MANILA PRINCE HOTEL petitioner,

vs.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL
CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

FACTS

Pursuant to the privatization program of the government, Respondent Government

Service Insurance System (GSIS) decided to sell through public bidding shares of
the Manila Hotel. There were two entities who participated in the bidding: Petitioner
Manila Prince Hotel (MHC), a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy the shares at
₱ 41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, which bid for the shares at
₱ 44.00 per share. Eventually, MHC matched the bid price of Renong Berhad at ₱
44.00 per share. MHC even sent a manager’s check to GSIS which the latter
refused. Apprehensive about the GSIS’ refusal, MHC filed a petition for prohibition
and mandamus before the Supreme Court.

MHC invokes Paragraph 2, Section 10, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
(commonly known as the “Filipino First Policy”) where it states that in grant of rights,
privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State
shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. In the same vein, MHC submits that
Manila Hotel has become a part of the national patrimony for its importance in the
national Filipino heritage. Also, the ownership of shares by the GSIS shows that they
are engaged in the hotel business, which makes them part of the national economy.
Thus, the aforementioned constitutional provision can be invoked. Further, MHC
should be considered the preferred bidder since the bidding rules provide that the
shares must be awarded to qualified bidders in case the highest bidder cannot be
awarded the same, provided that the qualified bidders matched the highest bid.

On the other hand, GSIS maintains that Par. 2, Sec. 10, Art. XII of the Constitution
cannot be invoked because it is not self-executing and would require an
implementing legislation. Granting that the said provision is self-executing, the
Manila Hotel cannot be considered a part of the national patrimony because it only
refers to lands of public domain, waters, minerals, etc. Further, granting that Manila
Hotel is part of the national patrimony, GSIS is not selling its land or the building, but
its shares of ownership.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not Par. 2, Sec. 10, Art. XII of the Constitution may be invoked as a
self-executing provision.

2. Whether or not Manila Hotel can be considered part of the national patrimony in
order for the aforementioned provision to be applicable.

HELD
1. The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. It admits that a provision which lays
down the basic principle, such as those found in Art. II of the Constitution, is usually
not self-executing. However, the Court also held that a provision which is complete in
itself and becomes operative without aid of an 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 or extent of right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the
constitution itself. Par. 2, Sec. 10, Art. XII of the Constitution is mandatory, positive
command, which is complete in itself and requires not further implementing laws for
its enforcement. Thus, it may be invoked by MHC in the present case.

2. The Court also ruled in the affirmative. It held that national patrimony includes the
national resources of the Philippines, which necessarily includes those which are
considered cultural heritage of the Filipinos. Since, Manila Hotel itself has become a
landmark of many events in the Philippine history, with its existence impressed with
public interest. Thus, the contested constitutional provision is applicable.

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 clearances
and to do such other acts and deeds as may be necessary for purpose.

G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH 6,327,952
REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
Lambino Group, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change
the 1987 Constitution. They filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite
that will ratify their initiative petition under Sec 5(b) and (c) and Sec 7 of RA No.
6735. They alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals
constituting at least 12% of all registered voters, with each legislative district
represented by at least 3% of its registered voters. COMELEC denied the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII
of the Constitution.
RULING:
NO. The framers intended that the “draft of the proposed constitutional amendment”
should be “ready and shown” to the people “before” they sign such proposal, before
they sign there is already a draft shown to them and that the people should sign on
the proposal itself because the proponents must “prepare that proposal and pass it
around for signature.”The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by
the people. Two essential elements must be present: the people must author and
sign the entire proposal andit must be embodied in a petition. These are present only
if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who express
their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is
“directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition” only if the people
sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments. The full
text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the petition, or
attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state such fact. This is an assurance
that every one of the several millions of signatories had seen the full text of the
proposed amendments before signing. Otherwise, it is physically impossible to prove