1st Batch

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, petitioner v GSIS, respondent (DIGEST)

G.R. No. 122156; February 3, 1997

TOPIC: Non-Self Executing v Self Executing Constitutional Provisions

FACTS: The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) decided to sell through
public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel
(MHC).
In a close bidding, two bidders participated: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC), a
Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC 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.
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning bidder and the execution of
the contracts, the MPHC matched the bid price in a letter to GSIS. MPHC sent a
manager’s check to the GSIS in a subsequent letter, which GSIS refused to accept. On
17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the tender of the
matching bid, MPHC came to the Court on prohibition and mandamus.
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.
Respondents assert that 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).
ISSUE: Whether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10,
are self-executing.
RULING: Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision.
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.
A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Article 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.
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.
In fine, Section 10, second paragraph, 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.
QUIZ QUESTION: What is a constitution according to Manila Prince vs GSIS?
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.
 Ocampo v. Enriquez
G.R. No. 225973, November 8, 2016
FACTS: Public respondent Secretary of National Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana issued a
Memorandum to the public respondent Chief of Staff of the AFP, General Ricardo R.
Visaya, regarding the interment of Marcos at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB) in
reference to the Verbal Order of President Duterte.
Respondent AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez issued directives to the Philippine
Army (PA) Commanding General for the Funeral Honors and Service to former
President Marcos.
ISSUE:
HELD: The LNMB was not expressly included in the national shrines enumerated in PD
105
P.D. No. 105 does not apply to the LNMB. Despite the fact that P.D. No. 208 predated
P.D. No. 105, the LNMB was not expressly included in the national shrines enumerated
in the latter. The proposition that the LNMB is implicitly covered in the catchall phrase
"and others which may be proclaimed in the future as National Shrines" is erroneous
because: (1) As stated, Marcos issued P.D. No. 208 prior to P.D. No. 105; (2) Following
the canon of statutory construction known as ejusdem generis, 138 the LNMB is not a
site "of the birth, exile, imprisonment, detention or death of great and eminent leaders of
the nation,"; and (3) Since its establishment, the LNMB has been a military shrine under
the jurisdiction of the PVAO.
Assuming that P.D. No. 105 is applicable, the descriptive words "sacred and hallowed"
refer to the LNMB as a place and not to each and every mortal remains interred therein.
Hence, the burial of Marcos at the LNMB does not diminish said cemetery as a revered
and respected ground. Neither does it negate the presumed individual or collective
"heroism" of the men and women buried or will be buried therein. The "nation's esteem
and reverence for her war dead, " as originally contemplated by President Magsaysay in
issuing Proclamation No. 86, still stands unaffected. That being said, the interment of
Marcos, therefore, does not constitute a violation of the physical, historical, and cultural
integrity of the LNMB as a national military shrine.
The LNMB is considered as a national shrine for military memorials. The PVAO, which
is empowered to administer, develop, and maintain military shrines, is under the
supervision and control of the DND. The DND, in tum, is under the Office of the
President.
The presidential power of control over the Executive Branch of Government is a self-
executing provision of the Constitution and does not require statutory implementation,
nor may its exercise be limited, much less withdrawn, by the legislature. This is why
President Duterte is not bound by the alleged 1992 Agreement between former
President Ramos and the Marcos family to have the remains of Marcos interred in
Batac, Ilocos Norte. As the incumbent President, he is free to amend, revoke or rescind
political agreements entered into by his predecessors, and to determine policies which
he considers, based on informed judgment and presumed wisdom, will be most
effective in carrying out his mandate