION 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national talents consisting of Filipino
scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled
workers and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall encourage
appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the national benefit.
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in
cases prescribed by law.
SECTION 15. The Congress shall create an agency to promote the viability and growth of
cooperatives as instruments for social justice and economic development.
SECTION 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation,
organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or controlled
corporations may be created or established by special charters in the interest of the common
good and subject to the test of economic viability.
SECTION 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State
may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or
direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public
interest.
SECTION 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate
vital industries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities
and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government.
SECTION 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so
requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed.
SECTION 20. The Congress shall establish an independent central monetary authority, the
members of whose governing board must be natural-born Filipino citizens, of known probity,
integrity, and patriotism, the majority of whom shall come from the private sector. They shall
also be subject to such other qualifications and disabilities as may be prescribed by law. The
authority shall provide policy direction in the areas of money, banking, and credit. It shall have
supervision over the operations of banks and exercise such regulatory powers as may be
provided by law over the operations of finance companies and other institutions performing
similar functions.
Until the Congress otherwise provides, the Central Bank of the Philippines, operating under
existing laws, shall function as the central monetary authority.
SECTION 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law and the regulation of
the monetary authority. Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government
shall be made available to the public.
SECTION 22. Acts which circumvent or negate any of the provisions of this Article shall be
considered inimical to the national interest and subject to criminal and civil sanctions, as may be
provided by law.
ARTICLE XIII
Social Justice and Human Rights
SECTION 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect
and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for
the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property
and its increments.
SECTION 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic
opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
Labor
SECTION 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with
law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage.
They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers
and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall
enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of
labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns
on investments, and to expansion and growth.
Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform
SECTION 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right
of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands
they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this
end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject
to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into
account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just
compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
SECTION 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as
well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers’ organizations to participate in the planning,
organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through
appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other
support services.
SECTION 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever
applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources,
including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to
prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their
ancestral lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which
shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.
SECTION 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local
communities, to the preferential use of local marine and fishing resources, both inland and
offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research,
adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also
protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing
grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share
from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
SECTION 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the
agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of
public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored
as equity in enterprises of their choice.
Urban Land Reform and Housing
SECTION 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation with
the public sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make
available at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless
citizens in urban centers and resettlements areas. It shall also promote adequate employment
opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such program the State shall respect the
rights of small property owners.
SECTION 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished,
except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.
No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation

with them and the communities where they are to be relocated.
Health
SECTION 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health
development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services
available to all the people at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the
underprivileged sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to provide
free medical care to paupers.
SECTION 12. The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and drug regulatory
system and undertake appropriate health manpower development and research, responsive to the
country’s health needs and problems.
SECTION 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled persons for rehabilitation,
self-development and self-reliance, and their integration into the mainstream of society.
Women
SECTION 14. The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working
conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and opportunities that
will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the
nation.
Role and Rights of People’s Organizations
SECTION 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people’s organizations to enable
the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and
collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.
People’s organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to
promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership, and structure.
SECTION 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable
participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not be
abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation
mechanisms.
Human Rights
SECTION 17. (1) There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on
Human Rights.
(2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be natural-
born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the Bar. The term
of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission shall be
provided by law.
(3) Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human Rights
shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers.
(4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and regularly
released.
SECTION 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and
functions:
(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations
involving civil and political rights;
(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations
thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;
(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within
the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and
legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need
protection;
(4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for
the primacy of human rights;
(6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for
compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;
(7) Monitor the Philippine Government’s compliance with international treaty obligations on
human rights;
(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of
documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any
investigation conducted by it or under its authority;
(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its
functions;
(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and
(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.
SECTION 19. The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights that
should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into account its recommendations.
ARTICLE XIV
Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports
Education
SECTION 1. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at
all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.
SECTION 2. The State shall:
(1) Establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system of education
relevant to the needs of the people and society;
(2) Establish and maintain a system of free public education in the elementary and high school
levels. Without limiting the natural right of parents to rear their children, elementary education is
compulsory for all children of school age;
(3) Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan programs, subsidies, and
other incentives which shall be available to deserving students in both public and private schools,
especially to the underprivileged;
(4) Encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous learning systems, as well as self-learning,
independent, and out-of-school study programs particularly those that respond to community
needs; and
(5) Provide adult citizens, the disabled, and out-of-school youth with training in civics,
vocational efficiency, and other skills.
SECTION 3. (1) All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of
the curricula.
(2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for human
rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country,
teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral
character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and
technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.
(3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be
taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class
hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which
the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.
SECTION 4. (1) The State recognizes the complementary roles of public and private institutions
in the educational system and shall exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all
educational institutions.
(2) Educational institutions, other than those established by religious groups and mission boards,
shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty
per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The Congress may, however,
require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions.
The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in citizens of the
Philippines.
No educational institution shall be established exclusively for aliens and no group of aliens shall
comprise more than one-third of the enrollment in any school. The provisions of this subsection
shall not apply to schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents and,
unless otherwise provided by law, for other foreign temporary residents.
(3) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually,
directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon
the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall be
disposed of in the manner provided by law.
Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively owned, may likewise be

entitled to such exemptions subject to the limitations provided by law including restrictions on
dividends and provisions for reinvestment.
(4) Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants, endowments, donations, or contributions
used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax.
SECTION 5. (1) The State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and conditions and
shall encourage local planning in the development of educational policies and programs.
(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.

(3) Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable,
and equitable admission and academic requirements.
(4) The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement. Non-teaching
academic and non-academic personnel shall enjoy the protection of the State.
(5) The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching
will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate
remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.
Language
SECTION 6. The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be

further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.
Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the Government shall
take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and
as language of instruction in the educational system.
SECTION 7. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the
Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.
The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as
auxiliary media of instruction therein.
Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis.
SECTION 8. This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be
translated into major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish.
SECTION 9. The Congress shall establish a national language commission composed of

representatives of various regions and disciplines which shall undertake, coordinate, and promote
researches for the development, propagation, and preservation of Filipino and other languages.
Science and Technology
SECTION 10. Science and technology are essential for national development and progress. The
State shall give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their utilization;
and to science and technology education, training, and services. It shall support indigenous,
appropriate, and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, and their application to the
country’s productive systems and national life.
SECTION 11. The Congress may provide for incentives, including tax deductions, to encourage
private participation in programs of basic and applied scientific research. Scholarships, grants-in-
aid, or other forms of incentives shall be provided to deserving science students, researchers,
scientists, inventors, technologists, and specially gifted citizens.
SECTION 12. The State shall regulate the transfer and promote the adaptation of technology
from all sources for the national benefit. It shall encourage the widest participation of private
groups, local governments, and community-based organizations in the generation and utilization
of science and technology.
SECTION 13. The State shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors,
artists, and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly when
beneficial to the people, for such period as may be provided by law.
Arts and Culture
SECTION 14. The State shall foster the preservation, enrichment, and dynamic evolution of a
Filipino national culture based on the principle of unity in diversity in a climate of free artistic
and intellectual expression.
SECTION 15. Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the State. The State shall conserve,
promote, and popularize the nation’s historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as
artistic creations.
SECTION 16. All the country’s artistic and historic wealth constitutes the cultural treasure of the
nation and shall be under the protection of the State which may regulate its disposition.
SECTION 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural
communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider
these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies.
SECTION 18. (1) The State shall ensure equal access to cultural opportunities through the
educational system, public or private cultural entities, scholarships, grants and other incentives,
and community cultural centers, and other public venues.
(2) The State shall encourage and support researches and studies on the arts and culture.
Sports
SECTION 19. (1) The State shall promote physical education and encourage sports programs,
league competitions, and amateur sports, including training for international competitions, to
foster self-discipline, teamwork, and excellence for the development of a healthy and alert
citizenry.
(2) All educational institutions shall undertake regular sports activities throughout the country in
cooperation with athletic clubs and other sectors.
ARTICLE XV
The Family
SECTION 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.
Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.
SECTION 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and
shall be protected by the State.
SECTION 3. The State shall defend:
(1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the
demands of responsible parenthood;
(2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection
from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their
development;
(3) The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and
(4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation
of policies and programs that affect them.
SECTION 4. The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State may also do so
through just programs of social security.
ARTICLE XVI
General Provisions
SECTION 1. The flag of the Philippines shall be red, white, and blue, with a sun and three stars,
as consecrated and honored by the people and recognized by law.
SECTION 2. The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national anthem,
or a national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history, and
traditions of the people. Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a
national referendum.
SECTION 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
SECTION 4. The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a citizen armed force
which shall undergo military training and serve, as may be provided by law. It shall keep a
regular force necessary for the security of the State.
SECTION 5. (1) All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and
defend this Constitution.
(2) The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military,
and respect for people’s rights in the performance of their duty.
(3) Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of its members
shall be a prime concern of the State. The armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics.
No member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity,
except to vote.
(4) No member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or
designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the Government including government-owned
or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries.
(5) Laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow extension of their service.
(6) The officers and men of the regular force of the armed forces shall be recruited
proportionately from all provinces and cities as far as practicable.
(7) The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces shall not exceed three years.
However, in times of war or other national emergency declared by the Congress, the President
may extend such tour of duty.
SECTION 6. The State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in
scope and civilian in character, to be administered and controlled by a national police
commission. The authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be
provided by law.
SECTION 7. The State shall provide immediate and adequate care, benefits, and other forms of
assistance to war veterans and veterans of military campaigns, their surviving spouses and
orphans. Funds shall be provided therefor and due consideration shall be given them in the
disposition of agricultural lands of the public domain and, in appropriate cases, in the utilization
of natural resources.
SECTION 8. The State shall, from time to time, review to upgrade the pensions and other
benefits due to retirees of both the government and the private sectors.
SECTION 9. The State shall protect consumers from trade malpractices and from substandard or
hazardous products.
SECTION 10. The State shall provide the policy environment for the full development of
Filipino capability and the emergence of communication structures suitable to the needs and
aspirations of the nation and the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the
country, in accordance with a policy that respects the freedom of speech and of the press.
SECTION 11. (1) The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of
the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by
such citizens.
The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media when the public
interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be
allowed.
(2) The advertising industry is impressed with public interest, and shall be regulated by law for
the protection of consumers and the promotion of the general welfare.
Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least seventy per centum of the capital of
which is owned by such citizens shall be allowed to engage in the advertising industry.
The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities in such industry shall be
limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof, and all the executive and managing
officers of such entities must be citizens of the Philippines.
SECTION 12. The Congress may create a consultative body to advise the President on policies
affecting indigenous cultural communities, the majority of the members of which shall come
from such communities.
ARTICLE XVII
Amendments or Revisions
SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
SECTION 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered
voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years
following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
SECTION 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional
convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of
calling such a convention.
SECTION 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be
valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier
than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after
the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
ARTICLE XVIII
Transitory Provisions
SECTION 1. The first elections of Members of the Congress under this Constitution shall be
held on the second Monday of May, 1987.
The first local elections shall be held on a date to be determined by the President, which may be
simultaneous with the election of the Members of the Congress. It shall include the election of all
Members of the city or municipal councils in the Metropolitan Manila area.
SECTION 2. The Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, and the local officials
first elected under this Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992.
Of the Senators elected in the election of 1992, the first twelve obtaining the highest number of
votes shall serve for six years and the remaining twelve for three years.
SECTION 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions,
and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until
amended, repealed, or revoked.
SECTION 4. All existing treaties or international agreements which have not been ratified shall
not be renewed or extended without the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the Members of
the Senate.
SECTION 5. The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in the
February 7, 1986 election is, for purposes of synchronization of elections, hereby extended to
noon of June 30, 1992.
The first regular elections for the President and Vice-President under this Constitution shall be
held on the second Monday of May, 1992.
SECTION 6. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first
Congress is convened.
SECTION 7. Until a law is passed, the President may fill by appointment from a list of nominees
by the respective sectors the seats reserved for sectoral representation in paragraph (2), Section 5
of Article VI of this Constitution.
SECTION 8. Until otherwise provided by the Congress, the President may constitute the
Metropolitan Authority to be composed of the heads of all local government units comprising the
Metropolitan Manila area.
SECTION 9. A sub-province shall continue to exist and operate until it is converted into a
regular province or until its component municipalities are reverted to the mother province.
SECTION 10. All courts existing at the time of the ratification of this Constitution shall continue
to exercise their jurisdiction, until otherwise provided by law. The provisions of the existing
Rules of Court, judiciary acts, and procedural laws not inconsistent with this Constitution shall
remain operative unless amended or repealed by the Supreme Court or the Congress.
SECTION 11. The incumbent Members of the Judiciary shall continue in office until they reach
the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office or are
removed for cause.
SECTION 12. The Supreme Court shall, within one year after the ratification of this
Constitution, adopt a systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters
pending in the Supreme Court or the lower courts prior to the effectivity of this Constitution. A
similar plan shall be adopted for all special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
SECTION 13. The legal effect of the lapse, before the ratification of this Constitution, of the
applicable period for the decision or resolution of the cases or matters submitted for adjudication
by the courts, shall be determined by the Supreme Court as soon as practicable.
SECTION 14. The provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4), Section 15 of Article VIII of this
Constitution shall apply to cases or matters filed before the ratification of this Constitution, when
the applicable period lapses after such ratification.
SECTION 15. The incumbent Members of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on
Elections, and the Commission on Audit shall continue in office for one year after the ratification
of this Constitution, unless they are sooner removed for cause or become incapacitated to
discharge the duties of their office or appointed to a new term thereunder. In no case shall any
Member serve longer than seven years including service before the ratification of this
Constitution.
SECTION 16. Career civil service employees separated from the service not for cause but as a
result of the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 and the
reorganization following the ratification of this Constitution shall be entitled to appropriate
separation pay and to retirement and other benefits accruing to them under the laws of general
application in force at the time of their separation. In lieu thereof, at the option of the employees,
they may be considered for employment in the Government or in any of its subdivisions,
instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries. This provision also applies to career officers whose resignation, tendered in line
with the existing policy, had been accepted.
SECTION 17. Until the Congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an annual
salary of three hundred thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the President of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two
hundred forty thousand pesos each; the Senators, the Members of the House of Representatives,
the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Chairmen of the Constitutional
Commissions, two hundred four thousand pesos each; and the Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand pesos each.
SECTION 18. At the earliest possible time, the Government shall increase the salary scales of
the other officials and employees of the National Government.
SECTION 19. All properties, records, equipment, buildings, facilities, and other assets of any
office or body abolished or reorganized under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 or this
Constitution shall be transferred to the office or body to which its powers, functions, and
responsibilities substantially pertain.
SECTION 20. The first Congress shall give priority to the determination of the period for the full
implementation of free public secondary education.
SECTION 21. The Congress shall provide efficacious procedures and adequate remedies for the
reversion to the State of all lands of the public domain and real rights connected therewith which
were acquired in violation of the Constitution or the public land laws, or through corrupt
practices. No transfer or disposition of such lands or real rights shall be allowed until after the
lapse of one year from the ratification of this Constitution.
SECTION 22. At the earliest possible time, the Government shall expropriate idle or abandoned
agricultural lands as may be defined by law, for distribution to the beneficiaries of the agrarian
reform program.
SECTION 23. Advertising entities affected by paragraph (2), Section 11 of Article XVI of this
Constitution shall have five years from its ratification to comply on a graduated and
proportionate basis with the minimum Filipino ownership requirement therein.
SECTION 24. Private armies and other armed groups not recognized by duly constituted
authority shall be dismantled. All paramilitary forces including Civilian Home Defense Forces
not consistent with the citizen armed force established in this Constitution, shall be dissolved or,
where appropriate, converted into the regular force.
SECTION 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in
by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the
people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other
contracting State.
SECTION 26. The authority to issue sequestration or freeze orders under Proclamation No. 3
dated March 25, 1986 in relation to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth shall remain operative for
not more than eighteen months after the ratification of this Constitution. However, in the national
interest, as certified by the President, the Congress may extend said period.
A sequestration or freeze order shall be issued only upon showing of a prima facie case. The
order and the list of the sequestered or frozen properties shall forthwith be registered with the
proper court. For orders issued before the ratification of this Constitution, the corresponding
judicial action or proceeding shall be filed within six months from its ratification. For those
issued after such ratification, the judicial action or proceeding shall be commenced within six
months from the issuance thereof.
The sequestration or freeze order is deemed automatically lifted if no judicial action or

proceeding is commenced as herein provided.
SECTION 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority
of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous
Constitutions.
Ratified: February 2, 1987
Source: CDAsia
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
All content is in the public domain unless otherwise stated.
Feedback Form
ABOUT GOVPH
Learn more about the Philippine government, its structure, how government works and the people behind it.
 GOV.PH
 Official Gazette
 Open Data Portal
GOVERNMENT LINKS
 The President
 Office of the President
 Office of the Vice President
 Senate of the Philippines
 House of Representatives
 Supreme Court
 Court of Appeals
 Sandiganbayan
Managed by EDP/IT Division of the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO)

 Home
 Law Firm
 Law Library
 Laws
 Jurisprudence
February 1997 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1997 > February 1997 Decisions > G.R.

No. 122156 February 3, 1997 - MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GSIS, ET AL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 122156. February 3, 1997.]
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, Petitioner, v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE

SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTION; DEFINED. — A constitution is a system of

fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a nation. It is supreme,
imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates. It
has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It prescribes the
permanent framework of a system of government, assigns to the different departments
their respective powers and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on which
government is founded. The fundamental conception in other words is that it is a
supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all
private rights must be determined and all public authority administered.
2. ID.; ID.; DEEMED WRITTEN IN EVERY STATUTE AND CONTRACT. — Under the
doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the
constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the
executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and
void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and
contract. 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.
3. ID.; ID.; CONSIDERED SELF-EXECUTING RATHER THAN NON-SELF-EXECUTING. —

In case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non-
self-executing . . . Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the
Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a contrary rule would give the
legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be effective. These
provisions would be subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which could make
them entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute.
(Cruz, Isagani A., Constitutional Law, 1993 ed., pp. 8-10)
4. ID.; ID.; SELF-EXECUTING PROVISIONS; LEGISLATURE NOT PRECLUDED FROM

ENACTING LAWS ENFORCING PROVISIONS. — Quite apparently, Sec. 10, second par.,
of Art. XII is couched in such a way as not to make it appear that it is non-self-
executing but simply for purposes of style. But, certainly, the legislature is not
precluded from enacting further laws to enforce the constitutional provision so long as
the contemplated statute squares with the Constitution. Minor details may be left to the
legislature without the self-executing nature of constitutional provisions. The omission
from a constitution of any express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or
liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be self-executing.
The rule is that a self-executing provision of the constitution does not necessarily
exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any legislation must be in harmony with
the constitution, further the exercise of constitutional right and make it more available.
Subsequent legislation however does not necessarily mean that the subject
constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully enforceable.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; A PROVISION MAY BE SELF-EXECUTING IN ONE PART AND NON-SELF-
EXECUTING IN ANOTHER. — Respondents also argue that the non-self-executing nature
of Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII is implied from the tenor of the first and third
paragraphs of the same section which undoubtedly are not self-executing. The
argument is flawed. If the first and third paragraphs are not self-executing because
Congress is still to enact measures to encourage the formation and operation of
enterprises fully owned by Filipinos, as in the first paragraph, and the State still needs
legislation to regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its
national jurisdiction, as in the third paragraph, then a fortiori, by the same logic, the
second paragraph can only be self-executing as it does not by its language require any
legislation in order to give preference to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights,
privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. A
constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part and non-self-executing in
another.
6. ID.; ID.; NATIONAL PATRIMONY; PROVISION ON PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED

FILIPINOS, SELF-EXECUTING. — Sec. 10, second par., 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. 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.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; INCLUDES THE NATIONAL, RESOURCES AND CULTURAL, 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.
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, EMBRACED THEREIN; FILIPINO FIRST
POLICY PROVISION, APPLICABLE IN SALES OF HOTEL STOCKS. — For more than eight
(8) decades 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.
Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony. For sure,
51% of the equity of the MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter for
it comprises the majority and controlling stock, so that anyone who acquires or owns
the 51% will have actual control and management of the hotel. In this instance, 51% of
the MHC cannot be disassociated from the hotel and the land on which the hotel edifice
stands. Consequently, we cannot sustain respondents’ claim that the Filipino First Policy
provision is not applicable since what is being sold is only 51% of the outstanding
shares of the corporation, not the Hotel building nor the land upon which the building
stands.
9. ID.; STATE; SALE BY THE GSIS OF 51% OF ITS SHARE IN MANILA HOTEL CORP., A
STATE ACTION, SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND. — In constitutional
jurisprudence, the acts of persons distinct from the government are considered "state
action" covered by the Constitution (1) when the activity it engages in is a" public
function", (2) when the government is so-significantly involved with the private actor as
to make the government responsible for his action; and. (3) when the government has
approved or authorized the action. It is evident that the act of respondent GSIS in
selling 51% of its share in respondent MHC comes under the second and third
categories of "state action." Without doubt therefore the transaction, although entered
into by respondent GSIS, is in fact a transaction of the State and therefore subject to
the constitutional command.
10. ID.; CONSTITUTION; WHEN THE CONSTITUTION ADDRESSES THE STATE, IT

REFERS TO BOTH PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT. — When the Constitution addresses the
State it refers not only to the people but also to the government as elements of the
State. After all, government is composed of three (3) divisions of power — legislative,
executive and judicial. Accordingly, a constitutional mandate directed to the State is
correspondingly directed to the three (3) branches of government. It is undeniable that
in this case the subject constitutional injunction is addressed among others to the
Executive Department and respondent GSIS, a government instrumentality deriving its
authority from the State.
11. ID.; ID.; NATIONAL PATRIMONY; PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS; SALE OF

STOCKS OF MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION BY THE GSIS; FILIPINOS ALLOWED TO
MATCH THE BID OF FOREIGN ENTITY. — In the instant case, where a foreign firm
submits the highest bid in a public bidding concerning the grant of rights, privileges and
concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, thereby exceeding the bid
of a Filipino, there is no question that the Filipino will have to be allowed to match the
bid of the foreign entity. And if the Filipino matches the bid of a foreign firm the award
should go to the Filipino. 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.
12. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; FOREIGN BIDDERS WITHOUT CAUSE OF ACTION

AGAINST GSIS BEFORE ACCEPTANCE OF BID. — The argument of respondents that
petitioner is now estopped from questioning the sale to Renong Berhad since petitioner
was well aware from the beginning that a foreigner could participate in the bidding is
meritless. Undoubtedly, Filipinos and foreigners alike were invited to the bidding. But
foreigners may be awarded the sale only if no Filipino qualifies, or if the qualified
Filipino fails to match the highest bid tendered by the foreign entity. In the case before
us, while petitioner was already preferred at the inception of the bidding because of the
constitutional mandate, petitioner had not yet matched the bid offered by Renong
Berhad. Thus it did not have the right or personality then to compel respondent GSIS to
accept its earlier bid. Rightly, only after it had matched the bid of the foreign firm and
the apparent disregard by respondent GSIS of petitioner’s matching bid did the latter
have a cause of action.
13. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION, CERTIORARI; FAILURE OF THE GSIS TO EXECUTE
CORRESPONDING DOCUMENTS WHERE PETITIONER HAD MATCHED THE BID PRICE BY
FOREIGN BIDDER, A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — Since petitioner has already
matched the bid price tendered by Renong Berhad pursuant to the bidding rules,
respondent GSIS is left with no alternative but to award to petitioner the block of
shares of MHC and to execute the necessary agreements and documents to effect the
sale in accordance not only with the bidding guidelines and procedures but with the
Constitution as well. The refusal of respondent GSIS to execute the corresponding
documents with petitioner as provided in the bidding rules after the latter has matched
the bid of the Malaysian firm clearly constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
14. ID.; SUPREME COURT; DUTY BOUND TO MAKE SURE THAT CONTRACTS DO NOT
VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAWS. — While it is no business of the Court to
intervene in contracts of the kind referred to or set itself up as the judge of whether
they are viable or attainable, it is its bounden duty to make sure that they do not
violate the Constitution or the laws, or are not adopted or implemented with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It will never shirk that
duty, no matter how buffeted by winds of unfair and ill-informed criticism. 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.
PADILLA, J., concurring opinion: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTION; PATRIMONY OF THE NATION, CONSTRUED. — A

study of the 1935 Constitution, where the concept of "national patrimony" originated,
would show that its framers decided to adopt the even more comprehensive expression
"Patrimony of the Nation" in the belief that the phrase encircles a concept embracing
not only the natural resources of the country but practically everything that belongs to
the Filipino people, the tangible and the material as well as the intangible and the
spiritual assets and possessions of the people. It is to be noted that the framers did not
stop with conservation. They knew that conservation alone does not spell progress; and
that this may be achieved only through development as a correlative factor to assure to
the people not only the exclusive ownership, but also the exclusive benefits of their
national patrimony. Moreover, the concept of national patrimony has been viewed as
referring not only to our rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of our
race. There is no doubt in my mind that the Manila Hotel is very much a part of our
national patrimony and, as such deserves constitutional protection as to who shall own
it and benefit from its operation. This institution has played an important role in our
nation’s history, having been the venue of many a historical event, and serving as it
did, and as it does, as the Philippine Guest House for visiting foreign heads of state,
dignitaries, celebrities, and others.
2. ID.; ID.; MANILA HOTEL, PART OF OUR NATIONAL PATRIMONY. — There is no doubt
in my mind that the Manila Hotel is very much a part of our national patrimony and, as
such, deserves constitutional protection as to who shall own it and benefit from its
operation. This institution has played an important role in our nation’s history, having
been the venue of many a historical event, and serving as it did, and as it does, as the
Philippine Guest House for visiting foreign heads of state, dignitaries. celebrities, and
others.
3. ID.; ID.; PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS; APPLIED TO SALES OF SHARE OF

STOCKS OF MANILA HOTEL. — "Preference to qualified Filipinos," to be meaningful,
must refer not only to things that are peripheral, collateral, or tangential. It must touch
and affect the very "heart of the existing order." In the field of public bidding in the
acquisition of things that pertain to the national patrimony, preference to qualified
Filipinos must allow a qualified Filipino to match or equal the higher bid of a non-
Filipino, the preference shall not operate only when the bids of the qualified Filipino and
the non-Filipino are equal in which case, the award should undisputedly be made to the
qualified Filipino. The Constitutional preference should give the qualified Filipino an
opportunity to match or equal the higher bid of the non-Filipino bidder if the preference
of the qualified Filipino bidder is to be significant at all. While government agencies,
including the courts should re-condition their thinking to such a trend, and make it easy
and even attractive for foreign investors to come to our shores, yet we should not
preclude ourselves from reserving to us Filipinos certain areas where our national
identity, culture and heritage are involved. In the hotel industry, for instance, foreign
investors have established themselves creditably, such as in the Shangri-La, the Nikko,
the Peninsula, and Mandarin Hotels. This should not stop us from retaining 51% of the
capital stock of the Manila Hotel Corporation in the hands of Filipinos. This would be in
keeping with the intent of the Filipino people to preserve our national patrimony,
including our historical and cultural heritage in the hands of Filipinos.
VITUG, J., separate opinion: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTION; NATIONAL PATRIMONY; PROVISION GIVING

PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS, SELF-EXECUTORY. — The provision in our
fundamental law which provides that" (i)n the grant of rights, privileges, and
concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give
preference to qualified Filipinos" is self-executory. The provision verily does not need,
although it can obviously be amplified or regulated by, an enabling law or a set of rules.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PATRIMONY INCLUDES CULTURAL HERITAGE OF THE COUNTRY;

MANILA HOTEL, EMBRACED THEREIN. — The term "patrimony" does not merely refer to
the country’s natural resources but also to its cultural heritage. A "historical landmark,"
to use the words of Mr. Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr., Manila Hotel has now indeed
become part of Philippine heritage.
3. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM; SALE OF ITS

SHARE IN MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, AN ACT OF THE STATE; CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE COMPLIED WITH. — The act of the Government Service
Insurance System ("GSIS"), a government entity which derives its authority from the
State, in selling 51% of its share in MHC should be considered an act of the State
subject to the Constitutional mandate.
4. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTION; NATIONAL PATRIMONY; PREFERENCE TO

QUALIFIED FILIPINOS; DOES NOT REFER TO ALLOWING QUALIFIED FILIPINOS TO
MATCH FOREIGN BID. — On the pivotal issue of the degree of "preference to qualified
Filipinos" I find it somewhat difficult to take the same path traversed by the forceful
reasoning of Justice Puno. In the particular case before us, the only meaningful
preference, it seems, would really be to allow the qualified Filipino to match the foreign
bid for, as a practical matter, I cannot see any bid that literally calls for millions of
dollars to be at par (to the last cent) with another. The magnitude of the bids is such
that it becomes hardly possible for the competing bids to stand exactly "equal" which
alone, under the dissenting view, could trigger the right of preference.
MENDOZA, J., separate opinion: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTION; NATIONAL PATRIMONY; PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED

FILIPINOS; FILIPINO BIDDERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EQUAL BID OF FOREIGN FIRM
IN SALE OF STOCKS OF MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION. — I take the view that in the
context of the present controversy the only way to enforce the constitutional mandate
that" [i]n the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national
patrimony the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos" is to allow petitioner
Philippine corporation to equal the bid of the Malaysian firm Renong Berhad for the
purchase of the controlling shares of stocks in the Manila Hotel Corporation. Indeed, it
is the only way a qualified Filipino or Philippine corporation can be given preference in
the enjoyment of a right, privilege or concession given by the State, by favoring it over
a foreign national or corporation. Under the rules on public bidding of the Government
Service and Insurance System, if petitioner and the Malaysian firm had offered the
same price per share, "priority [would be given] to the bidder seeking the larger
ownership interest in MHC," so that if petitioner bid for more shares, it would be
preferred to the Malaysian corporation for that reason and not because it is a Philippine
corporation. Consequently, it is only in cases like the present one, where an alien
corporation is the highest bidder, that preferential treatment of the Philippine
corporation is mandated not by declaring it winner but by allowing it "to match the
highest bid in terms of price per share" before it is awarded the shares of stocks. That,
to me, is what "preference to qualified Filipinos" means in the context of this case — by
favoring Filipinos whenever they are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis foreigners.
TORRES, JR., J., separate opinion: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTION; PATRIMONY OF THE NATION; MANILA HOTEL,

EMBRACED WITHIN THE MEANING THEREOF; SALE OF ITS STOCKS SHOULD BE
LIMITED TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS. — Section 10, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
should be read in conjunction with Article II of the same Constitution pertaining to
"Declaration of Principles and State Policies" which ordain — "The State shall develop a
self-reliant and independent national economy, effectively controlled by Filipinos." (Sec.
19), Interestingly, the matter of giving preference to "qualified Filipinos" was one of the
highlights in the 1987 Constitution Commission proceedings. The nationalistic
provisions of the 1987 Constitution reflect the history and spirit of the Malolos
Constitution of 1898, the 1935 Constitution and the 1973 Constitution. I subscribe to
the view that history, culture, heritage, and tradition are not legislated and is the
product of events, customs, usages and practices. It is actually a product of growth and
acceptance by the collective mores of a race. It is the spirit and soul of a people. The
Manila Hotel is part of our history, culture and heritage. Every inch of the Manila Hotel
is witness to historic events (too numerous to mention) which shaped our history for
almost 84 years. The history of the Manila Hotel should not be placed in the auction
block of a purely business transaction, where profit subverts the cherished historical
values of our people. The Filipino should be first under his Constitution and in his own
land.
PUNO, J., dissenting opinion: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTION; AS A RULE PROVISIONS THEREOF ARE SELF-

EXECUTING. — A Constitution provides the guiding policies and principles upon which is
built the substantial foundation and general framework of the law and government. As
a rule, its provisions are deemed self-executing and can be enforced without further
legislative action. Some of its provisions, however, can be implemented only through
appropriate laws enacted by the Legislature, hence not self-executing. Courts as a rule
consider the provisions of the Constitution as self-executing, rather than as requiring
future legislation for their enforcement. The reason is not difficult to discern For if they
are not treated as self-executing, the mandate of the fundamental law ratified by the
sovereign people can be easily ignored and nullified by Congress. Suffused with wisdom
of the ages is the unyielding rule that legislative actions may give breath to
constitutional rights but congressional inaction should not suffocate them.
2. ID.; ID.; PROVISIONS ARE NOT SELF-EXECUTING WHERE IT MERELY ANNOUNCES A

POLICY AND EMPOWERS THE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LAWS TO CARRY THE POLICY
INTO EFFECT. — Contrariwise, case law lays down the rule that a constitutional
provision is not self-executing where it merely announces a policy and its language
empowers the Legislature to prescribe the means by which the policy shall be carried
into effect.
3. ID.; ID.; FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 10, ARTICLE 12 NOT SELF-EXECUTING. —

The first paragraph directs Congress to reserve certain areas of investments in the
country to Filipino citizens or to corporations sixty per cent of whose capital stock is
owned by Filipinos. It further commands Congress to enact laws that will encourage the
formation and operation of one hundred percent Filipino-owned enterprises. In
checkered contrast, the second paragraph orders the entire State to give preference to
qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights and privileges covering the national economy
and patrimony. The third paragraph also directs the State to regulate foreign
investments in line with our national goals and well-set priorities. The first paragraph of
Section 10 is not self-executing. By its express text, there is a categorical command for
Congress to enact laws restricting foreign ownership in certain areas of investments in
the country and to encourage the formation and operation of wholly-owned Filipino
enterprises.
4. ID.; ID.; NATIONAL PATRIMONY; PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS UNDER

PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 OF SECTION 10, ARTICLE 12, SELF-EXECUTING. — The second
and third paragraphs of Section 10 are different. They are directed to the State and not
to Congress alone which is but one of the three great branches of our government.
Their coverage is also broader for they cover "the national economy and patrimony"
and "foreign investments within [the] national jurisdiction" and not merely "certain
areas of investments." Beyond debate, they cannot be read as granting Congress the
exclusive power to implement by law the policy of giving preference to qualified
Filipinos in the conferral of rights and privileges covering our national economy and
patrimony. Their language does not suggest that any of the State agency or
instrumentality has the privilege to hedge or to refuse its implementation for any
reason whatsoever. Their duty to implement is unconditional and it is now. The second
and the third paragraphs of Section 10, Article XII are thus self-executing.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, PART OF THE NATIONAL PATRIMONY.
— The second issue is whether the sale of a majority of the stocks of the Manila Hotel
Corporation involves the disposition of part of our national patrimony. The records of
the Constitutional Commission show that the Commissioners entertained the same view
as to its meaning. According to Commissioner Nolledo, "patrimony" refers not only to
our rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of our race. By this yardstick,
the sale of Manila Hotel falls within the coverage of the constitutional provision giving
preferential treatment to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights involving our national
patrimony.
6. ID.; STATE; GSIS, EMBRACED WITHIN THE MEANING THEREOF. — The third issue is
whether the constitutional command to the State includes the respondent GSIS. A look
at its charter will reveal that GSIS is a government-owned and controlled corporation
that administers funds that come from the monthly contributions of government
employees and the government. The funds are held in trust for a distinct purpose which
cannot be disposed of indifferently. They are to be used to finance the retirement,
disability and life insurance benefits of the employees and the administrative and
operational expenses of the GSIS. Excess funds, however, are allowed to be invested in
business and other ventures for the benefit of the employees. The GSIS is not a pure
private corporation. It is essentially a public corporation created by Congress and
granted an original charter to serve a public purpose. It is subject to the jurisdictions of
the Civil Service Commission and the Commission on Audit. As a state-owned and
controlled corporation, it is skin-bound to adhere to the policies spelled out in the
Constitution especially those designed to promote the general welfare of the people.
One of these policies is the Filipino First policy which the people elevated as a
constitutional command.
7. ID.; CONSTITUTION; PROVISIONS THEREOF DEEMED INCLUDED IN ALL

LEGISLATIONS AND ALL STATE ACTIONS. — The constitutional command to enforce the
Filipino First policy is addressed to the State and not to Congress alone. Hence, the
word "laws" should not be understood as limited to legislations but all state actions
which include applicable rules and regulations adopted by agencies and
instrumentalities of the State in the exercise of their rule-making power.
8. ID.; ID.; NATIONAL PATRIMONY; PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS; STATE

NOT PROHIBITED FROM GRANTING RIGHTS TO FOREIGN FIRM IN THE ABSENCE OF
QUALIFIED FILIPINOS. — In the absence of qualified Filipinos, the State is not
prohibited from granting these rights, privileges and concessions to foreigners if the act
will promote the weal of the nation.
9. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — The right of preference of petitioner arises only if
it tied the bid of Renong Berhad. In that instance, all things stand equal, and petitioner,
as a qualified Filipino bidder, should be preferred. It is with deep regret that I cannot
subscribe to the view that petitioner has a right to match the bid of Renong Berhad.
Petitioner’s submission must be supported by the rules but even if we examine the
rules inside-out a thousand times, they can not justify the claimed right. Under the
rules, the right to match the highest bid arises only "if for any reason, the highest
bidder cannot be awarded the block of shares . . ." No reason has arisen that will
prevent the award to Renong Berhad. It deserves the award as a matter of right for the
rules clearly did not give to the petitioner as a qualified Filipino the privilege to match
the higher bid of a foreigner. What the rules did not grant, petitioner cannot demand.
Our sympathies may be with petitioner but the court has no power to extend the
latitude and longtitude of the right of preference as defined by the rules. We are duty-
bound to respect that determination even if we differ with the wisdom of their
judgment. The right they grant may be little but we must uphold the grant for as long
as the right of preference is not denied. It is only when a State action amounts to a
denial of the right that the Court can come in and strike down the denial as
unconstitutional.
10. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; ESTOPPEL; PARTY ESTOPPED FROM ASSAILING THE
WINNING BID OF FOREIGN FIRM FROM BEING AWARE OF THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF THE BIDDINGS IT AGREED TO RESPECT. — I submit that petitioner is
estopped from assailing the winning bid of Renong Berhad. Petitioner was aware of the
rules and regulations of the bidding. It knew that the rules and regulations do not
provide that a qualified Filipino bidder can match the winning bid after submitting an
inferior bid. It knew that the bid was open to foreigners and that foreigners qualified
even during the first bidding. Petitioner cannot be allowed to repudiate the rules which
it agreed to respect. It cannot be allowed to obey the rules when it wins and disregard
them when it loses. If sustained, petitioners’ stance will wreak havoc on the essence of
bidding.
PANGANIBAN, J., separate dissenting opinion: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTION; PATRIMONY OF THE NATION; PREFERENCE TO

QUALIFIED FILIPINOS; LOSING FILIPINO NOT GIVEN RIGHT TO EQUAL THE HIGHEST
FOREIGN BID. — The majority contends the Constitution should be interpreted to mean
that, after a bidding process is concluded, the losing Filipino bidder should be given the
right to equal the highest foreign bid, and thus to win. However, the Constitution [Sec.
10 (2), Art. XII] simply states that "in the grant of rights . . . covering the national
economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos." The
majority concedes that there is no law defining the extent or degree of such preference.
Specifically, no statute empowers a losing Filipino bidder to increase his bid and equal
that of the winning foreigner. In the absence of such empowering law, the majority’s
strained interpretation, I respectfully submit, constitutes unadulterated judicial
legislation, which makes bidding a ridiculous sham where no Filipino can lose and where
no foreigner can win. Only in the Philippines! Aside from being prohibited by the
Constitution, such judicial legislation is short-sighted and, viewed properly, gravely
prejudicial to long-term Filipino interests. In the absence of a law specifying the degree
or extent of the "Filipino First" policy of the Constitution, the constitutional preference
for the "qualified Filipinos" may be allowed only where all the bids are equal. In this
manner, we put the Filipino ahead without self-destructing him and without being unfair
to the foreigner. In short, the Constitution mandates a victory for the qualified Filipino
only when the scores are tied. But not when the ballgame is over and the foreigner
clearly posted the highest score.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
The Filipino First Policy enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, i.e., in the grant of rights,
privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State
shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, 1 is invoked by petitioner in its bid to acquire
51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) which owns the historic
Manila Hotel. Opposing, respondents maintain that the provision is not self-executing
but requires an implementing legislation for its enforcement. Corollarily, they ask
whether the 51% shares form part of the national economy and patrimony covered by
the protective mantle of the Constitution.
The controversy arose when respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),
pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation
No. 50 dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of
the issued and outstanding shares of respondent MHC. The winning bidder, or the
eventual "strategic partner," is to provide management expertise and/or an
international marketing/ reservation system, and financial support to strengthen the
profitability and performance of the Manila Hotel. 2 In a close bidding held on 18
September 1995 only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel
Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000
shares 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.
Pertinent provisions of the bidding rules prepared by respondent GSIS state —
I. EXECUTION OF THE NECESSARY CONTRACTS WITH GSIS/MHC —
1. The Highest Bidder must comply with the conditions set forth below by October 23,
1995 (reset to November 3, 1995) or the Highest Bidder will lose the right to purchase
the Block of Shares and GSIS will instead offer the Block of Shares to the other
Qualified Bidders: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. The Highest Bidder must negotiate and execute with the GSIS/MHC the Management
Contract, International Marketing/Reservation System Contract or other type of
contract specified by the Highest Bidder in its strategic plan for the Manila Hotel . . . .
b. The Highest Bidder must execute the Stock Purchase and Sale Agreement with
GSIS . . . .
K. DECLARATION OF THE WINNING BIDDER/STRATEGIC PARTNER —
The Highest Bidder will be declared the Winning Bidder/Strategic Partner after the
following conditions are met
a. Execution of the necessary contracts with GSIS/MHC not later than October 23, 1995
(reset to November 3, 1995); and
b. Requisite approvals from the GSIS/MHC and COP (Committee on Privatization)/

OGCC (Office of the Government Corporate Counsel) are obtained." 3
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning bidder/strategic partner and
the execution of the necessary contracts, petitioner in a letter to respondent GSIS
dated 28 September 1995 matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by
Renong Berhad. 4 In a subsequent letter dated 10 October 1995 petitioner sent a
manager’s check issued by Philtrust Bank for Thirty-three Million Pesos
(P33,000,000.00) as Bid Security to match the bid of the Malaysian Group, Messrs.
Renong Berhad . . . . 5 which respondent GSIS refused to accept.
On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that respondent GSIS has disregarded the
tender of the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be hastened by
respondent GSIS and consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner came to this Court
on prohibition and mandamus. On 18 October 1995 the Court issued a temporary
restraining order enjoining respondents from perfecting and consummating the sale to
the Malaysian firm.
On 10 September 1996 the instant case was accepted by the Court En Banc after it was
referred to it by the First Division. The case was then set for oral arguments with
former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando and Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., as amici
curiae.
In the main, 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. It is a proud legacy of an earlier generation of Filipinos who
believed in the nobility and sacredness of independence and its power and capacity to
release the full potential of the Filipino people. To all intents and purposes, it has
become a part of the national patrimony. 6 Petitioner also argues that since 51% of the
shares of the MHC carries with it the ownership of the business of the hotel which is
owned by respondent GSIS, a government-owned and controlled corporation, the hotel
business of respondent GSIS being a part of the tourism industry is unquestionably a
part of the national economy. Thus, any transaction involving 51% of the shares of
stock of the MHC is clearly covered by the term national economy, to which Sec. 10,
second par., Art. XII, 1987 Constitution, applies. 7
It is also the thesis of petitioner that since Manila Hotel is part of the national patrimony
and its business also unquestionably part of the national economy petitioner should be
preferred after it has matched the bid offer of the Malaysian firm. For the bidding rules
mandate that if for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of
Shares, GSIS may offer this to the other Qualified Bidders that have validly submitted
bids provided that these Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in terms
of price per share. 8
Respondents except. They maintain that: First, 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). . . . Thus, for the said
provision to operate, there must be existing laws "to lay down conditions under which
business may be done." 9
Second, granting that this provision is self-executing, Manila Hotel does not fall under
the term national patrimony which only refers to lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, 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 zone as cited in the first and second paragraphs of
Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution. According to respondents, while petitioner speaks of
the guests who have slept in the hotel and the events that have transpired therein
which make the hotel historic, these alone do not make the hotel fall under the
patrimony of the nation. What is more, the mandate of the Constitution is addressed to
the State, not to respondent GSIS which possesses a personality of its own separate
and distinct from the Philippines as a State. chanrobles
Third, granting that the Manila Hotel forms part of the national patrimony, the
constitutional provision invoked is still inapplicable since what is being sold is only 51%
of the outstanding shares of the corporation, not the hotel building nor the land upon
which the building stands. Certainly, 51% of the equity of the MHC cannot be
considered part of the national patrimony. Moreover, if the disposition of the shares of
the MHC is really contrary to the Constitution, petitioner should have questioned it right
from the beginning and not after it had lost in the bidding.
Fourth, the reliance by petitioner on par. V., subpar. J. 1, of the bidding rules which
provides that if for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of
Shares, GSIS may offer this to the other Qualified Bidders that have validly submitted
bids provided that these Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in terms
of price per share, is misplaced. Respondents postulate that the privilege of submitting
a matching bid has not yet arisen since it only takes place if for any reason, the Highest
Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares. Thus the submission by petitioner of a
matching bid is premature since Renong Berhad could still very well be awarded the
block of shares and the condition giving rise to the exercise of the privilege to submit a
matching bid had not yet taken place.
Finally, the prayer for prohibition grounded on grave abuse of discretion should fail
since respondent GSIS did not exercise its discretion in a capricious, whimsical manner,
and if ever it did abuse its discretion it was not so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
Similarly, the petition for mandamus should fail as petitioner has no clear legal right to
what it demands and respondents do not have an imperative duty to perform the act
required of them by petitioner.
We now resolve. A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and
administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by
the authority from which it emanates. It has been defined as the fundamental and
paramount law of the nation. 10 It prescribes the permanent framework of a system of
government, assigns to the different departments their respective powers and duties,
and establishes certain fixed principles on which government is founded. The
fundamental conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to which all other
laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined
and all public authority administered. 11 Under the doctrine of constitutional
supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or
contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered
into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and
effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental paramount and supreme law of
the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract.
Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and principles. Their
provisions command the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the
framers who merely establish an outline of government providing for the different
departments of the governmental machinery and securing certain fundamental and
inalienable rights of citizens. 12 A provision which lays down a general principle, such
as those found in Art. 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. Thus a
constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred
and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be
determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language
indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action. 13
As against constitutions of the past, modern constitutions have been generally drafted
upon a different principle and have often become in effect extensive codes of laws
intended to operate directly upon the people in a manner similar to that of statutory
enactments, and the function of constitutional conventions has evolved into one more
like that of a legislative body. 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. 14 This can
be cataclysmic. That is why the prevailing view is, as it has always been, that —
. . . in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than

non-self-executing. . . . Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the
Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a contrary rule would give the
legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be effective. These
provisions would be subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which could make
them entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute.
15
Respondents argue that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is
clearly not self-executing, as they quote from discussions on the floor of the 1986
Constitutional Commission —
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I am asking this question as the Chairman of the
Committee on Style. If the wording of "PREFERENCE" is given to "QUALIFIED
FILIPINOS," can it be understood as a preference to qualified Filipinos vis-a-vis Filipinos
who are not qualified. So, why do we not make it clear? To qualified Filipinos as against
aliens?
THE PRESIDENT. What is the question of Commissioner Rodrigo? Is it to remove the

word "QUALIFIED?"
MR. RODRIGO. No, no, but say definitely "TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS" as against whom?
As against aliens or over aliens?
MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I think that is understood. We use the word
"QUALIFIED" because the existing laws or prospective laws will always lay down
conditions under which business may be done. For example, qualifications on capital,
qualifications on the setting up of other financial structures, et cetera (Emphasis
supplied by respondents).
MR RODRIGO. It is just a matter of style.
MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. 16
Quite apparently, Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII is couched in such a way as not to
make it appear that it is non-self-executing but simply for purposes of style. But,
certainly, the legislature is not precluded from enacting further laws to enforce the
constitutional provision so long as the contemplated statute squares with the
Constitution. Minor details may be left to the legislature without the self-executing
nature of constitutional provisions.
In self-executing constitutional provisions, the legislature may still enact legislation to
facilitate the exercise of powers directly granted by the constitution, further the
operation of such a provision, prescribe a practice to be used for its enforcement,
provide a convenient remedy for the protection of the rights secured or the
determination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the exercise of the right.
The mere fact that legislation may supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for the
violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does not render such a provision
ineffective in the absence of such legislation. The omission from a constitution of any
express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an
indication that it was not intended to be self-executing. The rule is that a self-executing
provision of the constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the
subject, but any legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, further the
exercise of constitutional right and make it more available. 17 Subsequent legislation
however does not necessarily mean that the subject constitutional provision is not, by
itself, fully enforceable.
Respondents also argue that the non-self-executing nature of Sec. 10, second par., of
Art. XII is implied from the tenor of the first and third paragraphs of the same section
which undoubtedly are not self-executing. 18 The argument is flawed. If the first and
third paragraphs are not self-executing because Congress is still to enact measures to
encourage the formation and operation of enterprises fully owned by Filipinos, as in the
first paragraph, and the State still needs legislation to regulate and exercise authority
over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction, as in the third paragraph, then
a fortiori, by the same logic, the second paragraph can only be self-executing as it does
not by its language require any legislation in order to give preference to qualified
Filipinos in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national
economy and patrimony. A constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part
and non-self-executing in another. 19
Even the cases cited by respondents holding that certain constitutional provisions are
merely statements of principles and policies, which are basically not self-executing and
only placed in the Constitution as moral incentives to legislation, not as judicially
enforceable rights — are simply not in point. Basco v. Philippine Amusements and
Gaming Corporation 20 speaks of constitutional provisions on personal dignity, 21 the
sanctity of family life, 22 the vital role of the youth in nation-building, 23 the promotion
of social justice, 24 and the values of education. 25 Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance
26 refers to constitutional provisions on social justice and human rights 27 and on
education. 28 Lastly, Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato 29 cites provisions on the promotion of
general welfare, 30 the sanctity of family life, 31 the vital role of the youth in nation-
building 32 and the promotion of total human liberation and development. 33 A reading
of these provisions indeed clearly shows that they are not judicially enforceable
constitutional rights but merely guidelines for legislation. The very terms of the
provisions manifest that they are only principles upon which legislations must be based.
Res ipsa loquitur.
On the other hand, Sec. 10, second par., 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. 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.
As regards our national patrimony, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission

34 explains —
The patrimony of the Nation that should be conserved and developed refers not only to
our rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of our race. 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.
We agree. 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
The history of the hotel has been chronicled in the book The Manila Hotel: The Heart
and Memory of a City. 37 During World War II the hotel was converted by the Japanese
Military Administration into a military headquarters. When the American forces returned
to recapture Manila the hotel was selected by the Japanese together with Intramuros as
the two (2) places for their final stand. Thereafter, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the hotel
became the center of political activities, playing host to almost every political
convention. In 1970 the hotel reopened after a renovation and reaped numerous
international recognitions, an acknowledgment of the Filipino talent and ingenuity. In
1986 the hotel was the site of a failed coup d’etat where an aspirant for vice-president
was "proclaimed" President of the Philippine Republic.
For more than eight (8) decades 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. Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our national
economy and patrimony. For sure, 51% of the equity of the MHC comes within the
purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the majority and controlling stock,
so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have actual control and
management of the hotel. In this instance, 51% of the MHC cannot be disassociated
from the hotel and the land on which the hotel edifice stands. Consequently, we cannot
sustain respondents’ claim that the Filipino First Policy provision is not applicable since
what is being sold is only 51% of the outstanding shares of the corporation, not the
Hotel building nor the land upon which the building stands. 38
The argument is pure sophistry. The term qualified Filipinos as used in our Constitution
also includes corporations at least 60% of which is owned by Filipinos. This is very clear
from the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission —
THE PRESIDENT.
Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE.
I would like to introduce an amendment to the Nolledo amendment. And the

amendment would consist in substituting the words "QUALIFIED FILIPINOS" with the
following: "CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES OR CORPORATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS
WHOSE CAPITAL OR CONTROLLING STOCK IS WHOLLY OWNED BY SUCH CITIZENS." cralaw virtua1aw library
x x x
MR. MONSOD.
Madam President, apparently the proponent is agreeable, but we have to raise a

question. Suppose it is a corporation that is 80-percent Filipino, do we not give it
preference?
MR. DAVIDE.
The Nolledo amendment would refer to an individual Filipino. What about a corporation
wholly owned by Filipino citizens?
MR. MONSOD.
At least 60 percent, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE.
Is that the intention?
MR MONSOD.
Yes, because, in fact, we would be limiting it if we say that the preference should only
be 100-percent Filipino.
MR. DAVIDE.
I want to get that meaning clear because "QUALIFIED FILIPINOS" may refer only to
individuals and not to juridical personalities or entities.
MR. MONSOD.
We agree, Madam President. 39
x x x
MR. RODRIGO.
Before we vote, may I request that the amendment be read again.
MR. NOLLEDO.
The amendment will read: "IN THE GRANT OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND
CONCESSIONS COVERING THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY, THE STATE
SHALL GIVE PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS." And the word "Filipinos" here, as
intended by the proponents, will include not only individual Filipinos but also Filipino-
controlled entities or entities fully-controlled by Filipinos. 40
The phrase preference to qualified Filipinos was explained thus —
MR. FOZ.
Madam President, I would like to request Commissioner Nolledo to please restate his
amendment so that I can ask a question.
MR. NOLLEDO.
"IN THE GRANT OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND CONCESSIONS COVERING THE

NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY, THE STATE SHALL GIVE PREFERENCE TO
QUALIFIED FILIPINOS." cralaw virtua1aw library
MR. FOZ.
In connection with that amendment, if a foreign enterprise is qualified and a Filipino

enterprise is also qualified, will the Filipino enterprise still be given a preference?
MR. NOLLEDO.
Obviously.
MR. FOZ.
If the foreigner is more qualified in some aspects than the Filipino enterprise, will the
Filipino still be preferred?
MR. NOLLEDO.
The answer is "yes." cralaw virtua1aw library
MR. FOZ.
Thank you. 41
Expounding further on the Filipino First Policy provision Commissioner Nolledo continues
—
MR NOLLEDO.
Yes, Madam President. Instead of "MUST," it will be "SHALL — THE STATE SHALL GIVE
PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS." This embodies the so-called "Filipino First"
policy. That means that Filipinos should be given preference in the grant of concessions,
privileges and rights covering the national patrimony. 42
The exchange of views in the sessions of the Constitutional Commission regarding the
subject provision was still further clarified by Commissioner Nolledo 43 —
"Paragraph 2 of Section 10 explicitly mandates the "Pro-Filipino" bias in all economic

concerns. It is better known as the FILIPINO FIRST Policy. . . . This provision was never
found in previous Constitutions. . . .
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 counterproductive 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." cralaw virtua1aw library
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
The penchant to try to whittle away the mandate of the Constitution by arguing that the
subject provision is not self-executory and requires implementing legislation is quite
disturbing. The attempt to violate a clear constitutional provision — by the government
itself — is only too distressing. To adopt such a line of reasoning is to renounce the
duty to ensure faithfulness to the Constitution. For, even some of the provisions of the
Constitution which evidently need implementing legislation have juridical life of their
own and can be the source of a judicial remedy. We cannot simply afford the
government a defense that arises out of the failure to enact further enabling,
implementing or guiding legislation. In fine, the discourse of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.,
on constitutional government is apt —
The executive department has a constitutional duty to implement laws, including the
Constitution, even before Congress acts — provided that there are discoverable legal
standards for executive action. When the executive acts, it must be guided by its own
understanding of the constitutional command and of applicable laws. The responsibility
for reading and understanding the Constitution and the laws is not the sole prerogative
of Congress. If it were, the executive would have to ask Congress, or perhaps the
Court, for an interpretation every time the executive is confronted by a constitutional
command. That is not how constitutional government operates. 45
Respondents further argue that the constitutional provision is addressed to the State,
not to respondent GSIS which by itself possesses a separate and distinct personality.
This argument again is at best specious. It is undisputed that the sale of 51% of the
MHC could only be carried out with the prior approval of the State acting through
respondent Committee on Privatization. As correctly pointed out by Fr. Joaquin G.
Bernas, S.J., this fact alone makes the sale of the assets of respondents GSIS and MHC
a "state action." In constitutional jurisprudence, the acts of persons distinct from the
government are considered "state action" covered by the Constitution (1) when the
activity it engages in is a "public function;" (2) when the government is so-significantly
involved with the private actor as to make the government responsible for his action;
and, (3) when the government has approved or authorized the action. It is evident that
the act of respondent GSIS in selling 51% of its share in respondent MHC comes under
the second and third categories of "state action." Without doubt therefore the
transaction, although entered into by respondent GSIS, is in fact a transaction of the
State and therefore subject to the constitutional command. 46
When the Constitution addresses the State it refers not only to the people but also to
the government as elements of the State. After all, government is composed of three
(3) divisions of power — legislative, executive and judicial. Accordingly, a constitutional
mandate directed to the State is correspondingly directed to the three (3) branches of
government. It is undeniable that in this case the subject constitutional injunction is
addressed among others to the Executive Department and respondent GSIS, a
government instrumentality deriving its authority from the State.
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.
Paragraph V. J. 1 of the bidding rules provides that [i]f for any reason the Highest
Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS may offer this to other Qualified
Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided that these Qualified Bidders are
willing to match the highest bid in terms of price per share. 47 Certainly, the
constitutional mandate itself is reason enough not to award the block of shares
immediately to the foreign bidder notwithstanding its submission of a higher, or even
the highest, bid. In fact, we cannot conceive of a stronger reason than the
constitutional injunction itself.
In the instant case, where a foreign firm submits the highest bid in a public bidding
concerning the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national
economy and patrimony, thereby exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there is no question
that the Filipino will have to be allowed to match the bid of the foreign entity. And if the
Filipino matches the bid of a foreign firm the award should go to the Filipino. 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.
This Court does not discount the apprehension that this policy may discourage foreign
investors. But the Constitution and laws of the Philippines are understood to be always
open to public scrutiny. These are given factors which investors must consider when
venturing into business in a foreign jurisdiction. Any person therefore desiring to do
business in the Philippines or with any of its agencies or instrumentalities is presumed
to know his rights and obligations under the Constitution and the laws of the forum
The argument of respondents that petitioner is now estopped from questioning the sale
to Renong Berhad since petitioner was well aware from the beginning that a foreigner
could participate in the bidding is meritless. Undoubtedly, Filipinos and foreigners alike
were invited to the bidding. But foreigners may be awarded the sale only if no Filipino
qualifies, or if the qualified Filipino fails to match the highest bid tendered by the
foreign entity. In the case before us, while petitioner was already preferred at the
inception of the bidding because of the constitutional mandate, petitioner had not yet
matched the bid offered by Renong Berhad. Thus it did not have the right or personality
then to compel respondent GSIS to accept its earlier bid. Rightly, only after it had
matched the bid of the foreign firm and the apparent disregard by respondent GSIS of
petitioner’s matching bid did the latter have a cause of action.
Besides, there is no time frame for invoking the constitutional safeguard unless perhaps
the award has been finally made. To insist on selling the Manila Hotel to foreigners
when there is a Filipino group willing to match the bid of the foreign group is to insist
that government be treated as any other ordinary market player, and bound by its
mistakes or gross errors of judgment, regardless of the consequences to the Filipino
people. The miscomprehension of the Constitution is regrettable. Thus we would rather
remedy the indiscretion while there is still an opportunity to do so than let the
government develop the habit of forgetting that the Constitution lays down the basic
conditions and parameters for its actions.
Since petitioner has already matched the bid price tendered by Renong Berhad
pursuant to the bidding rules, respondent GSIS is left with no alternative but to award
to petitioner the block of shares of MHC and to execute the necessary agreements and
documents to effect the sale in accordance not only with the bidding guidelines and
procedures but with the Constitution as well. The refusal of respondent GSIS to execute
the corresponding documents with petitioner as provided in the bidding rules after the
latter has matched the bid of the Malaysian firm clearly constitutes grave abuse of
discretion.
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. The position of the Court on this
matter could have not been more appropriately articulated by Chief Justice Narvasa —
As scrupulously as it has tried to observe that it is not its function to substitute its
judgment for that of the legislature or the executive about the wisdom and feasibility of
legislation economic in nature, the Supreme Court has not been spared criticism for
decisions perceived as obstacles to economic progress and development . . . in
connection with a temporary injunction issued by the Court’s First Division against the
sale of the Manila Hotel to a Malaysian Firm and its partner, certain statements were
published in a major daily to the effect that that injunction "again demonstrates that
the Philippine legal system can be a major obstacle to doing business here." cralaw virtua1aw library
Let it be stated for the record once again that while it is no business of the Court to
intervene in contracts of the kind referred to or set itself up as the judge of whether
they are viable or attainable, it is its bounden duty to make sure that they do not
violate the Constitution or the laws, or are not adopted or implemented with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It will never shirk that
duty, no matter how buffeted by winds of unfair and ill-informed criticism. 48
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
Nationalism is inherent in the very concept of the Philippines being a democratic and
republican state, with sovereignty residing in the Filipino people and from whom all
government authority emanates. In nationalism, the happiness and welfare of the
people must be the goal. The nation-state can have no higher purpose. Any
interpretation of any constitutional provision must adhere to such basic concept.
Protection of foreign investments, while laudable, is merely a policy. It cannot override
the demands of nationalism. 50
The Manila Hotel or, for that matter, 51% of the MHC, is not just any commodity to be
sold to the highest bidder solely for the sake of privatization. We are not talking about
an ordinary piece of property in a commercial district. We are talking about a historic
relic that has hosted many of the most important events in the short history of the
Philippines as a nation. We are talking about a hotel where heads of states would prefer
to be housed as a strong manifestation of their desire to cloak the dignity of the highest
state function to their official visits to the Philippines. Thus the Manila Hotel has played
and continues to play a significant role as an authentic repository of twentieth century
Philippine history and culture. In this sense, it has become truly a reflection of the
Filipino soul — a place with a history of grandeur; a most historical setting that has
played a part in the shaping of a country. 51 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red
This Court cannot extract rhyme nor reason from the determined efforts of respondents
to sell the historical landmark — this Grand Old Dame of hotels in Asia — to a total
stranger. For, indeed, the conveyance of this epic exponent of the Filipino psyche to
alien hands cannot be less than mephistophelian for it is, in whatever manner viewed, a
veritable alienation of a nation’s soul for some pieces of foreign silver. And so we ask:
What advantage, which cannot be equally drawn from a qualified Filipino, can be gained
by the Filipinos if Manila Hotel — and all that it stands for — is sold to a non-Filipino?
How much of national pride will vanish if the nation’s cultural heritage is entrusted to a
foreign entity? On the other hand, how much dignity will be preserved and realized if
the national patrimony is safekept in the hands of a qualified, zealous and well-meaning
Filipino? This is the plain and simple meaning of the Filipino First Policy provision of the
Philippine Constitution. And this Court, heeding the clarion call of the Constitution and
accepting the duty of being the elderly watchman of the nation, will continue to respect
and protect the sanctity of the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, respondents GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA

HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL are directed to CEASE and DESIST from selling
51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation to RENONG BERHAD, and to ACCEPT
the matching bid of petitioner MANILA PRINCE HOTEL CORPORATION to purchase the
subject 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation at P44.00 per share and
thereafter to execute the necessary agreements and documents to effect the sale, to
issue the necessary clearances and to do such other acts and deeds as may be
necessary for the purpose.
SO ORDERED
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Kapunan, Francisco, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
PADILLA, J., concurring: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I concur with the ponencia of Mr. Justice Bellosillo. At the same time, I would like to
expound a bit more on the concept of national patrimony as including within its scope
and meaning institutions such as the Manila Hotel.
It is argued by petitioner that the Manila Hotel comes under "national patrimony" over
which qualified Filipinos have the preference, in ownership and operation. The
Constitutional provision on point states: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"x x x
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and
patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos." 1
Petitioner’s argument, I believe, is well taken. Under the 1987 Constitution, "national
patrimony" consists of the natural resources provided by Almighty God (Preamble) in
our territory (Article 1) consisting of land, sea, and air. 2 A study of the 1935
Constitution, where the concept of "national patrimony" originated, would show that its
framers decided to adopt the even more comprehensive expression "Patrimony of the
Nation" in the belief that the phrase encircles a concept embracing not only the natural
resources of the country but practically everything that belongs to the Filipino people,
the tangible and the material as well as the intangible and the spiritual assets and
possessions of the people. It is to be noted that the framers did not stop with
conservation. They knew that conservation alone does not spell progress; and that this
may be achieved only through development as a correlative factor to assure to the
people not only the exclusive ownership, but also the exclusive benefits of their national
patrimony. 3
Moreover, the concept of national patrimony has been viewed as referring not only to
our rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of our race. 4
There is no doubt in my mind that the Manila Hotel is very much a part of our national
patrimony and, as such deserves constitutional protection as to who shall own it and
benefit from its operation. This institution has played an important role in our nation’s
history, having been the venue of many a historical event, and serving as it did, and as
it does, as the Philippine Guest House for visiting foreign heads of state, dignitaries,
celebrities, and others. 5
It is therefore our duty to protect and preserve it for future generations of Filipinos. As
President Manuel L. Quezon once said, we must exploit the natural resources of our
country, but we should do so with an eye to the welfare of the future generations. In
other words, the leaders of today are the trustees of the patrimony of our race. To
preserve our national patrimony and reserve it for Filipinos was the intent of the
distinguished gentlemen who first framed our Constitution. Thus, in debating the need
for nationalization of our lands and natural resources, one expounded that we should
"put more teeth into our laws, and; not make the nationalization of our lands and
natural resources a subject of ordinary legislation but of constitutional enactment." 6 To
quote further: "Let not our children be mere tenants and trespassers in their own
country. Let us preserve and bequeath to them what is rightfully theirs, free from all
foreign liens and encumbrances." 7
Now, a word on preference. In my view "preference to qualified Filipinos", to be

meaningful, must refer not only to things that are peripheral, collateral, or tangential. It
must touch and affect the very "heart of the existing order." In the field of public
bidding in the acquisition of things that pertain to the national patrimony, preference to
qualified Filipinos must allow a qualified Filipino to match or equal the higher bid of a
non-Filipino; the preference shall not operate only when the bids of the qualified Filipino
and the non-Filipino are equal in which case, the award should undisputedly be made to
the qualified Filipino. The Constitutional preference should give the qualified Filipino an
opportunity to match or equal the higher bid of the non-Filipino bidder if the preference
of the qualified Filipino bidder is to be significant at all.
It is true that in this present age of globalization of attitude towards foreign

investments in our country, stress is on the elimination of barriers to foreign trade and
investment in the country. While government agencies, including the courts should re-
condition their thinking to such a trend, and make it easy and even attractive for
foreign investors to come to our shores, yet we should not preclude ourselves from
reserving to us Filipinos certain areas where our national identity, culture and heritage
are involved. In the hotel industry, for instance, foreign investors have established
themselves creditably, such as in the Shangri-La, the Nikko, the Peninsula, and
Mandarin Hotels This should not stop us from retaining 51% of the capital stock of the
Manila Hotel Corporation in the hands of Filipinos. This would be in keeping with the
intent of the Filipino people to preserve our national patrimony, including our historical
and cultural heritage in the hands of Filipinos.
VITUG, J., concurring: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I agree with Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo on his clear-cut statements, shared by Mr.
Justice Reynato S. Puno in a well written separate (dissenting) opinion, that: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
First, the provision in our fundamental law which provides that" (i)n the grant of rights,
privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State
shall give preference to qualified Filipinos" 1 is self-executory. The provision verily does
not need, although it can obviously be amplified or regulated by, an enabling law or a
set of rules.
Second, the term "patrimony" does not merely refer to the country’s natural resources
but also to its cultural heritage. A "historical landmark," to use the words of Mr. Justice
Justo P. Torres, Jr., Manila Hotel has now indeed become part of Philippine heritage.
Third, the act of the Government Service Insurance System ("GSIS"), a government
entity which derives its authority from the State, in selling 51% of its share in MHC
should be considered an act of the State subject to the Constitutional mandate.
On the pivotal issue of the degree of "preference to qualified Filipinos," I find it

somewhat difficult to take the same path traversed by the forceful reasoning of Justice
Puno. In the particular case before us, the only meaningful preference, it seems, would
really be to allow the qualified Filipino to match the foreign bid for, as a practical
matter, I cannot see any bid that literally calls for millions of dollars to be at par (to the
last cent) with another. The magnitude of the bids is such that it becomes hardly
possible for the competing bids to stand exactly "equal" which alone, under the
dissenting view, could trigger the right of preference.
It is most unfortunate that Renong Berhad has not been spared this great
disappointment, a letdown that it did not deserve, by a simple and timely advise of the
proper rules of bidding along with the peculiar constitutional implications of the
proposed transaction. It is also regrettable that the Court at times is seen to, instead,
be the refuge for bureaucratic inadequacies which create the perception that it even
takes on non-justiciable controversies. chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
All told, I am constrained to vote for granting the Petition.
MENDOZA, J., concurring: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I take the view that in the context of the present controversy the only way to enforce
the constitutional mandate that" [i]n the grant of rights, privileges and concessions
covering the national patrimony the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos" 1
is to allow petitioner Philippine corporation to equal the bid of the Malaysian firm
Renong Berhad for the purchase of the controlling shares of stocks in the Manila Hotel
Corporation. Indeed, it is the only way a qualified Filipino or Philippine corporation can
be given preference in the enjoyment of a right, privilege or concession given by the
State, by favoring it over a foreign national or corporation.
Under the rules on public bidding of the Government Service and Insurance System, if
petitioner and the Malaysian firm had offered the same price per share, "priority [would
be given] to the bidder seeking the larger ownership interest in MHC," 2 so that if
petitioner bid for more shares, it would be preferred to the Malaysian corporation for
that reason and not because it is a Philippine corporation. Consequently, it is only in
cases like the present one, where an alien corporation is the highest bidder, that
preferential treatment of the Philippine corporation is mandated not by declaring it
winner but by allowing it "to match the highest bid in terms of price per share" before it
is awarded the shares of stocks. 3 That, to me, is what "preference to qualified
Filipinos" means in the context of this case — by favoring Filipinos whenever they are at
a disadvantage vis-a-vis foreigners.
This was the meaning given in Co Chiong v. Cuaderno 4 to a 1947 statute giving
"preference to Filipino citizens in the lease of public market stalls." 5 This Court upheld
the cancellation of existing leases covering market stalls occupied by persons who were
not Filipinos and the award thereafter of the stalls to qualified Filipino vendors as
ordered by the Department of Finance. Similarly, in Vda. de Salgado v. De la Fuente, 6
this Court sustained the validity of a municipal ordinance passed pursuant to the
statute (R.A. No. 37), terminating existing leases of public market stalls and granting
preference to Filipino citizens in the issuance of new licenses for the occupancy of the
stalls. In Chua Lao v. Raymundo, 7 the preference granted under the statute was held
to apply to cases in which Filipino vendors sought the same stalls occupied by alien
vendors in the public markets even if there were available other stalls as good as those
occupied by aliens. "The law, apparently, is applicable whenever there is a conflict of
interest between Filipino applicants and aliens for lease of stalls in public markets, in
which situation the right to preference immediately arises." 8
Our legislation on the matter thus antedated by a quarter of a century efforts began
only in the 1970s in America to realize the promise of equality, through affirmative
action and reverse discrimination programs designed to remedy past discrimination
against colored people in such areas as employment, contracting and licensing. 9
Indeed, in vital areas of our national economy, there are situations in which the only
way to place Filipinos in control of the national economy as contemplated in the
Constitution 10 is to give them preferential treatment where they can at least stand on
equal footing with aliens.
There need be no fear that thus preferring Filipinos would either invite foreign
retaliation or deprive the country of the benefit of foreign capital or know-how. We are
dealing here not with common trades or common means of livelihood which are open to
aliens in our midst, 11 but with the sale of government property, which is like the grant
of government largess or benefits. In the words of Art. XII, sec. 10, we are dealing here
with "rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy" and therefore
no one should begrudge us if we give preferential treatment to our citizens. That at any
rate is the command of the Constitution. For the Manila Hotel is a business owned by
the Government. It is being privatized. Privatization should result in the relinquishment
of the business in favor of private individuals and groups who are Filipino citizens, not
in favor of aliens.
Nor should there be any doubt that by awarding the shares of stocks to petitioner we
would be trading competence and capability for nationalism. Both petitioner and the
Malaysian firm are qualified, having hurdled the pre-qualification process. 12 It is only
the result of the public bidding that is sought to be modified by enabling petitioner to
up its bid to equal the highest bid.
Nor, finally, is there any basis for the suggestion that to allow a Filipino bidder to match
the highest bid of an alien could encourage speculation, since all the Filipino entity
would then do would be not to make a bid or make only a token one and, after it is
known that a foreign bidder has submitted the highest bid, make an offer matching that
of the foreign firm. This is not possible under the rules on public bidding of the GSIS.
Under these rules there is minimum bid required (P36.67 per share for a range of 9 to
15 million shares). 13 Bids below the minimum will not be considered. On the other
hand, if the Filipino entity, after passing the pre-qualification process, does not submit
a bid, he will not be allowed to match the highest bid of the foreign firm because this is
a privilege allowed only to those who have "validly submitted bids." 14 The suggestion
is, to say the least, fanciful and has no basis in fact.
For the foregoing reasons, I vote to grant the petition.
TORRES, JR., J., concurring: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Constancy in law is not an attribute of a judicious mind. I say this as we are confronted
in the case at bar with legal and constitutional issues — and yet I am driven so to speak
on the side of history. The reason perhaps is due to the belief that in the words of
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a "page of history is worth a volume of logic." cralaw virtua1aw library
I will, however, attempt to share my thoughts on whether the Manila Hotel has a
historical and cultural aspect within the meaning of the constitution and thus, forming
part of the "patrimony of the nation." cralaw virtua1aw library
Section 10, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides : chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
x x x
"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 goals and priorities." cralaw virtua1aw library
The foregoing provisions should be read in conjunction with Article II of the same
Constitution pertaining to "Declaration of Principles and State Policies" which ordain —
"The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy, effectively
controlled by Filipinos." (Sec. 19).
Interestingly, the matter of giving preference to "qualified Filipinos" was one of the
highlights in the 1987 Constitution Commission proceedings, thus: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"MR. NOLLEDO.
The Amendment will read: "IN THE GRANT OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND
CONCESSIONS COVERING THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY, THE STATE
SHALL GIVE PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS." And the word "Filipinos" here, as
intended by the proponents, will include not only individual Filipinos but also Filipino-
controlled entities fully controlled by Filipinos (Vol. III, Records of the Constitutional, p.
608)
MR. MONSOD.
We also wanted to add, as Commissioner Villegas said, this committee and this body
already approved what is known as the Filipino First policy which was suggested by
Commissioner de Castro. So that it is now in our Constitution (Vol. IV, Records of the
Constitutional Commission, p. 225).
Commissioner Jose Nolledo explaining the provision adverted to above, said: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"MR. NOLLEDO.
In the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and
MR. FOZ.
In connection with that amendment, if a foreign enterprise is qualified and the Filipinos
enterprise is also qualified, will the Filipino enterprise shall be given a preference?
MR. NOLLEDO.
Obviously.
MR. FOZ.
If the foreigner is more qualified in some aspects than the Filipino enterprise, will the
Filipino still be preferred?
MR. NOLLEDO.
The answer is "yes" (Vol. III p. 616, Records of the Constitutional Commission).
The nationalistic provisions of the 1987 Constitution reflect the history and spirit of the
Malolos Constitution of 1898, the 1935 Constitution and the 1973 Constitutions. That
we have not reneged on this nationalist policy is articulated in one of the earliest cases,
this Court said —
"The ‘nationalistic tendency is manifested in various provisions of the Constitution. . . .

It cannot therefore be said that a law imbued with the same purpose and spirit
underlying many of the provisions of the Constitution is unreasonable, invalid or
unconstitutional (Ichong, Et. Al. v. Hernandez, Et Al., 101 Phil. 1155)." cralaw virtua1aw library
I subscribe to the view that history, culture, heritage, and tradition are not legislated
and is the product of events, customs, usages and practices. It is actually a product of
growth and acceptance by the collective mores of a race. It is the spirit and soul of a
people.
The Manila Hotel is part of our history, culture and heritage. Every inch of the Manila
Hotel is witness to historic events (too numerous to mention) which shaped our history
for almost 84 years.
As I intimated earlier, it is not my position in this opinion, to examine the single

instances of the legal largesse which have given rise to the controversy, as I believe
that has been exhaustively discussed in the ponencia. Suffice it to say at this point that
the history of the Manila Hotel should not be placed in the auction block of a purely
business transaction, where profit subverts the cherished historical values of our
people.
As a historical landmark in this "Pearl of the Orient Seas", it has its enviable tradition
which, in the words of philosopher Salvador de Madarriaga, (tradition) is "more of a
river than a stone, it keeps flowing, and one must view the flow in both directions. If
you look towards the hill from which the river flows, you see tradition in the form of
forceful currents that push the river or people towards the future; if you look the other
way, you progress." cralaw virtua1aw library
Indeed, tradition and progress are the same, for progress depends on the kind of
tradition. Let us not jettison the tradition of the Manila Hotel and thereby repeat our
colonial history.
I grant, of course, that men of the law can see the same subject in different lights.
I remember, however, a Spanish proverb which says — "He is always right who
suspects that he makes mistakes." On this note, I say that if I have to make a mistake,
I would rather err upholding the belief that the Filipino is first under his Constitution
and in his own land.
I vote to GRANT the petition.
PUNO, J., dissenting: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
This is a petition for prohibition and mandamus filed by the Manila Prince Hotel
Corporation, a domestic corporation, to stop the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) from selling the controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation to a foreign
corporation. Allegedly, the sale violates the second paragraph of section 10, Article XII
of the Constitution.
Respondent GSIS is a government-owned and controlled corporation. It is the sole

owner of the Manila Hotel which it operates through its subsidiary, the Manila Hotel
Corporation. Manila Hotel was included in the privatization program of the government.
In 1995, GSIS proposed to sell to interested buyers 30% to 51% of its shares, ranging
from 9,000,000 to 15,300,000 shares, in the Manila Hotel Corporation. After the
absence of bids at the first public bidding, the block of shares offered for sale was
increased from a maximum of 30% to 51%. Also, the winning bidder, or the eventual
"strategic partner" of the GSIS was required to "provide management expertise and/or
an international marketing/reservation system, and financial support to strengthen the
profitability and performance of the Manila Hotel." 1 The proposal was approved by
respondent Committee on Privatization.
In July 1995, a conference was held where pre-qualification documents and the bidding
rules were furnished interested parties. Petitioner Manila Prince Hotel, a domestic
corporation, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm with ITT Sheraton as operator, pre-
qualified. 2
The bidding rules and procedures entitled "Guidelines and Procedures: Second Pre-
qualification and Public Bidding of the MHC Privatization" provide: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"I. INTRODUCTION AND HIGHLIGHTS
DETERMINING THE WINNING BIDDER/STRATEGIC PARTNER
The party that accomplishes the steps set forth below will be declared the Winning
Bidder/Strategic Partner and will be awarded the Block of Shares: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
First — Pass the prequalification process;
Second — Submit the highest bid on a price per share basis for the Block of Shares;
Third — Negotiate and execute the necessary contracts with GSIS/MHC not later than
October 23, 1995.
x x x
IV. GUIDELINES FOR PREQUALIFICATION
A. PARTIES WHO MAY APPLY FOR PREQUALIFICATION
The Winning Bidder/Strategic Partner will be expected to provide management

expertise and/or an international marketing reservation, and financial support to
strengthen the profitability and performance of The Manila Hotel. In this context, the
GSIS is inviting to the prequalification process any local and/or foreign corporation,
consortium/joint venture or juridical entity with at least one of the following
qualifications: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. Proven management expertise in the hotel industry; or
b. Significant equity ownership (i.e. board representation) in another hotel company; or
c. Overall management and marketing expertise to successfully operate the Manila

Hotel.
Parties interested in bidding for MHC should be able to provide access to the requisite
management expertise and/or international marketing/reservation system for The
Manila Hotel.
x x x
D. PREQUALIFICATION DOCUMENTS
x x x
E. APPLICATION PROCEDURE
1. DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE AT THE REGISTRATION OFFICE
The prequalification documents can be secured at the Registration Office between 9:00
AM to 4:00 PM during working days within the period specified in Section III. Each set
of documents consists of the following: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. Guidelines and Procedures: Second Prequalification and Public Bidding of the MHC
Privatization
b. Confidential Information Memorandum: The Manila Hotel Corporation
c. Letter of Invitation to the Prequalification and Bidding Conference

x x x
4. PREQUALIFICATION AND BIDDING CONFERENCE
A prequalification and bidding conference will be held at The Manila Hotel on the date
specified in Section III to allow the Applicant to seek clarifications and further
information regarding the guidelines and procedures. Only those who purchased the
prequalification documents will be allowed in this conference. Attendance to this
conference is strongly advised, although the Applicant will not be penalized if it does
not attend.
5. SUBMISSION OF PREQUALIFICATION DOCUMENTS
The Applicant should submit 5 sets of the prequalification documents (1 original set plus
4 copies) at the Registration Office between 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM during working days
within the period specified in Section III.
F. PREQUALIFICATION PROCESS
1. The Applicant will be evaluated by the PBAC with the assistance of the TEC based on
the Information Package and other information available to the PBAC.
2. If the Applicant is a Consortium/Joint Venture, the evaluation will consider the overall
qualifications of the group, taking into account the contribution of each member to the
venture
3. The decision of the PBAC with respect to the results of the PBAC evaluation will be
final.
4. The Applicant shall be evaluated according to the criteria set forth below: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. Business management expertise, track record, and experience

b. Financial capability
c. Feasibility and acceptability of the proposed strategic plan for the Manila Hotel
5. The PBAC will shortlist such number of Applicants as it may deem appropriate.
6. The parties that prequalified in the first MHC public bidding — ITT Sheraton, Marriot
International Inc., Renaissance Hotels International Inc., consortium of RCBC
Capital/Ritz Carlton — may participate in the Public Bidding without having to undergo
the prequalification process again.
G. SHORTLIST OF QUALIFIED BIDDERS
1. A notice of prequalification results containing the shortlist of Qualified Bidders will be

posted at the Registration Office at the date specified in Section III.
2. In the case of a Consortium/Joint Venture, the withdrawal by a member whose

qualification was a material consideration for being included in the shortlist is a ground
for disqualification of the Applicant.
V. GUIDELINES FOR THE PUBLIC BIDDING
A. PARTIES WHO MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC BIDDING
All parties in the shortlist of Qualified Bidders will be eligible to participate in the Public
Bidding.
B. BLOCK OF SHARES
A range of Nine Million (9,000,000) to Fifteen Million Three Hundred Thousand

(15,300,000) shares of stock, representing Thirty Percent to Fifty-One Percent (30%-
51%) of the issued and outstanding shares of MHC, will be offered in the Public Bidding
by the GSIS. The Qualified Bidders will have the option of determining the number of
shares within the range to bid for. The range is intended to attract bidders with
different preferences and objectives for the operation and management of The Manila
Hotel.
C. MINIMUM BID REQUIRED ON A PRICE PER SHARE BASIS
1. Bids will be evaluated on a price per share basis. The minimum bid required on a
price per share basis for the Block of Shares is Thirty-Six Pesos and Sixty-Seven
Centavos (P36.67).
2. Bids should be in the Philippine currency payable to the GSIS.
3. Bids submitted with an equivalent price per share below the minimum required will
not considered.
D. TRANSFER COSTS
x x x
E. OFFICIAL BID FORM
1. Bids must be contained in the prescribed Official Bid Form, a copy of which is
attached as Annex IV. The Official Bid Form must be properly accomplished in all
details; improper accomplishment may be a sufficient basis for disqualification.
2. During the Public Bidding, the Qualified Bidder will submit the Official Bid Form,
which will indicate the offered purchase price, in a sealed envelope marked "OFFICIAL
BID." cralaw virtua1aw library
F. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
During the Public Bidding, the following documents should be submitted along with the
bid in a separate envelop marked "SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS" : chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. WRITTEN AUTHORITY TO BID (UNDER OATH)
If the Qualified Bidder is a corporation, the representative of the Qualified Bidder should
submit a Board resolution which adequately authorizes such representative to bid for
and in behalf of the corporation with full authority to perform such acts necessary or
requisite to bind the Qualified Bidder.
If the Qualified Bidder is a Consortium/Joint Venture, each member of the

Consortium/Joint Venture should submit a Board resolution authorizing one of its
members and such member’s representative to make the bid on behalf of the group
with full authority to perform such acts necessary or requisite to bind the Qualified
Bidder.
2. BID SECURITY
a. The Qualified Bidder should deposit Thirty-Three Million Pesos (P33,000.00), in

Philippine currency as Bid Security in the form of: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
i. Manager’s check or unconditional demand draft payable to the "Government Service

Insurance System" and issued by a reputable banking institution duly licensed to do
business in the Philippines and acceptable to GSIS; or
ii. Standby-by letter of credit issued by a reputable banking institution acceptable to the
GSIS.
b. The GSIS will reject a bid if : chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
i. The bid does not have a Bid Security; or
ii. The Bid Security accompanying the bid is for less than the required amount
c. If the Bid Security is in the form of a manager’s check or unconditional demand draft,
the interest earned on the Bid Security will be for the account of GSIS.
d. If the Qualified Bidder becomes the Winning Bidder/Strategic Partner, the Bid
Security will be applied as the downpayment on the Qualified Bidder’s offered purchase
price.
e. The Bid Security of the Qualified Bidder will be returned immediately after the Public
Bidding if the Qualified Bidder is not declared the Highest Bidder.
f. The Bid Security will be returned by October 23, 1995 if the Highest Bidder is unable
to negotiate and execute with GSIS/MHC the Management Contract, International
Marketing/Reservation System Contract or other types of contract specified by the
Highest Bidder in its strategic plan for The Manila Hotel.
g. The Bid Security of the Highest Bidder will be forfeited in favor of GSIS if the Highest
Bidder, after negotiating and executing the Management Contract, International
Marketing/Reservation System Contract or other types of contract specified by the
Highest Bidder in its strategic plan for The Manila Hotel, fails or refuses to: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
i. Execute the Stock Purchase and Sale Agreement with GSIS not later than October 23,
1995; or
ii. Pay the full amount of the offered purchase price not later than October 23, 1995; or
iii. Consummate the sale of the Block of Shares for any other reason.
G. SUBMISSION OF BIDS
1. The Public Bidding will be held on September 7, 1995 at the following location: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
New GSIS Headquarters Building
Financial Center, Reclamation Area
Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, Metro Manila

2. The Secretariat of the PBAC will be stationed at the Public Bidding to accept any and
all bids and supporting requirements. Representatives from the Commission on Audit
and COP will be invited to witness the proceedings.
3. The Qualified Bidder should submit its bid using the Official Bid Form. The
accomplished Official Bid Form should be submitted in a sealed envelope marked
"OFFICIAL BID." cralaw virtua1aw library
4. The Qualified Bidder should submit the following documents in another sealed
envelope marked "SUPPORTING BID DOCUMENTS"
a. Written Authority Bid
b. Bid Security
5. The two sealed envelopes marked "OFFICIAL BID" and "SUPPORTING BID
DOCUMENTS" must be submitted simultaneously to the Secretariat between 9:00 AM
and 2:00 PM, Philippine Standard Time, on the date of the Public Bidding. No bid shall
be accepted after the closing time. Opened or tampered bids shall not be accepted.
6. The Secretariat will log and record the actual time of submission of the two sealed
envelopes. The actual time of submission will also be indicated by the Secretariat on
the face of the two envelopes.
7. After Step No. 6, the two sealed envelopes will be dropped in the corresponding bid
boxes provided for the purpose. These boxes will be in full view of the invited public.
H. OPENING AND READING OF BIDS
1. After the closing time of 2:00 PM on the date of the Public Bidding, the PBAC will
open all sealed envelopes marked "SUPPORTING BID DOCUMENTS" for screening,
evaluation and acceptance. Those who submitted incomplete/insufficient documents or
document/s which is/are not substantially in the form required by PBAC will be
disqualified. The envelope containing their Official Bid Form will be immediately
returned to the disqualified bidders.
2. The sealed envelopes marked "OFFICIAL BID" will be opened at 3:00 PM. The name
of the bidder and the amount of its bid price will be read publicly as the envelopes are
opened.
3. Immediately following the reading of the bids, the PBAC will formally announce the
highest bid and the Highest Bidder.
4. The highest bid will be determined on a price per share basis. In the event of a tie
wherein two or more bids have the same equivalent price per share, priority will be
given to the bidder seeking the larger ownership interest in MHC.
5. The Public Bidding will be declared a failed bidding in case: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. No single bid is submitted within the prescribed period; or
b. There is only one (1) bid that is submitted and acceptable to the PBAC.
I. EXECUTION OF THE NECESSARY CONTRACTS WITH GSIS/MHC
1. The Highest Bidder must comply with the conditions set forth below by October 23,
1995 or the Highest Bidder will lose the right to purchase the Block of Shares and GSIS
will instead offer the Block of Shares to the other Qualified Bidders: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. The Highest Bidder must negotiate and execute with GSIS/MHC the Management
Contract, International Marketing/ Reservation System Contract or other type of
contract specified by the Highest Bidder in its strategic plan for The Manila Hotel. If the
Highest Bidder is intending to provide only financial support to The Manila Hotel, a
separate institution may enter into the aforementioned contract/s with GSIS/MHC.
b. The Highest Bidder must execute the Stock Purchase and Sale Agreement with GSIS,
a copy of which will be distributed to each of the Qualified Bidder after the
prequalification process is completed.
2. In the event that the Highest Bidder chooses a Management Contract for The Manila
Hotel, the maximum levels for the management fee structure that GSIS/MHC are
prepared to accept in the Management Contract are as follows : chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. Basic management fee: Maximum of 2.5% of gross revenues.(1)
b. Incentive fee: Maximum of 8.0% of gross operating profit (1) after deducting
undistributed overhead expenses and the basic management fee.
c. Fixed component of the international marketing/reservation system fee: Maximum of

2.0% of gross room revenues.(1) The Applicant should indicate in its Information
Package if it is wishes to charge this fee.
Note (1): As defined in the uniform system of account for hotels.
The GSIS/MHC have indicated above the acceptable parameters for the hotel
management fees to facilitate the negotiations with the Highest Bidder for the
Management Contract after the Public Bidding.
A Qualified Bidder envisioning a Management Contract for The Manila Hotel should
determine whether or not the management fee structure above is acceptable before
submitting their prequalification documents to GSIS.
J. BLOCK SALE TO THE OTHER QUALIFIED BIDDERS
1. If for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS
may offer this to the other Qualified Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided
that these Qualified are willing to match the highest bid in terms of price per share.
2. The order of priority among the interested Qualified Bidders will be in accordance
with the equivalent price per share of their respective bids in the Public Bidding, i.e.
first and second priority will be given to the Qualified Bidders that submitted the second
and third highest bids on the price per share basis, respectively, and so on.
K. DECLARATION OF THE WINNING BIDDER/STRATEGIC PARTNER
The Highest Bidder will be declared the Winning Bidder/Strategic Partner after the
following conditions are met: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. Execution of the necessary contract with GSIS/MHC not later than October 23, 1995;
and
b. Requisite approvals from the GSIS/MHC and COP/OGCC are obtained.
I. FULL PAYMENT FOR THE BLOCK OF SHARES
1. Upon execution of the necessary contracts with GSIS/MHC, the Winning

Bidder/Strategic Partner must fully pay, not later than October 23, 1995, the offered
purchase price for the Block of Shares after deducting the Bid Security applied as
downpayment.
2. All payments should be made in the form of a Manager’s Check or unconditional

Demand Draft, payable to the "Government Service Insurance System," issued by a
reputable banking institution licensed to do business in the Philippines and acceptable
to GSIS.
M. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The GSIS unconditionally reserves the right to reject any or all applications, waive
any formality therein, or accept such application as maybe considered most
advantageous to the GSIS. The GSIS similarly reserves the right to require the
submission of any additional information from the Applicant as the PBAC may deem
necessary.
2. The GSIS further reserves the right to call off the Public Bidding prior to acceptance
of the bids and call for a new public bidding under amended rules, and without any
liability whatsoever to any or all the Qualified Bidders, except the obligation to return
the Bid Security.
3. The GSIS reserves the right to reset the date of the prequalification/bidding
conference, the deadline for the submission of the prequalification documents, the date
of the Public Bidding or other pertinent activities at least three (3) calendar days prior
to the respective deadlines/target dates.
4. The GSIS sells only whatever rights, interest and participation it has on the Block of
Shares.
5. All documents and materials submitted by the Qualified Bidders, except the Bid
Security, may be returned upon request.
6. The decision of the PBAC/GSIS on the results of the Public Bidding is final. The
Qualified Bidders, by participating in the Public Bidding, are deemed to have agreed to
accept and abide by these results.
7. The GSIS will be held free and harmless from any liability, suit or allegation arising
out of the Public Bidding by the Qualified Bidders who have participated in the Public
Bidding." 3
The second public bidding was held on September 18, 1995. Petitioner bidded P41.00
per share for 15,300,000 shares and Renong Berhad bidded P44.00 per share also for
15,300,000 shares. The GSIS declared Renong Berhad the highest bidder and
immediately returned petitioner’s bid security.
On September 28, 1995, ten days after the bidding, petitioner wrote to GSIS offering to
match the bid price of Renong Berhad. It requested that the award be made to itself
citing the second paragraph of Section 10, Article XII of the Constitution. It sent a
manager’s check for thirty-three million pesos (P33,000,000.00) as bid security.
Respondent GSIS, then in the process of negotiating with Renong Berhad the terms and
conditions of the contract and technical agreements in the operation of the hotel,
refused to entertain petitioner’s request.
Hence, petitioner filed the present petition. We issued a temporary restraining order on
October 18, 1995.
Petitioner anchors its plea on the second paragraph of Article XII, Section 10 of the
Constitution 4 on the "National Economy and Patrimony" which provides: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"x x x
x x x"
The vital issues can be summed up as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) Whether section 10, paragraph 2 of Article XII of the Constitution is a self-executing
provision and does not need implementing legislation to carry it into effect;
(2) Assuming section 10, paragraph 2 of Article XII is self-executing, whether the
controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation form part of our patrimony as a
nation;
(3) Whether GSIS is included in the term "State," hence, mandated to implement
section 10, paragraph 2 of Article XII of the Constitution;
(4) Assuming GSIS is part of the State, whether it failed to give preference to
petitioner, a qualified Filipino corporation, over and above Renong Berhad, a foreign
corporation, in the sale of the controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation;
(5) Whether petitioner is estopped from questioning the sale of the shares to Renong
Berhad, a foreign corporation.
Anent the first issue, it is now familiar learning that a Constitution provides the guiding
policies and principles upon which is built the substantial foundation and general
framework of the law and government. 5 As a rule, its provisions are deemed self-
executing and can be enforced without further legislative action. 6 Some of its
provisions, however, can be implemented only through appropriate laws enacted by the
Legislature, hence not self-executing.
To determine whether a particular provision of a Constitution is self-executing is a hard

row to hoe. The key lies on the intent of the framers of the fundamental law oftentimes
submerged in its language. A searching inquiry should be made to find out if the
provision is intended as a present enactment, complete in itself as a definitive law, or if
it needs future legislation for completion and enforcement. 7 The inquiry demands a
micro-analysis of the text and the context of the provision in question. 8
Courts as a rule consider the provisions of the Constitution as self-executing, 9 rather

than as requiring future legislation for their enforcement. 10 The reason is not difficult
to discern. For if they are not treated as self-executing, the mandate of the
fundamental law ratified by the sovereign people can be easily ignored and nullified by
Congress. 11 Suffused with wisdom of the ages is the unyielding rule that legislative
actions may give breath to constitutional rights but congressional inaction should not
suffocate them. 12
Thus, we have treated as self-executing the provisions in the Bill of Rights on arrests,
searches and seizures, 13 the rights of a person under custodial investigation, 14 the
rights of an accused, 15 and the privilege against self-incrimination. 16 It is recognized
that legislation is unnecessary to enable courts to effectuate constitutional provisions
guaranteeing the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the protection of property. 17
The same treatment is accorded to constitutional provisions forbidding the taking or
damaging of property for public use without just compensation. 18
Contrariwise, case law lays down the rule that a constitutional provision is not self-
executing where it merely announces a policy and its language empowers the
Legislature to prescribe the means by which the policy shall be carried into effect. 19
Accordingly, we have held that the provisions in Article II of our Constitution entitled
"Declaration of Principles and State Policies" should generally be construed as mere
statements of principles of the State. 20 We have also ruled that some provisions of
Article XIII on "Social Justice and Human Rights," 21 and Article XIV on "Education
Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports" 22 cannot be the basis of judicially
enforceable rights. Their enforcement is addressed to the discretion of Congress though
they provide the framework for legislation 23 to effectuate their policy content. 24
Guided by this map of settled jurisprudence, we now consider whether Section 10,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is self-executing or not. It reads: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"Sec. 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.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its
national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities." cralaw virtua1aw library
The first paragraph directs Congress to reserve certain areas of investments in the
country 25 to Filipino citizens or to corporations sixty per cent 26 of whose capital stock
is owned by Filipinos. It further commands Congress to enact laws that will encourage
the formation and operation of one hundred percent Filipino-owned enterprises. In
checkered contrast, the second paragraph orders the entire State to give preference to
qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights and privileges covering the national economy
and patrimony. The third paragraph also directs the State to regulate foreign
investments in line with our national goals and well-set priorities.
The first paragraph of Section 10 is not self-executing. By its express text, there is a
categorical command for Congress to enact laws restricting foreign ownership in certain
areas of investments in the country and to encourage the formation and operation of
wholly-owned Filipino enterprises. The right granted by the provision is clearly still in
esse. Congress has to breathe life to the right by means of legislation. Parenthetically,
this paragraph was plucked from section 3, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. 27 The
provision in the 1973 Constitution affirmed our ruling in the landmark case of Lao
Ichong v. Hernandez, 28 where we upheld the discretionary authority of Congress to
Filipinize certain areas of investments. 29 By reenacting the 1973 provision, the first
paragraph of section 10 affirmed the power of Congress to nationalize certain areas of
investments in favor of Filipinos.
The second and third paragraphs of Section 10 are different. They are directed to the
State and not to Congress alone which is but one of the three great branches of our
government. Their coverage is also broader for they cover "the national economy and
patrimony" and "foreign investments within [the] national jurisdiction" and not merely
"certain areas of investments." Beyond debate, they cannot be read as granting
Congress the exclusive power to implement by law the policy of giving preference to
qualified Filipinos in the conferral of rights and privileges covering our national economy
and patrimony. Their language does not suggest that any of the State agency or
instrumentality has the privilege to hedge or to refuse its implementation for any
reason whatsoever. Their duty to implement is unconditional and it is now. The second
and the third paragraphs of Section 10, Article XII are thus self-executing.
This submission is strengthened by Article II of the Constitution entitled "Declaration of

Principles and State Policies." Its Section 19 provides that" [T]he State shall develop a
self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos." It
engrafts the all-important Filipino First policy in our fundamental law and by the use of
the mandatory word "shall," directs its enforcement by the whole State without any
pause or a half-pause in time.
The second issue is whether the sale of a majority of the stocks of the Manila Hotel
Corporation involves the disposition of part of our national patrimony. The records of
the Constitutional Commission show that the Commissioners entertained the same view
as to its meaning. According to Commissioner Nolledo, "patrimony" refers not only to
our rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of our race. 30 By this
yardstick, the sale of Manila Hotel falls within the coverage of the constitutional
provision giving preferential treatment to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights
involving our national patrimony. The unique value of the Manila Hotel to our history
and culture cannot be viewed with a myopic eye. The value of the hotel goes beyond
pesos and centavos. As chronicled by Beth Day Romulo, 31 the hotel first opened on
July 4, 1912 as a first-class hotel built by the American Insular Government for
Americans living in, or passing through, Manila while travelling to the Orient.
Indigenous materials and Filipino craftsmanship were utilized in its construction. For
sometime, it was exclusively used by American and Caucasian travelers and served as
the "official guesthouse" of the American Insular Government for visiting foreign
dignitaries. Filipinos began coming to the Hotel as guests during the Commonwealth
period. When the Japanese occupied Manila, it served as military headquarters and
lodging for the highest-ranking officers from Tokyo. It was at the Hotel and the
Intramuros that the Japanese made their last stand during the Liberation of Manila.
After the war, the Hotel again served foreign guests and Filipinos alike. Presidents and
kings, premiers and potentates, as well as glamorous international film and sports
celebrities were housed in the Hotel. It was also the situs of international conventions
and conferences. In the local scene, it was the venue of historic meetings, parties and
conventions of political parties. The Hotel has reaped and continues reaping numerous
recognitions and awards from international hotel and travel award-giving bodies, a
fitting acknowledgment of Filipino talent and ingenuity. These are judicially cognizable
facts which cannot be bent by a biased mind.
The Hotel may not, as yet, have been declared a national cultural treasure pursuant to
Republic Act No. 4846 but that does not exclude it from our national patrimony.
Republic Act No 486, "he Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act," merely
provides a procedure whereby a particular cultural property may be classified a
"national cultural treasure" or an "important cultural property." 32 Approved on June
18, 1966 and amended by P.D. 374 in 1974, the law is limited in its reach and cannot
be read as the exclusive law implementing section 10, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution. To be sure, the law does not equate cultural treasure and cultural property
as synonymous to the phrase "patrimony of the nation." cralaw virtua1aw library
The third issue is whether the constitutional command to the State includes the
respondent GSIS. A look at its charter will reveal that GSIS is a government-owned and
controlled corporation that administers funds that come from the monthly contributions
of government employees and the government. 33 The funds are held in trust for a
distinct purpose which cannot be disposed of indifferently. 34 They are to be used to
finance the retirement, disability and life insurance benefits of the employees and the
administrative and operational expenses of the GSIS. 35 Excess funds, however, are
allowed to be invested in business and other ventures for the benefit of the employees.
36 It is thus contended that the GSIS’ investment in the Manila Hotel Corporation is a
simple business venture, hence, an act beyond the contemplation of section 10,
paragraph 2 of Article XII of the Constitution.
The submission is unimpressive. The GSIS is not a pure private corporation. It is

essentially a public corporation created by Congress and granted an original charter to
serve a public purpose. It is subject to the jurisdictions of the Civil Service Commission
37 and the Commission on Audit. 38 As a state-owned and controlled corporation, it is
skin-bound to adhere to the policies spelled out in the Constitution especially those
designed to promote the general welfare of the people. One of these policies is the
Filipino First policy which the people elevated as a constitutional command.
The fourth issue demands that we look at the content of the phrase "qualified Filipinos"
and their "preferential right." The Constitution desisted from defining their contents.
This is as it ought to be for a Constitution only lays down flexible policies and principles
which can be bent to meet today’s manifest needs and tomorrow’s unmanifested
demands. Only a constitution strung with elasticity can grow as a living constitution.
Thus, during the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, Commissioner Nolledo

brushed aside a suggestion to define the phrase "qualified Filipinos." He explained that
present and prospective "laws" will take care of the problem of its interpretation, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"x x x
THE PRESIDENT.
What is the suggestion of Commissioner Rodrigo? Is it to remove the word

"QUALIFIED?"
MR. RODRIGO.
No, no, but say definitely "TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS" as against whom? As against
aliens over aliens?
MR. NOLLEDO.
Madam President, I think that is understood. We use the word "QUALIFIED" because
the existing laws or the prospective laws will always lay down conditions under which
business may be done, for example, qualifications on capital, qualifications or the
setting up of other financial structures, et cetera.
MR. RODRIGO.
It is just a matter of style.
MR. NOLLEDO.
Yes.
MR. RODRIGO.
If we say, "PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS," it can be understood as giving

preference to qualified Filipinos as against Filipinos who are not qualified.
MR. NOLLEDO.
Madam President, that was the intention of the proponents. The committee has
accepted the amendment.
x x x"
As previously discussed, the constitutional command to enforce the Filipino First policy
is addressed to the State and not to Congress alone. Hence, the word "laws" should not
be understood as limited to legislations but all state actions which include applicable
rules and regulations adopted by agencies and instrumentalities of the State in the
exercise of their rule-making power. In the case at bar, the bidding rules and
regulations set forth the, standards to measure the qualifications of bidders Filipinos
and foreigners alike. It is not seriously disputed that petitioner qualified to bid as did
Renong Berhad. 39
Thus, we come to the critical issue of the degree of preference which GSIS should have
accorded petitioner, a qualified Filipino, over Renong Berhad, a foreigner, in the
purchase of the controlling shares of the Manila Hotel. Petitioner claims that after losing
the bid, this right of preference gives it a second chance to match the highest bid of
Renong Berhad.
With due respect, I cannot sustain petitioner’s submission. I prescind from the premise
that the second paragraph of section 10, Article XII of the Constitution is pro-Filipino
but not anti-alien. It is pro-Filipino for it gives preference to Filipinos. It is not,
however, anti-alien per se for it does not absolutely bar aliens in the grant of rights,
privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. Indeed, in
the absence of qualified Filipinos, the State is not prohibited from granting these rights,
privileges and concessions to foreigners if the act will promote the weal of the nation.
In implementing the policy articulated in Section 10, Article XII of the Constitution, the
stellar task of our State policy-makers is to maintain a creative tension between two
desiderata — first, the need to develop our economy and patrimony with the help of
foreigners if necessary, and, second, the need to keep our economy controlled by
Filipinos. Rightfully, the framers of the Constitution did not define the degree of the
right of preference to be given to qualified Filipinos. They knew that for the right to
serve the general welfare, it must have a malleable content that can be adjusted by our
policy-makers to meet the changing needs of our people. In fine, the right of preference
of qualified Filipinos is to be determined by degree as time dictates and circumstances
warrant. The lesser the need for alien assistance, the greater the degree of the right of
preference can be given to Filipinos and vice versa.
Again, it should be stressed that the right and the duty to determine the degree of this
privilege at any given time is addressed to the entire State. While under our
constitutional scheme, the right primarily belongs to Congress as the lawmaking
department of our government, other branches of government, and all their agencies
and instrumentalities, share the power to enforce this state policy. Within the limits of
their authority, they can act or promulgate rules and regulations defining the degree of
this right of preference in cases where they have to make grants involving the national
economy and judicial duty. On the other hand, our duty is to strike down acts of the
State that violate the policy.
To date, Congress has not enacted a law defining the degree of the preferential right.
Consequently, we must turn to the rules and regulations of respondents Committee on
Privatization and GSIS to determine the degree of preference that petitioner is entitled
to as a qualified Filipino in the subject sale. A tearless look at the rules and regulations
will show that they are silent on the degree of preferential right to be accorded a
qualified Filipino bidder. Despite their silence, however, they cannot be read to mean
that they do not grant any degree of preference to petitioner for paragraph 2, Section
10, Article XII of the Constitution is deemed part of said rules and regulations. Pursuant
to legal hermeneutics which demand that we interpret rules to save them from
unconstitutionality, I submit that the right of preference of petitioner arises only if it
tied the bid of Renong Berhad. In that instance, all things stand equal, and petitioner,
as a qualified Filipino bidder, should be preferred.
It is with deep regret that I cannot subscribe to the view that petitioner has a right to
match the bid of Renong Berhad. Petitioner’s submission must be supported by the
rules but even if we examine the rules inside-out a thousand times, they can not justify
the claimed right. Under the rules, the right to match the highest bid arises only "if for
any reason, the highest bidder cannot be awarded the block of shares . . ." No reason
has arisen that will prevent the award to Renong Berhad. It qualified as a bidder. It
complied with the procedure of bidding. It tendered the highest bid. It was declared as
the highest bidder by the GSIS and the rules say this decision is final. It deserves the
award as a matter of right for the rules clearly did not give to the petitioner as a
qualified Filipino the privilege to match the higher bid of a foreigner. What the rules did
not grant, petitioner cannot demand. Our sympathies may be with petitioner but the
court has no power to extend the latitude and longitude of the right of preference as
defined by the rules. The parameters of the right of preference depend on a galaxy of
facts and factors whose determination belongs to the province of the policy-making
branches and agencies of the State. We are duty-bound to respect that determination
even if we differ with the wisdom of their judgment. The right they grant may be little
but we must uphold the grant for as long as the right of preference is not denied. It is
only when a State action amounts to a denial of the right that the Court can come in
and strike down the denial as unconstitutional.
Finally, I submit that petitioner is estopped from assailing the winning bid of Renong
Berhad. Petitioner was aware of the rules and regulations of the bidding. It knew that
the rules and regulations do not provide that qualified Filipino bidder can match the
winning bid after submitting an inferior bid. It knew that the bid was open to foreigners
and that foreigners qualified even during the first bidding. Petitioner cannot be allowed
to repudiate the rules which it agreed to respect. It cannot be allowed to obey the rules
when it wins and disregard them when it loses. If sustained, petitioners’ stance will
wreak havoc on the essence of bidding. Our laws, rules and regulations require highest
bidding to raise as much funds as possible for the government to maximize its capacity
to deliver essential services to our people. This is a duty that must be discharged by
Filipinos and foreigners participating in a bidding contest and the rules are carefully
written to attain this objective. Among others, bidders are prequalified to insure their
financial capability. The bidding is secret and the bids are sealed to prevent collusion
among the parties. This objective will be undermined if we grant petitioner the privilege
to know the winning bid and a chance to match it. For plainly, a second chance to bid
will encourage a bidder not to strive to give the highest bid in the first bidding.
We support the Filipino First policy without any reservation. The visionary nationalist
Don Claro M. Recto has warned us that the greatest tragedy that can befall a Filipino is
to be an alien in his own land. The Constitution has embodied Recto’s counsel as a state
policy and our decision should be in sync with this policy. But while the Filipino First
policy requires that we incline to a Filipino, it does not demand that we wrong an alien.
Our policy makers can write laws and rules giving favored treatment to the Filipino but
we are not free to be unfair to a foreigner after writing the laws and the rules. After the
laws are written, they must be obeyed as written, by Filipinos and foreigners alike. The
equal protection clause of the Constitution protects all against unfairness. We can be
pro-Filipino without unfairness to foreigners.
I vote to dismiss the petition.
PANGANIBAN, J., dissenting: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I regret I cannot join the majority. To the incisive Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice
Reynato S. Puno, may I just add: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. The majority contends the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that, after a
bidding process is concluded, the losing Filipino bidder should be given the right to
equal the highest foreign bid, and thus to win. However, the Constitution [Sec. 10 (2),
Art. XII] simply states that "in the grant of rights . . . covering the national economy
and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos." The majority
concedes that there is no law defining the extent or degree of such preference.
Specifically, no statute empowers a losing Filipino bidder to increase his bid and equal
that of the winning foreigner. In the absence of such empowering law, the majority’s
strained interpretation, I respectfully submit, constitutes unadulterated judicial
legislation, which makes bidding a ridiculous sham where no Filipino can lose and where
no foreigner can win. Only in the Philippines!
2. Aside from being prohibited by the Constitution, such judicial legislation is short-
sighted and, viewed properly, gravely prejudicial to long-term Filipino interests. It
encourages other countries — in the guise of reverse comity or worse, unabashed
retaliation — to discriminate against us in their own jurisdictions by authorizing their
own nationals to similarly equal and defeat the higher bids of Filipino enterprises solely,
while on the other hand, allowing similar bids of other foreigners to remain
unchallenged by their nationals. The majority’s thesis will thus marginalize Filipinos as
pariahs in the global marketplace with absolutely no chance of winning any bidding
outside our country. Even authoritarian regimes and hermit kingdoms have long ago
found out that unfairness, greed and isolation are self-defeating and in the long-term,
self-destructing. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red
The moral lesson here is simple: Do not do unto others what you do not want others to
do unto you.
3. In the absence of a law specifying the degree or extent of the "Filipino First" policy of
the Constitution, the constitutional preference for the "qualified Filipinos" may be
allowed only where all the bids are equal. In this manner, we put the Filipino ahead
without self-destructing him and without being unfair to the foreigner.
In short, the Constitution mandates a victory for the qualified Filipino only when the
scores are tied. But not when the ballgame is over and the foreigner clearly posted the
highest score.
Endnotes:
1. See Sec. 10, par. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution.
2. Par. I. Introduction and Highlights; Guidelines and Procedures: Second

Prequalifications and Public Bidding of the MHC Privatization; Annex "A," Consolidated
Reply to Comments of Respondents; Rollo, p. 142.
3. Par. V. Guidelines for the Public Bidding, id., pp. 153-154.
4. Annex "A," Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with Temporary Restraining Order;
Rollo, pp. 13-14.
5. Annex "B," Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with Temporary Restraining Order;
id., p. 15.
6. Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with Temporary Restraining Order, pp. 5-6;
id., pp. 6-7.
7. Consolidated Reply to Comments of Respondents, p. 17; id., p. 133.

8. Par. V. J. 1, Guidelines for Public Bidding, Guidelines and Procedures: Second
Prequalifications and Public Bidding Of the MHC Privatization, Annex "A," Consolidated
Reply to Comments of Respondents; id., p. 154.
9. Respondents’ Joint Comment with Urgent Motion to Lift Temporary Restraining

Order, p. 9; Rollo, p. 44.
10. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 138 (1803).
11. 11 Am Jur. 606.
12. 16 Am Jur. 2d 281.
13. Id., p. 282.
14. See Note 12.
15. Cruz, Isagani A., Constitutional Law, 1993 ed., pp. 8-10.
16. Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 3, 22 August 1986, p. 608.
17. 16 Am Jur 2d 283-284.
18. Sec. 10, first par., reads: 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.
Sec. 10, third par., reads: The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign
investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and
priorities.
19. State ex rel. Miller v. O’Malley, 342 Mo. 641, 117 SW2d 319.
20. G.R No. 91649, 14 May 1991, 197 SCRA 52.
21. Sec. 11, Art. II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), provides that [t]he
State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human
rights.
22. Sec. 12, Art. II, provides that [t]he State recognizes the sanctity of family life and
shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall
equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The
natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic
efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the
government.
23. Sec. 13, Art. II, provides that [t]he State recognizes the vital role of the youth in
nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual,
intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and
nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.
24. Sec. 1, Art. XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights), provides that [the] Congress
shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the
right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic and political
inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political
power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of
property and its increments.
Sec. 2, Art. XIII, provides that [t]he promotion of social justice shall include the
commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-
reliance.
25. Sec. 2, Art. XIV (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports),
provides that [T]he State shall: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) Establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system of
education relevant to the needs of the people and society;
(2) Establish and maintain a system of free public education in the elementary and high
school levels. Without limiting the natural right of parents to rear their children,
elementary education is compulsory for all children of school age;
(3) Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan programs,
subsidies, and other incentives which shall be available to deserving students in both
public and private schools, especially to the underprivileged;
(4) Encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous learning, independent, and out-of-
school study programs particularly those that respond to community needs; and
(5) Provide adult citizens, the disabled, and out-of-school youth with training in civics,
vocational efficiency, and other skills.
26. G.R No. 115455, 25 August 1994, 235 SCRA 630.
27. See Note 25.
28. Sec. 1, Art. XIV, provides that [t]he State shall protect and promote the right of all
citizens to quality education at all levels of education and shall take appropriate steps to
make such education accessible to all.
29. G.R No. 118910, 17 July 1995.
30. Sec. 5, Art. II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), provides that [t]he
maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the
promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of
the blessings of democracy.
31. See Note 23.
32. See Note 24.
33. Sec. 17, Art. II, provides that [t]he State shall give priority to education, science
and technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism,
accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and development.
34. Nolledo, Jose N., The New Constitution of the Philippines Annotated, 1990 ed., p.
72.
35. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1986 ed., p. 1656.
36. The guest list of the Manila Hotel includes Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the Duke of
Windsor, President Richard Nixon of U.S.A., Emperor Akihito of Japan, President Dwight
Eisenhower of U.S.A., President Nguyen Van Thieu of Vietnam, President Park Chung
Hee of Korea, Prime Minister Richard Holt of Australia, Prime Minister Keith Holyoake of
New Zealand, President Lyndon Johnson of U.S.A., President Jose Lopez Portillo of
Mexico, Princess Margaret of England, Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser of Australia, Prime
Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone of Japan, Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau of Canada,
President Raul Alfonsin of Argentina, President Felipe Gonzalez of Spain, Prime Minister
Noboru Takeshita of Japan, Prime Minister Hussain Muhammad Ershad of Bangladesh,
Prime Minister Bob Hawke of Australia, Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone of Japan,
Premier Li Peng of China, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei, President Ramaswami
Venkataraman of India, Prime Minister Go Chok Tong of Singapore, Prime Minister
Enrique Silva Cimma of Chile, Princess Chulaborn and Mahacharri Sirindhorn of
Thailand, Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama of Japan, Sultan Azlan Shah and Raja
Permaisuri Agong of Malaysia, President Kim Young Sam of Korea, Princess Infanta
Elena of Spain, President William Clinton of U.S.A., Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of
Malaysia, King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sofia of Spain, President Carlos Saul Menem of
Argentina, Prime Ministers Chatichai Choonhavan and Prem Tinsulanonda of Thailand,
Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, President Vaclav Havel of Czech Republic,
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf of U.S.A., President Ernesto Perez Balladares of Panama,
Prime Minister Adolfas Slezevicius of Lithuania, President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani of
Iran, President Askar Akayev of Kyrgyztan, President Ong Teng Cheong of Singapore,
President Frei Ruiz Tagle of Chile, President Le Duc Anh of Vietnam, and Prime Minister
Julius Chan of Papua New Guinea, see Memorandum for Petitioner, pp. 16-19.
37. Authored by Beth Day Romulo.
38. See Note 9, pp. 15-16; Rollo, pp. 50-51.
39. Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 3, 22 August 1986, p. 607.
40. Id., p. 612.
41. Id., p. 616.
42. Id., p. 606.
43. Nolledo, J.N., The New Constitution of the Philippines Annotated, 1990 ed., pp. 930-
931.
44. Bidders were required to have at least one of the these qualifications to be able to
participate in the bidding process; see Note 2.
45. Memorandum of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., p. 6.
46. Id., pp. 3-4.
47. See Note 8.
48. Keynote Address at the ASEAN Regional Symposium on Enforcement of Industrial

Property Rights held 23 October 1995 at New World Hotel, Makati City.
49. Speech of Senior Associate Justice Teodoro R. Padilla at the Induction of Officers
and Directors of the PHILCONSA for 1996 held 16 January 1996 at the Sky-Top, Hotel
Intercontinental, Makati City.
50. Memorandum of Authorities submitted by former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando,

p. 5.
51. 8 March 1996 issue of Philippine Daily Inquirer, p. B13.
PADILLA, J., concurring: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Article XII, Section 10, par. 2, 1987 Constitution
2. Padilla, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Volume III, p. 89.
3. Sinco, Philippine Political Law, 11th ed., p. 112
4. Nolledo, The New Constitution of the Philippines, Annotated, 1990 ed, p. 72.
5. Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 1.
6. Laurel, Proceedings of the Philippine Constitutional Convention (1934-1935), p. 507.
7. Id., p. 562.
VITUG, J., concurring: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Second par., Section 10, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution.
MENDOZA, J., concurring: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Art. XII, Sec. 10, second paragraph.
2. GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES: SECOND PREQUALIFICATION AND PUBLIC

BIDDING OF THE MHC PRIVATIZATION (hereafter referred to as GUIDELINES), Part. V,
par. H(4).
3. Id.
4. 83 Phil. 242 (1949).
5. RA. No. 37, sec. 1.
6. 87 Phil. 343 (1950)
7. 104 Phil. 302 (1958).
8. Id. at 309
9. For an excellent analysis of American cases on reverse discrimination in these areas,

see GERALD GUNTHER, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 780-819 (1991).
10. Art 11, sec. 19: "The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy effectively controlled by Filipinos." (Emphasis added)
11. See Villegas v. Hiu Chiung Tsai Pao Ho, 86 SCRA 270 (1978) (invalidating an
ordinance imposing a flat fee of P500 on aliens for the privilege of earning a livelihood)
12. Petitioner passed the criteria set forth in the GUIDELINES, Part IV, par. F(4), of the
GSIS relating to the following: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. Business management expertise, track record, and experience
b. Financial capability
c. Feasibility and acceptability of the proposed strategic plan for The Manila Hotel
13. GUIDELINES, Part V, par. C (1) (3) in relation to Part I.
14. Id., Part V, par. V (1).

PUNO, J., dissenting: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Introduction and Highlights, Guidelines and Procedures: Second Pre-qualification and

Public Bidding of the MHC Privatization, Annex "A" to Petitioner’s Consolidated Reply to
Comments of Respondents, Rollo, p. 142.
2. The four bidders who previously pre-qualified for the first bidding, namely, ITT
Sheraton, Marriot International, Inc., Renaissance Hotel International, Inc., and the
consortium of RCBC and the Ritz Carlton, were deemed prequalified for the second
bidding.
3. Annex "A" to the Consolidated Reply to Comments of Respondents, Rollo, pp. 140-
155.
4. Former Chief Justice Enrique Fernando and Commissioner Joaquin Bernas were
invited by the Court as amicus curiae to shed light on its meaning.
5. Lopez v. de los Reyes, 55 Phil. 170, 190 [1930].
6. 16 Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law, Sec. 139 p. 510 [1979 ed.]; 6 R.C.L. Sec. 52 , p.
57[1915]; see also Willis v. St. Paul Sanitation Co., 48 Minn. 140, 50 N.W. 1110, 31
A.J.R. 626, 16 L.R.A. 281 [1892]; State ex rel. Schneider v. Kennedy, 587 P. 2d 844,
225 Kan 13 [1978].
7. Willis v. St. Paul Sanitation, supra, at 1110-1111; see also Cooley, A Treatise on
Constitutional Limitations 167, vol. 1 [1927].
8. 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sec. 48, p. 100.
9. Cooley, supra, at 171; 6 R.C.L. Sec. 53, pp. 57-58; Brice v. McDow, 116 S.C. 324,
108 S.E. 84, 87 [1921]; see also Gonzales, Philippine Constitutional Law p. 26 [1969].
10. 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sec. 48, p. 101.

11. Way v. Barney, 116 Minn. 285, 133 N.W. 801, 804 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 648, Ann. Cas.
1913 A, 719 [1911]; Brice v. McDow, supra, at 87; Morgan v. Board of Supervisors, 67
Ariz. 133, 192 P. 2d 236, 241 [1948]; Gonzales, supra.
12. Ninth Decennial Digest Part I, Constitutional Law, (Key No. 28), p. 1638.
13. Article III, Section 2; see Webb v. de Leon, 247 SCRA 652 [1995]; People v.
Saycon, 236 SCRA 325 [1994]; Allado v. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 [1994]; Burgos v.
Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 [1984]; Yee Sue Kuy v. Almeda, 70 Phil. 141 [1940];
Pasion Vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689 [1938]; and a host of other cases.
14. Article III, Section 12, pars. 1 to 3; People v. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 [1995];
People v. Bandula, 232 SCRA 566 [1994]; People v. Nito, 228 SCRA 442 [1993]; People
v. Duero, 104 SCRA 379 [1981]; People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 [1985]; and a host of
other cases.
15. Article III, Section 14; People v. Digno, 250 SCRA 237 [1995]; People v. Godoy,
250 SCRA 676 [1995]; People v. Colcol, 219 SCRA [1993]; Borja v. Mendoza, 77 SCRA
422 [1977]; People v. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59 [1971]; and a host of other cases.
16. Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 [1985]; Chavez v. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA
663 [1968]; People v. Otadura, 86 Phil. 244 [1950]; Bermudez v. Castillo, 64 Phil. 485
[1937]; and a host of other cases.
17. Harley v. Schuylkill County, 476 F. Supp. 191, 195-196 [1979]; Erdman v. Mitchell,
207 Pa. St. 79, 56 Atl. 327, 99 A.S.R. 783, 63 L.R.A. 534 [1903]; see Ninth Decennial
Digest Part I, Constitutional Law, (Key No. 28), pp. 1638-1639.
18. City of Chicago v. George F. Harding Collection, 217 N.E. 2d 381, 383, 70 Ill. App.
2d 254 [1966]; People v. Buellton Dev. Co., 136 P. 2d 793, 796, 58 Cal. App. 2d 178
[1943]; Bordy v. State, 7 N.W. 2d 632, 635, 142 Neb. 714 [1943]; Cohen v. City of
Chicago, 36 N.E. 2d 220, 224, 377 Ill. 221 [1941].
19. 16 Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law, Sec. 143, p. 514; 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law,
Sec. 48, p. 100; 6 R.C.L. Sec. 54, p. 59; see also State ex rel. Noe v. Knop La. App.
190 So. 135, 142 [1939]; State ex rel. Walker v. Board of Comm’rs. for Educational
Lands and Funds, 3 N.W. 2d 196, 200, 141 Neb. 172 [1942]; Maddox v. Hunt, 83 P. 2d
553, 556, 83 Okl. 465 [1938].
20. Article II, Sections 11, 12 and 13 (Basco v. Phil. Amusements and Gaming
Corporation, 197 SCRA 52, 68 [1991]); Sections 5, 12, 13 and 17 (Kilosbayan, Inc. v.
Morato, 246 SCRA 540, 564 [1995]).
21. Article XIII, Section 13 (Basco, supra).
22. Article XIV, Section 2 (Basco, supra);
23. Kilosbayan v. Morato, supra, at 564.
24. Basco v. Phil. Amusements and Gaming Corporation, supra, at 68.
25. Congress had previously passed the Retail Trade Act (R.A. 1180); the Private
Security Agency Act (R.A. 5487; the law on engaging in the rice and corn industry (R.A.
3018, P.D. 194), etc.
26. Or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe.
27. Article XIV, section 3 of the 1973 Constitution reads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Sec. 3. The Batasang Pambansa shall, upon recommendation of the National Economic
and Development Authority, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations wholly owned by such citizens, certain traditional areas of investments
when the national interest so dictates." cralaw virtua1aw library
28. 101 Phil. 1155 [1957].
29. See Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines 450, vol. II [1988].
The Lao Ichong case upheld the Filipinization of the retail trade and implied that
particular areas of business may be Filipinized without doing violence to the equal
protection clause of the Constitution.
30. Nolledo, The New Constitution of the Philippines, Annotated, 1990 ed., p. 72. The
word "patrimony" first appeared in the preamble of the 1935 Constitution and was
understood to cover everything that belongs to the Filipino people, the tangible and the
material as well as the intangible and the spiritual assets and possessions of the nation
(Sinco, Philippine Political Law, Principles and Concepts [1962 ed.], p. 112; Speech of
Delegate Conrado Benitez defending the draft preamble of the 1935 Constitution in
Laurel, Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, vol. III, p. 325 [1966]).
31. Commissioned by the Manila Hotel Corporation for the Diamond Jubilee celebration
of the Hotel in 1987; see The Manila Hotel: The Heart and Memory of a City.
32. Section 7 of R.A. 4846 provides: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Sec. 7. In the designation of a particular cultural property as a "national cultural

treasure," the following procedure shall be observed: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) Before the actual designation, the owner, if the property is privately owned, shall be
notified at least fifteen days prior to the intended designation, and he shall be invited to
attend the deliberation and given a chance to be heard. Failure on the part of the owner
to attend the deliberation shall not bar the panel to render its decision. Decision shall
be given by the panel within a week after its deliberation. In the event that the owner
desires to seek reconsideration of the designation made by the panel, he may do so
within thirty days from the date that the decision has been rendered. If no request for
reconsideration is filed after this period, the designation is then considered final and
executory. Any request for reconsideration filed within thirty days and subsequently
again denied by the panel, may be further appealed to another panel chairmanned by
the Secretary of Education with two experts as members appointed by the Secretary of
Education. Their decision shall final and binding.
(b) Within each kind or class of objects, only the rare and unique objects may be
designated as "National Cultural Treasures." The remainder, if any, shall be treated as
cultural property.
x x x." cralaw virtua1aw library
33. P.D. 1146, Sec. 5; P.D. 1146, known as "The Revised Government Service
Insurance Act of 1977" amended Commonwealth Act No. 186, the "Government Service
Insurance Act" of 1936.
34. Beronilla v. Government Service Insurance System, 36 SCRA 44, 53 [1970]; Social
Security System Employees Association v. Soriano, 7 SCRA 1016, 1023 [1963].
35. Id., Secs. 28 and 29.
36. Id., Sec. 30.
37. Constitution, Article IX (B), section 2 (1).
38. Constitution, Article IX (D), section 2 (1).
39. It is meet to note that our laws do not debar foreigners from engaging in the hotel
business. Republic Act No. 7042, entitled the "Foreign Investments Act of 1991" was
enacted by Congress to "attract, promote and welcome . . . foreign investments . . . in
activities which significantly contribute to national industrialization and socio-economic
development to the extent that foreign investment is allowed by the Constitution and
relevant laws." The law contains a list, called the Negative List, specifying areas of
economic activity where foreign participation is limited or prohibited. Areas of economic
activity not included in the Negative List are open to foreign participation up to one
hundred per cent (Secs. 6 and 7). Foreigners now own and run a great number of our
five-star hotels.
Back to Home | Back to Main

Search

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles CPA Review Online
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series
February-1997 Jurisprudence
 G.R. No. 99039 February 3, 1997 - FORD PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
 G.R. No. 100748 February 3, 1997 - JOSE BARITUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 108547 February 3, 1997 - FELICIDAD VDA. DE CABRERA, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. Nos. 112761-65 February 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFERIO M.
PEPITO
 G.R. No. 114183 February 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS BORJA
 G.R. No. 119310 February 3, 1997 - JULIETA V. ESGUERRA v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
 G.R. No. 119935 February 3, 1997 - UNITED SOUTH DOCKHANDLERS, INC. v.
NLRC, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 122156 February 3, 1997 - MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GSIS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 123332 February 3, 1997 - AUGUSTO GATMAYTAN v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
 G.R. No. 118915 February 4, 1997 - CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER-ACE-UFSW v.
BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.
 Adm. Matter No. P-94-1110 February 6, 1997 - MELENCIO S. SY v. CARMELITA S.
MONGCUPA
 Adm. Matter No. P-96-1203 February 6, 1997 - ERNESTO A. REYES v. NORBERTO R.
ANOSA
 G.R. No. 110668 February 6, 1997 ccc zz
SMITH, BELL & CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

 G.R. No. 111682 February 6, 1997 - ZENAIDA REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 117982 February 6, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v.
 G.R. No. 118843 February 6, 1997 - ERIKS PTE. LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. Nos. 118950-54 February 6, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCRECIA
GABRES
 G.R. No. 119322 February 6, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET
AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 98252 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE JANUARIO, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 110391 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOLORES DE LEON
 G.R. No. 112191 February 7, 1997 - FORTUNE MOTORS (PHILS.) CORP., ET AL. v.
 G.R. Nos. 112714-15 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO
SAGARAL
 G.R. No. 117472 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO ECHEGARAY
 G.R. No. 119657 February 7, 1997 - UNIMASTERS CONGLOMERATION, INC. v.
 G.R. Nos. 119772-73 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIGEL RICHARD
GATWARD
 G.R. No. 125249 February 7, 1997 - JIMMY S. DE CASTRO v. COMELEC, ET AL.
 Adm. Matter No. P-95-1161 February 10, 1997 - JESUS N. BANDONG v. BELLA R.
CHING
 G.R. No. 108894 February 10, 1997 - TECNOGAS PHIL. MFG. CORP. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 109887 February 10, 1997 - CECILIA CARLOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
 G.R. No. 117702 February 10, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPIN
YPARRAGUIRRE
 G.R. No. 124553 February 10, 1997 - ROSARIO R. TUASON v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
 Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1070 February 12, 1997 - MARIA APIAG, ET AL. v.
ESMERALDO G. CANTERO
 Adm. Matter No. P-87-100 February 12, 1997 - FELISA ELIC VDA. DE ABELLERA v.
NEMESIO N. DALISAY
 Adm. Matter No. P-96-1231 February 12, 1997 - ISAIAS P. DICDICAN v. RUSSO
FERNAN, JR., ET AL.
 G.R. No. 68166 February 12, 1997 - HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO v.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 104666 February 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO
OMBROG
 G.R. No. 115129 February 12, 1997 - IGNACIO BARZAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
 G.R. No. 116511 February 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COLOMA TABAG, ET
AL.
 G.R. No. 118025 February 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REBECCO SATOR
 G.R. No. 120769 February 12, 1997 - STANLEY J. FORTICH v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
 G.R. No. 125531 February 12, 1997 - JOVAN LAND v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 126013 February 12, 1997 - HEINZRICH THEIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 107554 February 13, 1997 - CEBU INT’L. FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 112968 February 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO LETIGIO
 G.R. No. 114144 February 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO ABAD
 G.R. Nos. 114711 & 115889 February 13, 1997 - GARMENTS and TEXTILE EXPORT
BOARD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 122728 February 13, 1997 - CASIANO A. ANGCHANGCO v. OMBUDSMAN,
ET AL.
 Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-217 February 17, 1997 - MANUEL F. CONCEPCION v.
JESUS V. AGANA, ET AL.
 Adm. Matter No. RTJ 97-1369 February 17, 1997 - OCTAVIO DEL CALLAR v.
IGNACIO L. SALVADOR, ET AL.
 G.R. Nos. 103501-03 & 103507 February 17, 1997 - LUIS A. TABUENA v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 119247 February 17, 1997 - CESAR SULIT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 119536 February 17, 1997 - GLORIA S. DELA CRUZ v. NLRC, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 121017 February 17, 1997 - OLIVIA B. CAMANAG v. JESUS F. GUERRERO,
ET AL.
 G.R. No. 122165 February 17, 1997 - ALA MODE GARMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 123823 February 17, 1997 - MODESTO G. ESPAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
 G.R. No. 96249 February 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALIPIO QUIAMCO, ET
AL.
 G.R. No. 114396 February 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM ROBERT
BURTON
 G.R. No. 118140 February 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE PIANDIONG,
ET AL.
 G.R. No. 121084 February 19, 1997 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. v. TOYOTA
MOTOR PHILS. CORP. LABOR UNION, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 107916 February 20, 1997 - PERCIVAL MODAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 112288 February 20, 1997 - DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.
 Adm. Matter No. P-94-1034 February 21, 1997 - LEWELYN S. ESTRELLER v.
SOFRONIO MANATAD, JR.
 G.R. No. 73399 February 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ABEDES
 G.R. No. 117394 February 21, 1997 - HINATUAN MINING CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.
 A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P February 24, 1997 - SOPHIA ALAWI v. ASHARY M. ALAUYA
 G.R. No. 110427 February 24, 1997 - CARMEN CAÑIZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
 Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1195 February 26, 1997 - ROMEO NAZARENO, ET AL. v.
ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO
 G.R. No. 94237 February 26, 1997 - BUILDING CARE CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 105294 February 26, 1997 - PACITA DAVID-CHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
 G.R. No. 107671 February 26, 1997 - REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 109849 February 26, 1997 - MAXIMINO FUENTES v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
 G.R. No. 110098 February 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAFE AZUGUE
 G.R. No. 111538 February 26, 1997 - PARAÑAQUE KINGS ENTERPRISES, INC. v.
 G.R. No. 116033 February 26, 1997 - ALFREDO L. AZARCON v. SANDIGANBAYAN,
ET AL.
 G.R. No. 123404 February 26, 1997 - AURELIO SUMALPONG v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
 Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1368 February 27, 1997 - ERNESTO RIEGO, ET AL. v.
EMILIO LEACHON, JR.
Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

ChanRobles™Virtua
Library™ | chanrobles.co
S

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST

SUPREME COURT
JURISPRUDENCE
Home > ChanRobles Virtual Law Library > Philippine Supreme

Court Jurisprudence >

EN BANC
G.R. No. 125350. December 3, 2002
HON. RTC JUDGES MERCEDES

G. DADOLE (Executive Judge,
Branch 28), ULRIC R. CAETE
(Presiding Judge, Branch 25),
AGUSTINE R. VESTIL (Presiding
Judge, Branch 56), HON. MTC
JUDGES TEMISTOCLES M.
BOHOLST (Presiding Judge,
Branch 1), VICENTE C. FANILAG
(Judge Designate, Branch 2), and
WILFREDO A. DAGATAN
(Presiding Judge, Branch 3), all of
Mandaue City, petitioners,
vs. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, respondent.
DECISION
CORONA, J.:
Before us is a petition for

certiorari under Rule 64 to annul the
decision[1 and resolution[2, dated
September 21, 1995 and May 28,
1996, respectively, of the respondent
Commission on Audit (COA)
affirming the notices of the Mandaue
City Auditor which diminished the
monthly additional allowances
received by the petitioner judges of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and
Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
stationed in Mandaue City.
The undisputed facts are as follows:
In 1986, the RTC and MTC judges of

Mandaue City started receiving
monthly allowances of P1,260 each
through the yearly appropriation
ordinance enacted by the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of the said city. In 1991,
Mandaue City increased the amount
to P1,500 for each judge.
On March 15, 1994, the Department

of Budget and Management (DBM)
issued the disputed Local Budget
Circular No. 55 (LBC 55) which
provided that:
xxx xxx xxx
2.3.2. In the light of the authority

granted to the local government units
under the Local Government Code to
provide for additional allowances and
other benefits to national government
officials and employees assigned in
their locality, such additional
allowances in the form of honorarium
at rates not exceeding P1,000.00 in
provinces and cities and P700.00 in
municipalities may be granted subject
to the following conditions:
a) That the grant is not mandatory on

the part of the LGUs;
b) That all contractual and statutory

obligations of the LGU including the
implementation of R.A. 6758 shall
have been fully provided in the
budget;
c) That the budgetary

requirements/limitations under
Section 324 and 325 of R.A. 7160
should be satisfied and/or complied
with; and
d) That the LGU has fully

implemented the devolution of
functions/personnel in accordance
with R.A. 7160.3 (italics supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
The said circular likewise provided

for its immediate effectivity without
need of publication:
5.0 EFFECTIVITY
This Circular shall take effect

immediately.
Acting on the DBM directive, the

Mandaue City Auditor issued notices
of disallowance to herein petitioners,
namely, Honorable RTC Judges
Mercedes G. Dadole, Ulric R. Caete,
Agustin R. Vestil, Honorable MTC
Judges Temistocles M. Boholst,
Vicente C. Fanilag and Wilfredo A.
Dagatan, in excess of the amount
authorized by LBC 55. Beginning
October, 1994, the additional monthly
allowances of the petitioner judges
were reduced to P1,000 each. They
were also asked to reimburse the
amount they received in excess
of P1,000 from April to September,
1994.
The petitioner judges filed with the

Office of the City Auditor a protest
against the notices of disallowance.
But the City Auditor treated the
protest as a motion for reconsideration
and indorsed the same to the COA
Regional Office No. 7. In turn, the
COA Regional Office referred the
motion to the head office with a
recommendation that the same be
denied.
On September 21, 1995, respondent

COA rendered a decision denying
petitioners motion for reconsideration.
The COA held that:
The issue to be resolved in the instant

appeal is whether or not the City
Ordinance of Mandaue which
provides a higher rate of allowances
to the appellant judges may prevail
over that fixed by the DBM under
Local Budget Circular No. 55 dated
March 15, 1994.
xxx xxx xxx
Applying the foregoing doctrine,

appropriation ordinance of local
government units is subject to the
organizational, budgetary and
compensation policies of budgetary
authorities (COA 5th Ind., dated March
17, 1994 re: Province of Antique;
COA letter dated May 17, 1994 re:
Request of Hon. Renato Leviste,
Cong. 1st Dist. Oriental Mindoro). In
this regard, attention is invited to
Administrative Order No. 42 issued
on March 3, 1993 by the President of
the Philippines clarifying the role of
DBM in the compensation and
classification of local government
positions under RA No. 7160 vis-avis
the provisions of RA No. 6758 in
view of the abolition of the JCLGPA.
Section 1 of said Administrative
Order provides that:
Section 1. The Department of Budget

and Management as the lead
administrator of RA No. 6758 shall,
through its Compensation and
Position Classification Bureau,
continue to have the following
responsibilities in connection with the
implementation of the Local
Government Code of 1991:
a)
Provide guidelines on
the classification of
local government
positions and on the
specific rates of pay
therefore;
b) Provide criteria and

guidelines for the
grant of
all allowances and add
itional forms of
compensation to local
government
employees; xxx.
(underscoring
supplied)
To operationalize the aforecited
presidential directive, DBM issued
LBC No. 55, dated March 15, 1994,
whose effectivity clause provides that:
xxx xxx xxx
5.0 EFFECTIVITY
This Circular shall take effect

immediately.
It is a well-settled rule that

implementing rules and regulations
promulgated by administrative or
executive officer in accordance with,
and as authorized by law, has the
force and effect of law or partake the
nature of a statute (Victorias Milling
Co., Inc., vs. Social Security
Commission, 114 Phil. 555, cited in
Agpalos Statutory Construction,
2nd Ed. P. 16; Justice Cruzs Phil.
Political Law, 1984 Ed., p. 103;
Espanol vs. Phil Veterans
Administration, 137 SCRA 314;
Antique Sawmills Inc. vs. Tayco, 17
SCRA 316).
xxx xxx xxx
There being no statutory basis to grant

additional allowance to judges in
excess of P1,000.00 chargeable
against the local government units
where they are stationed, this
Commission finds no substantial
grounds or cogent reason to disturb
the decision of the City Auditor,
Mandaue City, disallowing in audit
the allowances in question.
Accordingly, the above-captioned
appeal of the MTC and RTC Judges
of Mandaue City, insofar as the same
is not covered by Circular Letter No.
91-7, is hereby dismissed for lack of
merit.
xxx xxx xxx4 cräläwvirtualibräry
On November 27, 1995, Executive

Judge Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, for and
in behalf of the petitioner judges, filed
a motion for reconsideration of the
decision of the COA. In a resolution
dated May 28, 1996, the COA denied
the motion.
Hence, this petition for certiorari by

the petitioner judges, submitting the
following questions for resolution:
HAS THE CITY OF MANDAUE

STATUTORY AND
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
ALLOWANCES AND OTHER
BENEFITS TO JUDGES
STATIONED IN AND ASSIGNED
TO THE CITY?
II
CAN AN ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR OR GUIDELINE SUCH
AS LOCAL BUDGET CIRCULAR
NO. 55 RENDER INOPERATIVE
THE POWER OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BODY OF A CITY
BY SETTING A LIMIT TO THE
EXTENT OF THE EXERCISE OF
SUCH POWER?
III
HAS THE COMMISSION ON

AUDIT CORRECTLY
INTERPRETED LOCAL BUDGET
CIRCULAR NO. 55 TO INCLUDE
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY IN
FIXING THE CEILING OF
ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES
AND BENEFITS TO BE
PROVIDED TO JUDGES
STATIONED IN AND ASSIGNED
TO MANDAUE CITY BY THE
CITY GOVERNMENT AT P1,000.00
PER MONTH
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT
THEY HAVE BEEN RECEIVING
ALLOWANCES OF P1,500.00
MONTHLY FOR THE PAST FIVE
YEARS?
IV
IS LOCAL BUDGET CIRCULAR

NO. 55 DATED MARCH 15, 1994
ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT
VALID AND ENFORCEABLE
CONSIDERING THAT IT WAS
NOT DULY PUBLISHED IN
ACCODANCE WITH LAW?5 cräläwvirtualibräry
Petitioner judges argue that LBC 55 is

void for infringing on the local
autonomy of Mandaue City by
dictating a uniform amount that a
local government unit can disburse as
additional allowances to judges
stationed therein. They maintain that
said circular is not supported by any
law and therefore goes beyond the
supervisory powers of the President.
They further allege that said circular
is void for lack of publication.
On the other hand, the yearly

appropriation ordinance providing for
additional allowances to judges is
allowed by Section 458, par. (a)(1)
[xi], of RA 7160, otherwise known as
the Local Government Code of 1991,
which provides that:
Sec. 458. Powers, Duties, Functions

and Compensation. (a) The
sangguniang panlungsod, as the
legislative body of the city, shall enact
ordinances, approve resolutions and
appropriate funds for the general
welfare of the city and its inhabitants
pursuant to Section 16 of this Code
and in the proper exercise of the
corporate powers of the city as
provided for under Section 22 of this
Code, and shall:
(1) Approve ordinances and pass

resolutions necessary for an efficient
and effective city government, and in
this connection, shall:
xxx xxx xxx
(xi) When the finances of the city

government allow, provide for
additional allowances and other
benefits to judges, prosecutors, public
elementary and high school teachers,
and other national government
officials stationed in or assigned to
the city; (italics supplied)
Instead of filing a comment on behalf

of respondent COA, the Solicitor
General filed a manifestation
supporting the position of the
petitioner judges. The Solicitor
General argues that (1) DBM only
enjoys the power to review and
determine whether the disbursements
of funds were made in accordance
with the ordinance passed by a local
government unit while (2) the COA
has no more than auditorial visitation
powers over local government units
pursuant to Section 348 of RA 7160
which provides for the power to
inspect at any time the financial
accounts of local government units.
Moreover, the Solicitor General

opines that the DBM and the
respondent are only authorized under
RA 7160 to promulgate a Budget
Operations Manual for local
government units, to improve and
systematize methods, techniques and
procedures employed in budget
preparation, authorization, execution
and accountability pursuant to Section
354 of RA 7160. The Solicitor
General points out that LBC 55 was
not exercised under any of the
aforementioned provisions.
Respondent COA, on the other hand,

insists that the constitutional and
statutory authority of a city
government to provide allowances to
judges stationed therein is not
absolute. Congress may set limitations
on the exercise of autonomy. It is for
the President, through the DBM, to
check whether these legislative
limitations are being followed by the
local government units.
One such law imposing a limitation

on a local government units autonomy
is Section 458, par. (a) (1) [xi], of RA
7160, which authorizes the
disbursement of additional allowances
and other benefits to judges subject to
the condition that the finances of the
city government should allow the
same. Thus, DBM is merely enforcing
the condition of the law when it sets a
uniform maximum amount for the
additional allowances that a city
government can release to judges
stationed therein.
Assuming arguendo that LBC 55 is
void, respondent COA maintains that
the provisions of the yearly approved
ordinance granting additional
allowances to judges are still
prohibited by the appropriation laws
passed by Congress every year. COA
argues that Mandaue City gets the
funds for the said additional
allowances of judges from the Internal
Revenue Allotment (IRA). But the
General Appropriations Acts of 1994
and 1995 do not mention the
disbursement of additional allowances
to judges as one of the allowable uses
of the IRA. Hence, the provisions of
said ordinance granting additional
allowances, taken from the IRA, to
herein petitioner judges are void for
being contrary to law.
To resolve the instant petition, there

are two issues that we must address:
(1) whether LBC 55 of the DBM is
void for going beyond the supervisory
powers of the President and for not
having been published and (2)
whether the yearly appropriation
ordinance enacted by the City of
Mandaue that provides for additional
allowances to judges contravenes the
annual appropriation laws enacted by
Congress.
We rule in favor of the petitioner

judges.
On the first issue, we declare LBC 55

to be null and void.
We recognize that, although our

Constitution[6 guarantees autonomy to
local government units, the exercise
of local autonomy remains subject to
the power of control by Congress and
the power of supervision by the
President. Section 4 of Article X of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution
provides that:
Sec. 4. The President of the

Philippines shall exercise general
supervision over local governments. x
xx
In Pimentel vs. Aguirre[7], we defined

the supervisory power of the President
and distinguished it from the power of
control exercised by Congress. Thus:
This provision (Section 4 of Article X

of the 1987 Philippine Constitution)
has been interpreted to exclude the
power of control. In Mondano v.
Silvosa,i[5] the Court contrasted the
President's power of supervision over
local government officials with that of
his power of control over executive
officials of the national government. It
was emphasized that the two terms --
supervision and control -- differed in
meaning and extent. The Court
distinguished them as follows:
"x x x In administrative law,

supervision means overseeing or the
power or authority of an officer to see
that subordinate officers perform their
duties. If the latter fail or neglect to
fulfill them, the former may take such
action or step as prescribed by law to
make them perform their duties.
Control, on the other hand, means the
power of an officer to alter or modify
or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer ha[s] done in the
performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former
for that of the latter."ii[6]
In Taule v. Santos,iii[7] we further

stated that the Chief Executive
wielded no more authority than that of
checking whether local governments
or their officials were performing their
duties as provided by the fundamental
law and by statutes. He cannot
interfere with local governments, so
long as they act within the scope of
their authority. "Supervisory power,
when contrasted with control, is the
power of mere oversight over an
inferior body; it does not include any
restraining authority over such
body,"iv[8] we said.
In a more recent case, Drilon v.

Lim,v[9] the difference between control
and supervision was further
delineated. Officers in control lay
down the rules in the performance or
accomplishment of an act. If these
rules are not followed, they may, in
their discretion, order the act undone
or redone by their subordinates or
even decide to do it themselves. On
the other hand, supervision does not
cover such authority. Supervising
officials merely see to it that the rules
are followed, but they themselves do
not lay down such rules, nor do they
have the discretion to modify or
replace them. If the rules are not
observed, they may order the work
done or redone, but only to conform
to such rules. They may not prescribe
their own manner of execution of the
act. They have no discretion on this
matter except to see to it that the rules
are followed.
Under our present system of

government, executive power is
vested in the President.vi[10] The
members of the Cabinet and other
executive officials are merely alter
egos. As such, they are subject to the
power of control of the President, at
whose will and behest they can be
removed from office; or their actions
and decisions changed, suspended or
reversed.vii[11] In contrast, the heads of
political subdivisions are elected by
the people. Their sovereign powers
emanate from the electorate, to whom
they are directly accountable. By
constitutional fiat, they are subject to
the Presidents supervision only, not
control, so long as their acts are
exercised within the sphere of their
legitimate powers. By the same token,
the President may not withhold or
alter any authority or power given
them by the Constitution and the law.
Clearly then, the President can only

interfere in the affairs and activities of
a local government unit if he or she
finds that the latter has acted contrary
to law. This is the scope of the
Presidents supervisory powers over
local government units. Hence, the
President or any of his or her alter
egos cannot interfere in local affairs
as long as the concerned local
government unit acts within the
parameters of the law and the
Constitution. Any directive therefore
by the President or any of his or
her alter egos seeking to alter the
wisdom of a law-conforming
judgment on local affairs of a local
government unit is a patent nullity
because it violates the principle of
local autonomy and separation of
powers of the executive and
legislative departments in governing
municipal corporations.
Does LBC 55 go beyond the law it

seeks to implement? Yes.
LBC 55 provides that the additional

monthly allowances to be given by a
local government unit should not
exceed P1,000 in provinces and cities
and P700 in municipalities. Section
458, par. (a)(1)(xi), of RA 7160, the
law that supposedly serves as the legal
basis of LBC 55, allows the grant of
additional allowances to judges when
the finances of the city government
allow. The said provision does not
authorize setting a definite maximum
limit to the additional allowances
granted to judges. Thus, we need not
belabor the point that the finances of a
city government may allow the grant
of additional allowances higher
than P1,000 if the revenues of the said
city government exceed its annual
expenditures. Thus, to illustrate, a city
government with locally generated
annual revenues of P40 million and
expenditures of P35 million can afford
to grant additional allowances of more
than P1,000 each to, say, ten judges
inasmuch as the finances of the city
can afford it.
Setting a uniform amount for the grant

of additional allowances is an
inappropriate way of enforcing the
criterion found in Section 458, par. (a)
(1)(xi), of RA 7160. The DBM over-
stepped its power of supervision over
local government units by imposing a
prohibition that did not correspond
with the law it sought to implement.
In other words, the prohibitory nature
of the circular had no legal basis.
Furthermore, LBC 55 is void on

account of its lack of publication, in
violation of our ruling in Taada vs.
Tuvera[8] where we held that:
xxx. Administrative rules and

regulations must also be published if
their purpose is to enforce or
implement existing law pursuant to a
valid delegation.
Interpretative regulations and those

merely internal in nature, that is,
regulating only the personnel of an
administrative agency and the public,
need not be published. Neither is
publication required of the so-called
letters of instruction issued by
administrative superiors concerning
the rules or guidelines to be followed
by their subordinates in the
performance of their duties.
Respondent COA claims that

publication is not required for LBC 55
inasmuch as it is merely an
interpretative regulation applicable to
the personnel of an LGU. We
disagree. In De Jesus vs. Commission
on Audit[9] where we dealt with the
same issue, this Court declared void,
for lack of publication, a DBM
circular that disallowed payment of
allowances and other additional
compensation to government officials
and employees. In refuting respondent
COAs argument that said circular was
merely an internal regulation, we
ruled that:
On the need for publication of subject

DBM-CCC No. 10, we rule in the
affirmative. Following the doctrine
enunciated in Taada v. Tuvera,
publication in the Official Gazette or
in a newspaper of general circulation
in the Philippines is required
since DBM-CCC No. 10 is in the
nature of an administrative circular
the purpose of which is to enforce
or implement an existing law. Stated
differently, to be effective and
enforceable, DBM-CCC No. 10 must
go through the requisite publication in
the Official Gazette or in a newspaper
of general circulation in the
Philippines.
In the present case under scrutiny, it is

decisively clear that DBM-CCC No.
10, which completely disallows
payment of allowances and other
additional compensation to
government officials and employees,
starting November 1, 1989, is not a
mere interpretative or internal
regulation. It is something more than
that. And why not, when it tends to
deprive government workers of their
allowance and additional
compensation sorely needed to keep
body and soul together. At the very
least, before the said circular under
attack may be permitted to
substantially reduce their income,
the government officials and
employees concerned should be
apprised and alerted by the
publication of subject circular in
the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation in
the Philippines to the end that they
be given amplest opportunity to
voice out whatever opposition they
may have, and to ventilate their
stance on the matter. This approach
is more in keeping with democratic
precepts and rudiments of fairness
and transparency. (emphasis
supplied)
In Philippine International Trading

Corporation vs. Commission on
Audit[10], we again declared the same
circular as void, for lack of
publication, despite the fact that it was
re-issued and then submitted for
publication. Emphasizing the
importance of publication to the
effectivity of a regulation, we therein
held that:
It has come to our knowledge that

DBM-CCC No. 10 has been re-issued
in its entirety and submitted for
publication in the Official Gazette per
letter to the National Printing Office
dated March 9, 1999. Would the
subsequent publication thereof cure
the defect and retroact to the time that
the above-mentioned items were
disallowed in audit?
The answer is in the negative,

precisely for the reason that
publication is required as a condition
precedent to the effectivity of a law to
inform the public of the contents of
the law or rules and regulations before
their rights and interests are affected
by the same. From the time the COA
disallowed the expenses in audit up to
the filing of herein petition the subject
circular remained in legal limbo due
to its non-publication. As was stated
in Taada v. Tuvera, prior publication
of laws before they become effective
cannot be dispensed with, for the
reason that it would deny the public
knowledge of the laws that are
supposed to govern it.11 cräläwvirtualibräry
We now resolve the second issue of

whether the yearly appropriation
ordinance enacted by Mandaue City
providing for fixed allowances for
judges contravenes any law and
should therefore be struck down as
null and void.
According to respondent COA, even

if LBC 55 were void, the ordinances
enacted by Mandaue City granting
additional allowances to the petitioner
judges would still (be) bereft of legal
basis for want of a lawful source of
funds considering that the IRA cannot
be used for such purposes.
Respondent COA showed that
Mandaue Citys funds consisted of
locally generated revenues and the
IRA. From 1989 to 1995, Mandaue
Citys yearly expenditures exceeded its
locally generated revenues, thus
resulting in a deficit. During all those
years, it was the IRA that enabled
Mandaue City to incur a surplus.
Respondent avers that Mandaue City
used its IRA to pay for said additional
allowances and this violated
paragraph 2 of the Special Provisions,
page 1060, of RA 7845 (The General
Appropriations Act of 1995)[12 and
paragraph 3 of the Special Provision,
page 1225, of RA 7663 (The General
Appropriations Act of 1994)[13 which
specifically identified the objects of
expenditure of the IRA. Nowhere in
said provisions of the two budgetary
laws does it say that the IRA can be
used for additional allowances of
judges. Respondent COA thus argues
that the provisions in the ordinance
providing for such disbursement are
against the law, considering that the
grant of the subject allowances is not
within the specified use allowed by
the aforesaid yearly appropriations
acts.
We disagree.
Respondent COA failed to prove that

Mandaue City used the IRA to spend
for the additional allowances of the
judges. There was no evidence
submitted by COA showing the
breakdown of the expenses of the city
government and the funds used for
said expenses. All the COA presented
were the amounts expended, the
locally generated revenues, the deficit,
the surplus and the IRA received each
year. Aside from these items, no data
or figures were presented to show that
Mandaue City deducted the subject
allowances from the IRA. In other
words, just because Mandaue Citys
locally generated revenues were not
enough to cover its expenditures, this
did not mean that the additional
allowances of petitioner judges were
taken from the IRA and not from the
citys own revenues.
Moreover, the DBM neither

conducted a formal review nor
ordered a disapproval of Mandaue
Citys appropriation ordinances, in
accordance with the procedure
outlined by Sections 326 and 327 of
RA 7160 which provide that:
Section 326. Review of Appropriation

Ordinances of Provinces, Highly
Urbanized Cities, Independent
Component Cities, and Municipalities
within the Metropolitan Manila Area.
The Department of Budget and
Management shall review ordinances
authorizing the annual or
supplemental appropriations of
provinces, highly-urbanized cities,
independent component cities, and
municipalities within the Metropolitan
Manila Area in accordance with the
immediately succeeding Section.
Section 327. Review of Appropriation

Ordinances of Component Cities and
Municipalities.- The sangguninang
panlalawigan shall review the
ordinance authorizing annual or
supplemental appropriations of
component cities and municipalities in
the same manner and within the same
period prescribed for the review of
other ordinances.
If within ninety (90) days from

receipt of copies of such ordinance,
the sangguniang panlalawigan takes
no action thereon, the same shall be
deemed to have been reviewed in
accordance with law and shall
continue to be in full force and
effect. (emphasis supplied)
Within 90 days from receipt of the

copies of the appropriation ordinance,
the DBM should have taken positive
action. Otherwise, such ordinance was
deemed to have been properly
reviewed and deemed to have taken
effect. Inasmuch as, in the instant
case, the DBM did not follow the
appropriate procedure for reviewing
the subject ordinance of Mandaue
City and allowed the 90-day period to
lapse, it can no longer question the
legality of the provisions in the said
ordinance granting additional
allowances to judges stationed in the
said city.
WHEREFORE, the petition is

hereby GRANTED, and the assailed
decision and resolution, dated
September 21, 1995 and May 28,
1996, respectively, of the Commission
on Audit are hereby set aside.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Vitug,

Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-
Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
Carpio-Morales, and Callejo, Sr.,
JJ., concur.
Puno, J., on official business.
Azcuna, J., on leave.
Today is Tuesday, September 01, 2020
Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-21897 October 22, 1963
RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner,
vs.
RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, as Executive Secretary, MACARIO PERALTA, JR., as Secretary of
Defense, PEDRO GIMENEZ, as Auditor General, CORNELIO BALMACEDA, as Secretary of
Commerce and Industry, and SALVADOR MARINO, Secretary of Justice, respondents.
Ramon A. Gonzales in his own behalf as petitioner.

Office of the Solicitor General and Estanislao Fernandez for respondents.
CONCEPCION, J.:
This is an original action for prohibition with preliminary injunction.
It is not disputed that on September 22, 1963, respondent Executive Secretary authorized the
importation of 67,000 tons of foreign rice to be purchased from private sources, and created a rice
procurement committee composed of the other respondents herein 1 for the implementation of said
proposed importation. Thereupon, or September 25, 1963, herein petitioner, Ramon A. Gonzales —
a rice planter, and president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, whose members are,
likewise, engaged in the production of rice and corn — filed the petition herein, averring that, in
making or attempting to make said importation of foreign rice, the aforementioned respondents "are
acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction", because Republic Act No. 3452 which
allegedly repeals or amends Republic Act No. 220 — explicitly prohibits the importation of rice and
corn "the Rice and Corn Administration or any other government agency;" that petitioner has no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; and that a preliminary
injunction is necessary for the preservation of the rights of the parties during the pendency this case
and to prevent the judgment therein from coming ineffectual. Petitioner prayed, therefore, that said
petition be given due course; that a writ of preliminary injunction be forthwith issued restraining
respondent their agents or representatives from implementing the decision of the Executive
Secretary to import the aforementioned foreign rice; and that, after due hearing, judgment be
rendered making said injunction permanent.
Forthwith, respondents were required to file their answer to the petition which they did, and
petitioner's pray for a writ of preliminary injunction was set for hearing at which both parties
appeared and argued orally. Moreover, a memorandum was filed, shortly thereafter, by the
respondents. Considering, later on, that the resolution said incident may require some
pronouncements that would be more appropriate in a decision on the merits of the case, the same
was set for hearing on the merits thereafter. The parties, however, waived the right to argue orally,
although counsel for respondents filed their memoranda.
I. Sufficiency of petitioner's interest.
Respondents maintain that the status of petitioner as a rice planter does not give him sufficient
interest to file the petition herein and secure the relief therein prayed for. We find no merit in this
pretense. Apart from prohibiting the importation of rice and corn "by the Rice and Corn
Administration or any other government agency". Republic Act No. 3452 declares, in Section 1
thereof, that "the policy of the Government" is to "engage in the purchase of these basic
foods directly from those tenants, farmers, growers, producers and landowners in the
Philippines who wish to dispose of their products at a price that will afford them a fair and just return
for their labor and capital investment. ... ." Pursuant to this provision, petitioner, as a planter with a
rice land of substantial proportion,2 is entitled to a chance to sell to the Government the rice it now
seeks to buy abroad. Moreover, since the purchase of said commodity will have to be effected with
public funds mainly raised by taxation, and as a rice producer and landowner petitioner must
necessarily be a taxpayer, it follows that he has sufficient personality and interest to seek judicial
assistance with a view to restraining what he believes to be an attempt to unlawfully disburse said
funds.
II. Exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Respondents assail petitioner's right to the reliefs prayed for because he "has not exhausted all
administrative remedies available to him before coming to court". We have already held, however,
that the principle requiring the previous exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable
where the question in dispute is purely a legal one", 3 or where the controverted act is "patently
illegal" or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, 4 or where the respondent is
a department secretary, whose acts as an alter-ego of the President bear the implied or assumed
approval of the latter,5 unless actually disapproved by him,6 or where there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. 7 The case at bar fails under each one of the foregoing
exceptions to the general rule. Respondents' contention is, therefore, untenable.
III. Merits of petitioner's cause of action.
Respondents question the sufficiency of petitioner's cause of action upon the theory that the
proposed importation in question is not governed by Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452, but was
authorized by the President as Commander-in-Chief "for military stock pile purposes" in the exercise
of his alleged authority under Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 1;8 that in cases of necessity, the
President "or his subordinates may take such preventive measure for the restoration of good order
and maintenance of peace"; and that, as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, "the President ...
is duty-bound to prepare for the challenge of threats of war or emergency without waiting for any
special authority".
Regardless of whether Republic Act No. 3452 repeals Republic Act No. 2207, as contended by
petitioner herein - on which our view need not be expressed — we are unanimously of the opinion -
assuming that said Republic Act No. 2207 is still in force — that the two Acts are applicable to the
proposed importation in question because the language of said laws is such as to include within the
purview thereof all importations of rice and corn into the Philippines". Pursuant to Republic Act No.
2207, "it shall be unlawful for any person, association, corporation or government agency to import
rice and corn into any point in the Philippines", although, by way of exception, it adds, that "the
President of the Philippines may authorize the importation of these commodities through any
government agency that he may designate", is the conditions prescribed in Section 2 of said Act are
present. Similarly, Republic Act No. 3452 explicitly enjoins "the Rice and Corn Administration or any
government agency" from importing rice and corn.
Respondents allege, however, that said provisions of Republic Act Nos. 2207 and 3452, prohibiting
the importation of rice and corn by any "government agency", do not apply to importations "made by
the Government itself", because the latter is not a "government agency". This theory is devoid of
merit. The Department of National Defense and the Armed Forces of the Philippines, as well as
respondents herein, and each and every officer and employee of our Government, our government
agencies and/or agents. The applicability of said laws even to importations by the Government as
such, becomes more apparent when we consider that:
1. The importation permitted in Republic Act No. 2207 is to be authorized by the "President of the
Philippines" and, hence, by or on behalf of the Government of the Philippines;
2. Immediately after enjoining the Rice and Corn administration and any other government agency
from importing rice and corn, Section 10 of Republic Act No. 3452 adds "that the importation of rice
and corn is left to private parties upon payment of the corresponding taxes", thus indicating
that only "private parties" may import rice under its provisions; and
3. Aside from prescribing a fine not exceeding P10,000.00 and imprisonment of not more than five
(5) years for those who shall violate any provision of Republic Act No. 3452 or any rule and
regulation promulgated pursuant thereto, Section 15 of said Act provides that "if the offender is
a public official and/or employees", he shall be subject to the additional penalty specified therein. A
public official is an officer of the Government itself, as distinguished from officers or employees of
instrumentalities of the Government. Hence, the duly authorized acts of the former are those of the
Government, unlike those of a government instrumentality which may have a personality of its own,
distinct and separate from that of the Government, as such. The provisions of Republic Act No. 2207
are, in this respect, even more explicit. Section 3 thereof provides a similar additional penalty for any
"officer or employee of the Government" who "violates, abets or tolerates the violation of any
provision" of said Act. Hence, the intent to apply the same to transactions made by the very
government is patent.
Indeed, the restrictions imposed in said Republic Acts are merely additional to those prescribed in
Commonwealth Act No. 138, entitled "An Act to give native products and domestic entities the
preference in the purchase of articles for the Government." Pursuant to Section 1 thereof:
The Purchase and Equipment Division of the Government of the Philippines and

other officers and employees of the municipal and provincial governments and the
Government of the Philippines and of chartered cities, boards,
commissions, bureaus, departments, offices, agencies, branches, and bodies of any
description, including government-owned companies, authorized to requisition,
purchase, or contract or make disbursements for articles, materials, and supplies for
public use, public buildings, or public works shall give preference to materials ...
produced ... in the Philippines or in the United States, and to domestic entities,
subject to the conditions hereinbelow specified. (Emphasis supplied.)
Under this provision, in all purchases by the Government, including those made by and/or for the
armed forces, preference shall be given to materials produced in the Philippines. The importation
involved in the case at bar violates this general policy of our Government, aside from the provisions
of Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452.
The attempt to justify the proposed importation by invoking reasons of national security —
predicated upon the "worsening situation in Laos and Vietnam", and "the recent tension created by
the Malaysia problem" - and the alleged powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief of all
armed forces in the Philippines, under Section 2 of the National Defense Act (Commonwealth Act
No. 1), overlooks the fact that the protection of local planters of rice and corn in a manner that would
foster and accelerate self-sufficiency in the local production of said commodities constitutes a factor
that is vital to our ability to meet possible national emergency. Even if the intent in importing goods
in anticipation of such emergency were to bolster up that ability, the latter would, instead, be
impaired if the importation were so made as to discourage our farmers from engaging in the
production of rice.
Besides, the stockpiling of rice and corn for purpose of national security and/or national emergency
is within the purview of Republic Act No. 3452. Section 3 thereof expressly authorizes the Rice and
Corn Administration "to accumulate stocks as a national reserve in such quantities as it may deem
proper and necessary to meet any contingencies". Moreover, it ordains that "the buffer stocks held
as a national reserve ... be deposited by the administration throughout the country under the proper
dispersal plans ... and may be released only upon the occurrence of calamities or emergencies ...".
(Emphasis applied.)
Again, the provisions of Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 1, upon which respondents rely so
much, are not self-executory. They merely outline the general objectives of said legislation. The
means for the attainment of those objectives are subject to congressional legislation. Thus, the
conditions under which the services of citizens, as indicated in said Section 2, may be availed of, are
provided for in Sections 3, 4 and 51 to 88 of said Commonwealth Act No. 1. Similarly, Section 5
thereof specifies the manner in which resources necessary for our national defense may be secured
by the Government of the Philippines, but only "during a national mobilization",9 which does not
exist. Inferentially, therefore, in the absence of a national mobilization, said resources shall be
produced in such manner as Congress may by other laws provide from time to time. Insofar as rice
and corn are concerned, Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452, and Commonwealth Act No. 138 are
such laws.
Respondents cite Corwin in support of their pretense, but in vain. An examination of the work
cited10 shows that Corwin referred to the powers of the President during "war time" 11 or when he has
placed the country or a part thereof under "martial law". 12 Since neither condition obtains in the case
at bar, said work merely proves that respondents' theory, if accepted, would, in effect, place the
Philippines under martial law, without a declaration of the Executive to that effect. What is worse, it
would keep us perpetually under martial law.
It has been suggested that even if the proposed importation violated Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and
3452, it should, nevertheless, be permitted because "it redounds to the benefit of the people". Salus
populi est suprema lex, it is said.
If there were a local shortage of rice, the argument might have some value. But the respondents, as
officials of this Government, have expressly affirmed again and again that there is no rice shortage.
And the importation is avowedly for stockpile of the Army — not the civilian population.
But let us follow the respondents' trend of thought. It has a more serious implication that appears on
the surface. It implies that if an executive officer believes that compliance with a certain statute will
not benefit the people, he is at liberty to disregard it. That idea must be rejected - we still live under a
rule of law.
And then, "the people" are either producers or consumers. Now — as respondents explicitly admit
— Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452 were approved by the Legislature for the benefit of producers
and consumers, i.e., the people, it must follow that the welfare of the people lies precisely in
the compliance with said Acts.
It is not for respondent executive officers now to set their own opinions against that of the
Legislature, and adopt means or ways to set those Acts at naught. Anyway, those laws permit
importation — but under certain conditions, which have not been, and should be complied with.
IV. The contracts with Vietnam and Burma —
It is lastly contended that the Government of the Philippines has already entered into two (2)
contracts for the Purchase of rice, one with the Republic of Vietnam, and another with the
Government of Burma; that these contracts constitute valid executive agreements under
international law; that such agreements became binding effective upon the signing thereof by
representatives the parties thereto; that in case of conflict between Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and
3452 on the one hand, and aforementioned contracts, on the other, the latter should prevail,
because, if a treaty and a statute are inconsistent with each other, the conflict must be resolved —
under the American jurisprudence — in favor of the one which is latest in point of time; that
petitioner herein assails the validity of acts of the Executive relative to foreign relations in the
conduct of which the Supreme Court cannot interfere; and the aforementioned contracts have
already been consummated, the Government of the Philippines having already paid the price of the
rice involved therein through irrevocable letters of credit in favor of the sell of the said commodity.
We find no merit in this pretense.
The Court is not satisfied that the status of said tracts as alleged executive agreements has been
sufficiently established. The parties to said contracts do not pear to have regarded the same as
executive agreements. But, even assuming that said contracts may properly considered as
executive agreements, the same are unlawful, as well as null and void, from a constitutional
viewpoint, said agreements being inconsistent with the provisions of Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and
3452. Although the President may, under the American constitutional system enter into executive
agreements without previous legislative authority, he may not, by executive agreement, enter into a
transaction which is prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto. Under the Constitution, the main
function of the Executive is to enforce laws enacted by Congress. The former may not interfere in
the performance of the legislative powers of the latter, except in the exercise of his veto power. He
may not defeat legislative enactments that have acquired the status of law, by indirectly
repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of the very act
prohibited by said laws.
The American theory to the effect that, in the event of conflict between a treaty and a statute, the
one which is latest in point of time shall prevail, is not applicable to the case at bar, for respondents
not only admit, but, also insist that the contracts adverted to are not treaties. Said theory may be
justified upon the ground that treaties to which the United States is signatory require the advice and
consent of its Senate, and, hence, of a branch of the legislative department. No such justification
can be given as regards executive agreements not authorized by previous legislation, without
completely upsetting the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances
which are fundamental in our constitutional set up and that of the United States.
As regards the question whether an international agreement may be invalidated by our courts,
suffice it to say that the Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled it in the affirmative, by
providing, in Section 2 of Article VIII thereof, that the Supreme Court may not be deprived "of its
jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error as the
law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in — (1) All
cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or
regulation is in question". In other words, our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not
only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress.
The alleged consummation of the aforementioned contracts with Vietnam and Burma
does not render this case academic, Republic Act No. 2207 enjoins our Government not
from entering into contracts for the purchase of rice, but from importing rice, except under the
conditions Prescribed in said Act. Upon the other hand, Republic Act No. 3452 has two (2) main
features, namely: (a) it requires the Government to purchase rice and corn directly from our local
planters, growers or landowners; and (b) it prohibits importations of rice by the Government, and
leaves such importations to private parties. The pivotal issue in this case is whether the
proposed importation — which has not been consummated as yet — is legally feasible.
Lastly, a judicial declaration of illegality of the proposed importation would not compel our
Government to default in the performance of such obligations as it may have contracted with the
sellers of the rice in question, because, aside from the fact that said obligations may be complied
with without importing the commodity into the Philippines, the proposed importation may still be
legalized by complying with the provisions of the aforementioned laws.
V. The writ of preliminary injunction.
The members of the Court have divergent opinions on the question whether or not respondents
herein should be enjoined from implementing the aforementioned proposed importation. However,
the majority favors the negative view, for which reason the injunction prayed for cannot be granted.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that respondent Executive Secretary had and
has no power to authorize the importation in question; that he exceeded his jurisdiction in granting
said authority; said importation is not sanctioned by law and is contrary to its provisions; and that, for
lack of the requisite majority, the injunction prayed for must be and is, accordingly denied. It is so
ordered.
Bengzon, CJ, Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Paredes and Regala, JJ., concur in the result.
Separate Opinions
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J., concurring:
Under Republic Act No. 2207, which took effect on May 15, 1959, it is unlawful for any person,
association, corporation or government agency to import rice and corn into any point in the
Philippines. The exception is if there is an existing or imminent shortage of such commodity of much
gravity as to constitute national emergency in which case an importation may be authorized by the
President when so certified by the National Economic Council.
However, on June 14, 1962, Republic Act 3452 was enacted providing that the importation of rice
and corn can only be made by private parties thereby prohibiting from doing so the Rice and Corn
Administration or any other government agency. Republic Act 3452 does not expressly repeal
Republic Act 2207, but only repeals or modified those parts thereof that are inconsistent with its
provisions. The question that now arises is: Has the enactment of Republic Act 3452 the effect of
prohibiting completely the government from importing rice and corn into the Philippines?
My answer is in the negative. Since this Act does not in any manner provide for the importation of
rice and corn in case of national emergency, the provision of the former law on that matter should
stand, for that is not inconsistent with any provision embodied in Republic Act 3452. The Rice and
Corn Administration, or any other government agency, may therefore still import rice and corn into
the Philippines as provided in Republic Act 2207 if there is a declared national emergency.
The next question that arises is: Can the government authorize the importation of rice and corn
regardless of Republic Act 2207 if that is authorized by the President as Commander-in-Chief of the
Philippine Army as a military precautionary measure for military stockpile?
Respondents answer this question in the affirmative. They advance the argument that it is the
President's duty to see to it that the Armed Forces of the Philippines are geared to the defenses of
the country as well as to the fulfillment of our international commitments in Southeast Asia in the
event the peace and security of the area are in danger. The stockpiling of rice, they aver, is an
essential requirement of defense preparation in view of the limited local supply and the probable
disruption of trade and commerce with outside countries in the event of armed hostilities, and this
military precautionary measure is necessary because of the unsettled conditions in the Southeast
Asia bordering on actual threats of armed conflicts as evaluated by the Intelligence Service of the
Military Department of our Government. This advocacy, they contend, finds support in the national
defense policy embodied in Section 2 of our National Defense Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1),
which provides:
(a) The preservation of the State is the obligation of every citizen. The security of the
Philippines and the freedom, independence and perpetual neutrality of the Philippine
Republic shall be guaranteed by the employment of all citizens, without distinction of
sex or age, and all resources.
(b) The employment of the nation's citizens and resources for national defense shall
be effected by a national mobilization.
(c) The national mobilization shall include the execution of all measures necessary to
pass from a peace to a war footing.
(d) The civil authority shall always be supreme. The President of the Philippines as
the Commander-in-Chief of all military forces, shall be responsible that mobilization
measures are prepared at all times.(Emphasis supplied)
Indeed, I find in that declaration of policy that the security of the Philippines and its freedom
constitutes the core of the preservation of our State which is the basic duty of every citizen and that
to secure which it is enjoined that the President employ all the resources at his command. But over
and above all that power and duty, fundamental as they may seem, there is the injunction that the
civil authority shall always be supreme. This injunction can only mean that while all precautions
should be taken to insure the security and preservation of the State and to this effect the
employment of all resources may be resorted to, the action must always be taken within the
framework of the civil authority. Military authority should be harmonized and coordinated with civil
authority, the only exception being when the law clearly ordains otherwise. Neither Republic Act
2207, nor Republic Act 3452, contains any exception in favor of military action concerning
importation of rice and corn. An exception must be strictly construed.
A distinction is made between the government and government agency in an attempt to take the
former out of the operation of Republic Act 2207. I disagree. The Government of the Republic of the
Philippines under the Revised Administrative Code refers to that entity through which the functions
of government are exercised, including the various arms through which political authority is made
effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other form of local government, whereas a
government instrumentality refers to corporations owned or controlled by the government to promote
certain aspects of the economic life of our people. A government agency, therefore, must
necessarily refer to the government itself of the Republic, as distinguished from any government
instrumentality which has a personality distinct and separate from it (Section 2).
The important point to determine, however, is whether we should enjoin respondents from carrying
out the importation of the rice which according to the record has been authorized to be imported on
government to government level, it appearing that the arrangement to this effect has already been
concluded, the only thing lacking being its implementation. This is evident from the manifestation
submitted by the Solicitor General wherein it appears that the contract for the purchase of 47,000
tons of rice from had been sign on October 5, 1963, and for the purchase of 20,000 tons from Burma
on October 8, 1963, by the authorized representatives of both our government and the governments
of Vietnam and Burma, respectively. If it is true that, our government has already made a formal
commitment with the selling countries there arises the question as to whether the act can still be
impeded at this stage of the negotiations. Though on this score there is a divergence of opinion, it is
gratifying to note that the majority has expressed itself against it. This is a plausible attitude for, had
the writ been issued, our government would have been placed in a predicament where, as a
necessary consequence, it would have to repudiate a duly formalized agreement to its great
embarrassment and loss of face. This was avoided by the judicial statesmanship evinced by the
Court.
BARRERA, J., concurring:
Because of possible complications that might be aggravated by misrepresentation of the true nature
and scope of the case before this Court, it is well to restate as clearly as possible, the real and only
issue presented by the respondents representing the government.
From the answer filed by the Solicitor General, in behalf of respondents, we quote:
The importation of the rice in question by the Armed Forces of the Philippines is
for military stockpiling authorized by the President pursuant to his inherent power as
commander-in-chief and as a military precautionary measure in view the worsening
situation in Laos and Vietnam and, it may added, the recent, tension created by the
Malaysia problem (Answer, p. 2; emphasis supplied.)
During the oral argument, Senator Fernandez, appealing in behalf of the respondents, likewise
reiterated the imported rice was for military stockpiling, and which he admitted that some of it went
to the Rice and Corn Administration, he emphasized again and again that rice was not intended for
the RCA for distribution to people, as there was no shortage of rice for that purpose but it was only
exchanged for palay because this could better preserved.
From the memorandum filed thereafter by the Solicits General, again the claim was made:
We respectfully reiterate the arguments in our answer dated October 4, 1963 that
the importation of rice sought be enjoined in this petition is in the exercise of the
authority vested in the President of the Philippines as Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces, as a measure of military preparedness demanded by a real and
actual threat of emergency in the South East Asian countries. (p. 1, Emphasis
supplied.)
xxx xxx xxx
It (the stressing of the unsettled conditions in Southeast Asia) is merely our

intention to show the necessity for the stockpiling of rice for army purposes, which is
the very reason for the importation.
xxx xxx xxx
As it is, the importation in question is being made by the Republic of the Philippines
for its own use, and the rice is not supposed to be poured into the open market as to
affect the price to be paid by the public. (p. 4, Emphasis supplied.)
xxx xxx xxx
What we do contend is that the law, for want of express and clear provision to that
effect, does not include in its prohibition importation by the Government of rice for its
own use and not for the consuming public, regardless of whether there is or there is
no emergency. (p. 5, Emphasis supplied.)
From the above, it not only appears but is evident that the respondents were not concerned with
the present rice situation confronting the consuming public, but were solely and exclusively after the
stockpiling of rice for the future use of the army. The issue, therefore, in which the Government was
interested is not whether rice is imported to give the people a bigger or greater supply to maintain
the price at P.80 per ganta — for, to quote again their contention: "the rice is not supposed to be
poured into the open market to affect the price to be paid by the public, as it is not for the consuming
public, regardless of whether there is or there is no emergency", — but whether rice can legally be
imported by the Armed Forces of the Philippines avowedly for its future use, notwithstanding the
prohibitory provisions of Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452. The majority opinion ably sets forth the
reasons why this Court can not accept the contention of the respondents that this importation is
beyond and outside the operation of these statutes. I can only emphasize that I see in the theory
advanced by the Solicitor General a dangerous trend — that because the policies enunciated in the
cited laws are for the protection of the producers and the consumers, the army is removed from their
application. To adopt this theory is to proclaim the existence in the Philippines of three economic
groups or classes: the producers, the consumers, and the Armed Forces of the Philippines. What is
more portentous is the effect to equate the army with the Government itself.
Then again, the importation of this rice for military stockpiling is sought to be justified by the alleged
threat of emergency in the Southeast Asian countries. But the existence of this supposed threat was
unilaterally determined by the Department of National Defense alone. We recall that there exists a
body called the National Security Council in which are represented the Executive as well as the
Legislative department. In it sit not only members of the party in power but of the opposition as well.
To our knowledge, this is the highest consultative body which deliberates precisely in times of
emergency threatening to affect the security of the state. The democratic composition of this council
is to guarantee that its deliberations would be non-partisan and only the best interests of the nation
will be considered. Being a deliberative body, it insures against precipitate action. This is as it should
be. Otherwise, in these days of ever present cold war, any change or development in the political
climate in any region of the world is apt to be taken as an excuse for the military to conjure up a
crisis or emergency and thereupon attempt to override our laws and legal processes, and
imperceptibly institute some kind of martial law on the pretext of precautionary mobilization measure
avowedly in the interest of the security of the state. One need not, be too imaginative to perceive a
hint of this in the present case.
The Supreme Court, in arriving at the conclusion unanimously reached, is fully aware of the difficult
and delicate task it had to discharge. Its position is liable to be exploited by some for their own
purposes by claiming and making it appear that the Court is unmindful of the plight of our people
during these days of hardship; that it preferred to give substance to the "niceties of the law than
heed the needs of the people. Our answer is that the Court was left no alternative. It had, in
compliance with its duty, to decide the case upon the facts presented to it. The respondents,
representing the administration, steadfastly maintained and insisted that there is no rice shortage;
that the imported rice is not for the consuming public and is not supposed to be placed in the open
market to affect the price to be paid by the public; that it is solely for stockpiling of the army for future
use as a measure of mobilization in the face of what the Department of National Defense unilaterally
deemed a threatened armed conflict in Southeast Asia. Confronted with these facts upon, which the
Government has built and rested its case, we have searched in vain for legal authority or cogent
reasons to justify this importation made admittedly contrary to the provisions of Republic Acts Nos.
2207 and 3452. I say admittedly, because respondents never as much as pretended that the
importation fulfills the conditions specified in these laws, but limited themselves to the contention,
which is their sole defense that this importation does not fall within the scope of said laws. In our
view, however, the laws are clear. The laws are comprehensive and their application does not admit
of any exception. The laws are adequate. Compliance therewith is not difficult, much less
impossible. The avowed emergency, if at all, is not urgently immediate.
In this connection, it is pertinent to bear in mind that the Supreme Court has a duty to perform under
the Constitution. It has to decide, when called upon to do so in an appropriate proceeding, all cases
in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive order or regulation is
in question. We can not elude this duty. To do so would be culpable dereliction on our part. While
we sympathize with the public that might be adversely affected as a result of this decision yet our
sympathy does not authorize us to sanction an act contrary to applicable laws. The fault lies with
those who stubbornly contended and represented before this Court that there is no rice shortage,
that the imported rice is not intended for the consuming public, but for stockpiling of the army. And, if
as now claimed before the public, contrary to the Government's stand in this case, that there is need
for imported rice to stave off hunger, our legislature has provided for such a situation. As already
stated, the laws are adequate. The importation of rice under the conditions set forth in the laws may
be authorized not only where there is an existing shortage, but also when the shortage is imminent.
In other words, lawful remedy to solve the situation is available, if only those who have the duty to
execute the laws perform their duty. If there is really need for the importation of rice, who adopt
some dubious means which necessitates resort to doubtful exercise of the power of the President as
Commander-in-Chief of the Army? Why not comply with the mandate of the law? Ours is supposed
to be a regime under the rule of law. Adoption as a government policy of the theory of the end
justifies the means brushing aside constitutional and legal restraints, must be rejected, lest we end
up with the end of freedom.
For these reasons, I concur in the decision of the Court.
Separate Opinions
Footnotes
The Secretary of National Defense, the Auditor General, the Secretary of

1
Commerce and Industry, and the Secretary Justice.
2
275 hectares.
3
Tapales vs. The President and the Board of Regents of the U.P., L-17523, March
30, 1963.
4
Mangubat vs. Osmeña, L-12837, April 30, 1959; Baguio vs. Hon. Jose Rodriguez,
L-11078, May 27, 1959; Pascual Provincial Board, L-11959, October 31, 1959.
5
Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. vs. Secretary of Public Works, L-15982, May
31, 1963.
6
In the present case, respondents allege in their answer that "the importation ... in
question ... is authorized by the President.
7
Alzate vs. Aldaba, L-14407, February 29, 1960; Demaisip vs. Court of Appeals, L-
13000, September 25, 1959.
8
Which provides that the national defense policy of the Philippines shall be follows:
(a) The preservation of the state is the obligation of every citizen. The
security of the Philippines and the freedom, independence and perpetual
neutrality of the Philippine Republic shall be guaranteed by the employment
of all citizens, without distinction of sex or age, and all resources.
(b) The employment of the nation's citizens and resources for national
defense shall be effected by a national mobilization.
(c) The national mobilization shall include the execution of all measures
necessary to pass from a peace to a war footing.
(d) The civil authority shall always be supreme. The President of the
Philippines as the Commander-in-Chief of all military forces, shall be
responsible that mobilization measures are prepared at all times.
xxx xxx xxx
9
In line with the provisions of paragraphs b), c), e), and f) of section 2 of said Act.
10
The Constitution and What It Means Today, pp. 95-96.
The Power of the President as Commander-in-Chief is primarily that of military

11
command in wartime, and as such includes, as against the persons and property
of enemies of the United States encountered within the theater of military operations,
all the powers allowed a military commander in such cases by the Law of Nations.
President Lincoln's famous Proclamation of Emancipation rested upon this ground. It
was effective within the theater of military operations while the war lasted, but no
longer. (p. 93, Emphasis supplied.)
From an early date the Commander-in-Chief power came to be merged with the
12
President's duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. So, while in using
military force against unlawful combinations too strong to be dealt with through the
ordinary processes of law the President acts by authorization of statute, his powers
are still those of Commander-in-Chief. ...
Under "preventive martial law", so-called because it authorizes "preventive" arrests

and detentions, the military acts as an adjunct of the civil authorities but not
necessarily subject to their orders. It may be established whenever the executive
organ, State or national, deems it to be necessary for the restoration of good order.
The concept, being of judicial origin, is of course for judicial application, and
ultimately for application by the Supreme Court, in enforcement of the due process
clauses. (See, also, Section III of this Article, and Article IV, Section IV.) (Pp. 95-96,
Emphasis supplied.)
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Official Gazette of The Republic of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Official Gazette of The Republic of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

 GOVPH

 Philippine Standard Time:

OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC

The Constitution of the Republic of the

ARTICLE I National Territory

ARTICLE II Declaration of Principles and State Policies

ARTICLE III Bill of Rights

ARTICLE VI Legislative Department

ARTICLE VII Executive Department

ARTICLE VIII Judicial Department

ARTICLE IX Constitutional Commissions

ARTICLE X Local Government

ARTICLE XII National Economy and Patrimony

ARTICLE XIII Social Justice and Human Rights

ARTICLE XV The Family

ARTICLE XVI General Provisions

ARTICLE XVII Amendments or Revisions

ARTICLE XVIII Transitory Provisions

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Declaration of Principles and State Policies

SECTION 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

SECTION 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral

SECTION 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

SECTION 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

SECTION 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

SECTION 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;

(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

The Legislative Department

SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines,

SECTION 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a

SECTION 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special

Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.

SECTION 31. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.

SECTION 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the

SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

B. The Civil Service Commission

SECTION 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional,

Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation.

C. The Commission on Elections

SECTION 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election

SECTION 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list

(1) Administrative organization;

(2) Creation of sources of revenues;

(3) Ancestral domain and natural resources;

(4) Personal, family, and property relations;

(5) Regional urban and rural planning development;

(6) Economic, social, and tourism development;

(8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and

Accountability of Public Officers

National Economy and Patrimony

SECTION 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or

SECTION 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen

Social Justice and Human Rights

Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform

No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation

Role and Rights of People’s Organizations

(4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;

Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports