You are on page 1of 2

Manila Prince vs GSIS

Facts:
- The Government Service Insurance system pursuant to the privatization program of the
Philippines, decided to sell through a public bidding the 30-51% of the issued and
outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). The winning bidder will be
the partner to provide management expertise and/or an international
marketing/reservation system and financial support to strengthen the profitability and
performance of the Manila Hotel. There were only 2 bidders who participated. The
Manila Prince Hotel Corporation a Filipino corporation which offered to buy 51% of the
MHC or P41.58 per share and Renong Merhad, a Malaysian firm, which bid for the same
number of shares of P44 per share, P2.42 higher than the bid of the MPC.

- Pending the declaration of the Malaysian firm as the winner, the petitioner wrote a letter
stating that they intend to match the bid of P44 per share. It also sent a manager’s check
issued by PhilTrust Bank for 33 million pesos as Bid Security to match the bid of the
Malaysian Group which the respondent declined to accept.

- The petitioner now filed to the SC for prohibition and mandamus. The petitioner invoked
Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and says 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. It has become part of national patrimony.

- The SC issued a TRO enjoining the respondent from perfecting and completing the sale.

ISSUE: W/N the sale of the Manila hotel to Renong Merhad, a Malaysian firm is
unconstitutional

Ruling: YES

Ratio:
- Section 10, Article 12 of the Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is
complete in itself and needs no further guidelines or implementing laws for its
enforcement

- The term patrimony pertains to heritage. When the constitution speaks about national
patrimony, it also refers to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos
- Manila Hotel is part of the Philippines’ national patrimony. It is not just a commodity
which can be sold for the sake of privatization. It has become a landmark and a living
testimonial of the Philippine heritage.
- The 51% of the equity of the MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional
shelter. It cannot be disassociated from the hotel and the land on which the hotel stands.
The Filipino will have to be allowed to match the bid of the foreign entity and if the
Filipino matches the bid, the award should go to the Filipino. The Court also reiterated
how much of national pride will vanish if the nation’s cultural heritage will fall on the
hands of foreigners.

You might also like