I. Constitution of the Philippines (related cases)

8/9/2019 I. Constitution of the Philippines (related cases)

1/149

EN BANC

G.R. No. 78059 August 31, 1987

ALFREDO M. DE LEON, ANGEL S. SALAMAT, MARIO C. STA. ANA,JOSE C. TOLENTINO, ROGELIO J. DE LA ROSA a! JOSE M.RES"RRECCION, petitioners,vs.

#ON. $ENJAMIN $. ESG"ERRA, % &%s 'a(a'%t) as OIC Go*+o o- t&+

o*%'+ o- R%/a, #ON. ROMEO C. DE LEON, % &%s 'a(a'%t) as OICMa)o o- t&+ Mu%'%(a%t) o- Ta)ta), R%/a, FLORENTINO G. MAGNO,REMIGIO M. TIGAS, RICARDO . LACANIENTA, TEODORO 2. MEDINA,ROSENDO S. A, a! TERESITA L. TOLENTINO, respondents.

MELENCIO#ERRERA, J.:

An original action for Prohibition instituted by petitioners seeking to enjoin

respondents from replacing them from their respective positions as Barangay

Captain and Barangay Councilmen of Barangay olores, !unicipality of

"aytay, Province of #i$al.

As re%uired by the Court, respondents submitted their Comment on thePetition, and petitioner&s their #eply to respondents& Comment.

'n the Barangay elections held on !ay (), (*+, petitioner Alfredo !. e

-eon as elected Barangay Captain and the other petitioners Angel /.

/alamat, !ario C. /ta. Ana, 0ose C. "olentino, #ogelio 0. de la #osa and

0ose !. #esurreccion, as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay olores,

"aytay, #i$al under Batas Pambansa Blg. , otherise knon as the

Barangay Election Act of (*+.

1n 2ebruary *, (*+), petitioner Alfredo !, de -eon received a !emorandum

antedated ecember (, (*+3 but signed by respondent 1'C 4overnor

Benjamin Esguerra on 2ebruary +, (*+) designating respondent 2lorentino

4. !agno as Barangay Captain of Barangay olores, "aytay, #i$al. "he

designation made by the 1'C 4overnor as 5by authority of the !inister of

-ocal 4overnment.5

Also on 2ebruary +, (*+), respondent 1'C 4overnor signed a !emorandum,

antedated ecember (, (*+3 designating respondents #emigio !. "igas,

#icardo 6. -acanienta "eodoro 7. !edina, #oberto /. Pa$ and "eresita -.

"olentino as members of the Barangay Council of the same Barangay and

!unicipality.

"hat the !emoranda had been antedated is evidenced by the Affidavit of

respondent 1'C 4overnor, the pertinent portions of hich read8

999 999 999

"hat ' am the 1'C 4overnor of #i$al having been appointed as such on

!arch :, (*+3;

"hat as being 1'C 4overnor of the Province of #i$al and in the

performance of my duties thereof, ' among others, have signed as ' did

sign the unnumbered memorandum ordering the replacement of all the

barangay officials of all the barangay


2/149

SECTION 27. "his 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.

"he (*+) Constitution as ratified in a plebiscite on 2ebruary , (*+). By

that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have

been superseded. ?aving become inoperative, respondent 1'C 4overnor

could no longer rely on /ection , Article ''', thereof to designate

respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners.

Petitioners must no be held to have ac%uired security of tenure specially

considering that the Barangay Election Act of (*+ declares it 5a policy of the

/tate to guarantee and promote the autonomy of the barangays to ensure

their fullest development as selfreliant communities.4/imilarly, the (*+)

Constitution ensures the autonomy of local governments and of political

subdivisions of hich the barangays form a part, 3and limits the President&s

poer to 5general supervision5 over local governments. #elevantly, /ection

+, Article D of the same (*+) Constitution further provides in part8

/ec. +. "he term of office of elective local officials, e9cept barangay

officials, hich shall be determined by la, shall be three years ...

>ntil the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by la,

therefore, the term of office of si9


3/149

"he committee accepts the first proposed amendment. ?oever, e

regret that e cannot accept the second proposed amendment after the

ord 5constitutions5 because the committee feels that hen e talk of all

previous Constitutions, necessarily it includes 5AN "?E'#

A!EN!EN"/.5

!#. A7'E. ith that e9planation, l ill not insist on the second. But,

!adam President, may ' re%uest that ' be alloed to read the second

amendment so the Commission ould be able to appreciate the change in

the first.

!#. !AA!B1N4. @es, !adam President, e can no do that.

!#. A7'E. "he second sentence ill read8 5"?E P#1C-A!A"'1N

/?A-- BE !AE '"?'N 2'7E A@/ 21--1'N4 "?E C1!P-E"'1N

12 "?E CAN7A// B@ "?E C1!!'//'1N 1N E-EC"'1N/ 12 "?E

#E/>-"/ 12 />C? P-EB'/C'"E.5

!#. !AA!B1N4. !adam President, after conferring ith our chairman,

the committee feels that the second proposed amendment in the form of a

ne sentence ould not be e9actly necessary and the committee feels

that it ould be too much for us to impose a time frame on the President

to make the proclamation. As e ould recall, !adam President, in the

approved Article on the E9ecutive, there is a provision hich says that the

President shall make certain that all las shall be faithfully complied.

hen e approve this first sentence, and it says that there ill be a

proclamation by the President that the Constitution has been ratified, the

President ill naturally comply ith the la in accordance ith the

provisions in the Article on the E9ecutive hich e have cited. 't ould be

too much to impose on the President a time frame ithin hich she ill

make that declaration. 't ould be assumed that the President ould

immediately do that after the results shall have been canvassed by the

C1!E-EC.

"herefore, the committee regrets that it cannot accept the secondsentence hich the 4entleman is proposing, !adam President.

!#. A7'E. ' am prepared to ithdra the same on the assumption that

there ill be an immediate proclamation of the results by the President.

!#. !AA!B1N4. ith that understanding, !adam President.

!#. A7'E. ' ill not insist on the second sentence.

2#. BE#NA/. !adam President.

"?E P#E/'EN". Commissioner Bernas is recogni$ed.

2#. BE#NA/. ' ould ask the committee to reconsider its acceptance of

the amendment hich makes the effectivity of the ne Constitution

dependent upon the proclamation of the President. T*e eectivit o t*e

Constitution s*oul! co((ence on t*e !ate o t*e ratiication, not on t*e

!ate o t*e procla(ation o t*e Presi!ent. hat is confusing, ' think,

is )*at *appene! in $%7/hen the amendments of (*)3 ere ratified. 'n

that particular case, the reason t*e a(en!(ents o $%7/ )ere eective

upon t*e procla(ation o t*e Presi!entas that the draft presented to the

people said that the amendment ill be effective upon the proclamation

made by the President. ' have a suspicion that as put in there precisely

to give the President some kind of leeay on hether to announce the

ratification or not. "herefore, )e s*oul! not (a-e t*is !epen!ent on t*e

action o t*e Presi!ent since t*is )ill #e a (aniestation o t*e act o t*e

people to #e !one un!er t*e supervision o t*e CO'E0ECand it should

be the C1!E-EC ho should make the announcement that, in fact, the

votes sho that the Constitution as ratified and there should be no need

to ait for any proclamation on the part of the President.

!#. !AA!B1N4. ould the 4entleman anser a fe clarificator

%uestionsI

2#. BE#NA/. illingly, !adam President.

!#. !AA!B1N4. "he 4entleman ill agree that a date has to be fi9ed

as to e9actly hen the Constitution is supposed to be ratified.

2#. BE#NA/. ' ould say that t*e ratiication o t*e Constitution is on t*e

!ate t*e votes )ere suppose! to *ave #een cast.

!#. !AA!B1N4. -et us go to the mechanics of the hole thing, !adam

President. e present the Constitution to a plebiscite, the people e9ercise

their right to vote, then the votes are canvassed by the Commission onElections. 'f e delete the suggested amendment hich says8 5"?E

P#1C-A!A"'1N B@ "?E P#E/'EN" "?A" '" ?A/ BEEN #A"'2'E

hat ould be, in clear terms, the date hen the Constitution is supposed

to be ratified or not ratified, as the case may beI

2#. BE#NA/. "he date ould be the casting of the ballots. if the

President ere to say that the plebiscite ould be held, for instance, on

0anuary (*, (*+), then the date for the effectivity of the ne Constitution

ould be 0anuary (*, (*+).

!#. !AA!B1N4. 'n other ords, it ould not depend on the actua

issuance of the results by the Commission on Elections hich ill be

doing the canvassI "hat is immaterial !adam President

2#. BE#NA/. 't ould not, !adam President, because 5ratification5 is the

act of saying 5yes5 is done hen one casts his ballot.

!#. !AA!B1N4. /o it is the date of the plebiscite itself, !adam

PresidentI

2#. BE#NA/. @es, !adam President.

!#. !AA!B1N4. ith that statement of Commissioner Bernas, e

ould like to kno from the proponent, Commissioner avide, if he is

insisting on his amendment.

!#. A7'E. !adam President, ' am insisting on the amendmen

because ' cannot subscribe to the vie of Commissioner Bernas, that the

date of the ratification is reckoned from the date of the casting of the

ballots. "hat cannot be the date of reckoning because it is a plebiscite a

over the country. e do not split the moment of casting by each of the

voters. Actually and technically speaking, it ould be all right if it ould be

upon the announcement of the results of the canvass conducted by the

C1!E-EC or the results of the plebiscite held all over the country. But it is

necessary that there be a body hich ill make the formal announcemen

of the results of the plebiscite. /o it is either the President or the


4/149

C1!E-EC itself upon the completion of the canvass of the results of the

plebiscite, and ' opted for the President.

999 999 999

!#. N1--E1. !adam President.

"?E P#E/'EN". Commissioner Nolledo is recogni$ed.

!#. N1--E1. "hank you, !adam President. ' beg to disagree ith

Commissioner avide. ' support the stand of Commissioner Bernas

becauseit is reall t*e !ate o t*e castin+ o t*e 1es1 votes t*at is t*e

!ate o t*e ratiication o t*e Constitution T*e announce(ent (erel

conir(s t*e ratiication even if the results are released to or three days

after. ' think it is a fundamental principle in political la, even in civil la,

because an announcement is a mere confirmation T*e act o ratiication is

t*e act o votin+ # t*e people./o that is the date of the ratification. 'f

there should be any need for presidential proclamation, that proclamation

ill merely confirm the act of ratification.

"hank you, !adam President.

"?E P#E/'EN". oes Commissioner #egalado ant to contributeI

!#. #E4A-A1. !adam President, ' as precisely going to state the

same support for Commissioner Bernas, because the canvass thereafter

is merely the (at*e(atical conir(ation of hat as done during the date

of the plebiscite and theprocla(ationof the President is(erel t*e

oicial conir(ator !eclaration o an act )*ic* )as actuall !one # t*e

Filipino people in a!optin+ t*e Constitution )*en t*e cast t*eir votes on

t*e !ate o t*e ple#iscite.

!#. -E#>!. !adam President, may ' be recogni$ed.

"?E P#E/'EN". Commissioner -erum is recogni$ed.

!#. -E#>!. ' am in favor of the avide amendment because e have to

fi9 a date for the effectivity of the Constitution. /uppose the

announcement is delayed by, say, (: days or a month, hat happens to

the obligations and rights that accrue upon the approval of the

ConstitutionI /o ' think e must have a definite date. ' am, therefore, in

favor of the avide amendment.

!#. !AA!B1N4. !adam President.

"?E P#E/'EN". Commissioner !aambong is recogni$ed.

!#. !AA!B1N4. ith the theory of the Commissioner, ould there be a

necessity for the Commission on Elections to declare the results of the

canvassI

2#. BE#NA/. "here ould be becauseit is t*e Co((ission on Elections

)*ic* (a-es t*e oicial announce(ent o t*e results.

!#. !AA!B1N4. !y ne9t %uestion hich is the final one is8 After the

Commision on Elections has declared the results of the canvass, ill there

be a necessity for the President to make a proclamation of the results o

the canvass as submitted by the Commission on ElectionsI

2#. BE#NA/. ' ould say there ould be no necessity, !adam President

!#. !AA!B1N4. 'n other ords, the President may or may not make

the proclamation hether the Constitution has been ratified or not.

2#. BE#NA/. ' ould say that the proclamation made by the President

ould be immaterial because under the la, the administration of aelection las is under an independent Commission on Elections. 't is the

Commission on Elections hich announces the results.

!#. !AA!B1N4. But nevertheless, the President may make th

proclamation.

2#. BE#NA/. @es, the President may. And if hat he says contradicts

hat the Commission on Elections says, it ould have no effect. ' ould

only add that hen e say that the date of effectivity is on the day of the

casting of the votes, hat e mean is that the Constitution takes effect on

every single minute and every single second of that day, because the Civi

Code says a day has J hours.So t*at even i t*e votes are cast in t*e(ornin+, t*e Constitution is reall eective ro( t*e previous (i!ni+*t.

/o that hen e adopted the ne rule on citi$enship, the children o

2ilipino mothers or anybody born on the date of effectivity of the (*)

Constitution, hich is 0anuary (), (*), are naturalborn citi$ens, no

matter hat time of day or night.

!#. !AA!B1N4. Could e, therefore, safely say that hatever date is

thepu#lication o t*e results o t*e canvass # t*e CO'E0EC retroacts to

t*e !ate o t*e ple#iscite

2#. BE#NA/. @es, !adam President.

!#. !AA!B1N4. ' thank the Commissioner.

!#. 4>'N41NA. !adam President.

"?E P#E/'EN". Commissioner 4uingona is recogni$ed.

!#. 4>'N41NA. !ention as made about the need for having a definite

date. ' think it is precisely the proposal of Commissioner Bernas hich

speaks of the date


5/149

provision on the drafting or amendment of the Constitution provides that a

constitution becomes effective upon ratification by a majority of the votes

cast, although ' ould not say from the very beginning of the date of

election because as of that time it is impossible to determine hether

there is a majority.3t t*e en! o t*e !a o election or ple#iscite, t*e

!eter(ination is (a!e as o t*at ti(e4t*e (a5orit o t*e votes cast in a

ple#iscite *el! on suc* an! suc* a !ate. So t*at is t*e ti(e )*en t*e ne)

Constitution )ill #e consi!ere! ratiie! an!, t*ereore, eective.

"?E P#E/'EN". !ay e no hear 7icePresident Padilla.

!#. PA'--A. !adam President, ' am against the proposed amendment

of Commissioner avide and ' support the vie of Commissioner Bernas

and the others because the ratification of the Constitution is on the date

the people, by a majority vote, have cast their votes in favor of the

Constitution. Even in civil la, if there is a contract, say, beteen an agent

and a third person and that contract is confirmed or ratified by the

principal, the validity does not begin on the date of ratification but it

retroacts from the date the contract as e9ecuted.

"herefore, t*e !ate o t*e Constitution as ratiie! s*oul! retroact to t*e

!ate t*at t*e people *ave cast t*eir air(ative votes in avor o t*e

Constitution.

!#. !AA!B1N4. !adam President.

"?E P#E/'EN". Commissioner !aambong is recogni$ed

!#. !AA!B1N4. e ill no ask once more Commissioner avide if

he is insisting on his amendment

!#. A7'E. In vie) o t*e e6planation an! over)*el(in+ tyranny of

the opinion t*at it )ill #e eective on t*e ver !a o t*e ple#iscite , '

am )it*!ra)in+my amendment on the assumption that any of the

folloing bodies the 1ffice of the President or the C1!E-EC ill makethe formal announcement of the results.

!#. #A!A. !adam President, e are no ready to vote on the original

provision as stated by the committee.

!#. !AA!B1N4. "he committee ill read again the formulation

indicated in the original committee report as /ection (.

T*is Constitution s*all ta-e eect i((e!iatel upon its ratiication # a

(a5orit o t*e votes cast in a ple#iscite calle! or t*e purpose an! s*all

superse!e all previous Constitutions.

e ask for a vote, !adam President.

7 1 " ' N 4

"?E P#E/'EN". As many as are in favor, please raise their hand.


6/149

hile ' agree that the oneyear deadline prescribed by /ection , Article ''' of

the Provisional Constitution ith respect to the tenure of government

functionaries, as follos8

/EC"'1N . All elective and appointive officials and employees under the

(*) Constitution shall continue in office until otherise provided by

proclamation or e9ecutive order or upon the designation or appointment

and %ualification of their successors, if such appointment is made ithin a

period of one year from 2ebruary , (*+3.

as cut short by the ratification of the (*+) Constitution, ' entertain serious

doubts hether or not that cutoff period began on 2ebruary , (*+), the

date of the plebiscite held to approve the ne Charter. "o my mind the (*+)

constitution took effect on 2ebruary ((, (*+), the date the same as

proclaimed ratified pursuant to Proclamation No. + of the President of the

Philippines, and not 2ebruary , (*+), plebiscite day.

' rely, first and foremost, on the language of the (*+) Charter itself, thus8

/ec. ). "his Constitution shag 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.

't is my reading of this provision that the Constitution takes effect on the date

its ratification shall have been ascertained, and not at the time the people

cast their votes to approve or reject it. 2or it cannot be logically said that

Constitution as ratified during such a plebiscite, hen the ill of the people

as of that time, had not, and could not have been, vet determined.

1ther than that, pragmatic considerations compel me to take the vie.

' have no doubt that beteen 2ebruary , and 2ebruary ((, (*+) the

government performed acts that ould have been valid under the Provisional

Constitution but ould otherise have been void under the (*+) Charter. '

recall, in particular, the appointments of some seven Court of Appeals0ustices, )( provincial fiscals, and city fiscals the President reportedly

e9tended on 2ebruary , (*+). 1 >nder /ections +


7/149

the Batasang Pambansa, "hird #egular /ession, /itting as a Constituent

Assembly, hich parented these amendments, the same8

. . .shall become valid as part of the Constitution hen

approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite

to be held pursuant to /ection , Article D7' of the

Constitution.

1n the other hand, Batas Pambansa Blg. (, 5An Act to /ubmit to the

2ilipino People, for #atification or #ejection, the Amendment to theConstitution of the Philippines, Proposed by the Batasang Pambansa, /itting

as a Constituent Assembly, in its #esolutions Numbered "hree, "o, and

1ne, and to Appropriate 2unds "herefore,5 provides, as follos8

/EC. ). "he Commission on Elections, sitting en #anc,

shad canvass and proclaim the result of the plebiscite

using the certificates submitted to it, duly authenticated

and certified by the Board of Canvassers of each

province or city.

e have, finally, Proclamation No. , 5Proclaiming the #atification in the

Plebiscite of 0anuary ), (*+J, of the Amendments to the Constitution

Embodied in Batasang Pambansa #esolutions Nos. (:J, (:, ((:, (((, ((

and ((.5 't states that the amendments8

....are therefore effective and in full force and effect as

of the date of this Proclamation.

't carries out #esolution no. (:J itself

took effect at no other time.

' submit that our ruling in Ponsica v. I+nala+a 5in hich e declared, in

passing, that the ne Charter as ratified on 2ebruary , (*+), does not inany ay eaken this dissent. As ' stated, the remark as said in passinge

did not resolve the case on account of a categorical holding that the (*+)

Constitution came to life on 2ebruary , (*+). 'n any event, if e did, ' no

call for its ree9amination.

' am therefore of the opinion, consistent ith the vies e9pressed above

that the challenged dismissals done on 2ebruary +, (*+) ere valid, the

(*+) Constitution not being then as yet in force.

Footot+s

( "opacio, 0r. vs. Pimentel 4.#. No. ))):, April (:, (*+3.

/ection , BP Blg. .

Article ((, /ection and Article D, /ections (, , (J, among others.

J Article D, /ection J.

/ection , BP Blg. .

"eehankee, C.0., concurring8

( 7olume 2ive, #ecord of the Constitutional Commission Proceedings andebates, pages 3:3; emphasis supplied.

"he entire draft Constitution as approved on 1ctober (, (*+3 forty

fortyfive votes in favor and to against.

"he seven Court of Appeals 0ustices referred to are 0ustices Alfredo -

Benipayo, !inerva 4. #eyes, !agdangal B. Elma, Cecilio PE, 0esus

Elbinias, Nicolas -apena 0r. and 0usto P. "orres, 0r., and thei

appointments bear various dates from 0anuary *, (*+) to 0anuary (

(*+).

/armiento, 0., dissenting8

( !anila Bulletin, 2eb. , (*+), p. (, cols. 3) Philippine aily 'n%uirer

2eb. ,(*+), p. (, cot (; !alaya, 2eb. , (*+), p. (, col. (.

Nos. ):(: !arch , (*), 3 /C#A J


8/149


9/149

EN BANC

G.R. No. 14415 F+ua) 3, 1997

MANILA RINCE #OTEL petitioner,vs.

GO2ERNMENT SER2ICE INS"RANCE SSTEM, MANILA #OTELCORORATION, COMMITTEE ON RI2ATIATION a! OFFICEOF T#E GO2ERNMENT CORORATE CO"NSEL, respondents.

$ELLOSILLO, J.:

"he FiIipino First Policenshrined in the (*+) Constitution, i.e., in t*e +rant

o ri+*ts, privile+es, an! concessions coverin+ t*e national econo( an!

patri(on, t*e State s*all +ive preerence to :ualiie! Filipinos ,1is inoked by

petitioner in its bid to ac%uire (K of the shares of the !anila ?otel

Corporation

implementing legislation for its enforcement. Corollarily, they ask hether the

(K shares form part of the national economy and patrimony covered by the

protective mantle of the Constitution.

"he controversy arose hen respondent 4overnment /ervice 'nsurance

/ystem "'1N 12 "?E NECE//A#@ C1N"#AC"/ '"? 4/'/F!?C

L

(. "he ?ighest Bidder must comply ith the conditions set forth

belo by 1ctober , (**


10/149

't is also the thesis of petitioner that since !anila ?otel is part of the national

patrimony and its business also un%uestionably part of the national economy

petitioner should be preferred after it has matched the bid offer of the

!alaysian firm. 2or the bidding rules mandate that i or an reason, t*e

ualiie! "i!!ers t*at *ave vali!l su#(itte! #i!s provi!e! t*at

t*ese >ualiie! "i!!ers are )illin+ to (atc* t*e *i+*est #i! in ter(s o price

per s*are.8

#espondents e9cept. "hey maintain that8 First, /ec. (:, second par., Art. D'',of the (*+) Constitution is merely a statement of principle and policy since it

is not a sel4e6ecutin+ provision an! re:uires i(ple(entin+ le+islation?s@ . . .

T*us, or t*e sai! provision to Operate, t*ere (ust #e e6istin+ la)s 1to la

!o)n con!itions un!er )*ic* #usiness (a #e !one.59

Secon!, granting that this provision is selfe9ecuting, !anila ?otel does not

fall under the term national patrimony hich only refers to lands of the public

domain, aters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of

potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, ildlife, flora and fauna and all

marine ealth in its territorial sea, and e9clusive marine $one as cited in the

first and second paragraphs of /ec. , Art. D'', (*+) Constitution. According

to respondents, hile petitioner speaks of the guests ho have slept in the

hotel and the events that have transpired therein hich make the hotelhistoric, these alone do not make the hotel fall under the patri(onof the

nation. hat is more, the mandate of the Constitution is addressed to the

/tate, not to respondent 4/'/ hich possesses a personality of its on

separate and distinct from the Philippines as a /tate.

T*ir!, granting that the !anila ?otel forms part of the national patri(on, the

constitutional provision invoked is still inapplicable since hat is being sold is

only (K of the outstanding shares of the corporation, not the hotel building

nor the land upon hich the building stands. Certainly, (K of the e%uity of

the !?C cannot be considered part of the national patri(on. !oreover, if

the disposition of the shares of the !?C is really contrary to the Constitution,

petitioner should have %uestioned it right from the beginning and not after it

had lost in the bidding.

Fourt*, the reliance by petitioner on par. 7., subpar. 0. (., of the bidding rules

hich provides that i or an reason, t*e ualiie! "i!!ers t*at

*ave vali!l su#(itte! #i!s provi!e! t*at t*ese >ualiie! "i!!ers are )illin+

to (atc* t*e *i+*est #i! in ter(s o price per s*are, is misplaced.

#espondents postulate that the privilege of submitting a matching bid has

not yet arisen since it only takes place i or an reason, t*e nder the doctrine oconstitutional supremacy, if a la or contract violates any norm of the

constitution that la or contract hether promulgated by the legislative or by

the e9ecutive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes

is null and void and ithout any force and effect. "hus, since t*e Constitution

is t*e un!a(ental, para(ount an! supre(e la) o t*e nation, it is !ee(e!

)ritten in ever statute an! contract.

Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and

principles. "heir provisions command the legislature to enact las and carry

out the purposes of the framers ho merely establish an outline o

government providing for the different departments of the governmenta

machinery and securing certain fundamental and inalienable rights o

citi$ens. 14A provision hich lays don a general principle, such as thosefound in Art. '' of the (*+) Constitution, is usually not selfe9ecuting. But a

provision hich is complete in itself and becomes operative ithout the aid of

supplementary or enabling legislation, or that hich supplies sufficient rule

by means of hich the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self

e9ecuting. "hus a constitutional provision is selfe9ecuting if the nature and

e9tent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fi9ed by the

constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an e9amination 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 effec

e9tensive codes of las intended to operate directly upon the people in a

manner similar to that of statutory enactments, and the function o

constitutional conventions has evolved into one more like that of a legislative

body. ?ence, unless it is e9pressly provided that a legislative act is

necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption no is tha

all provisions of the constitution are selfe9ecuting 'f the constitutiona

provisions are treated as re%uiring legislation instead of selfe9ecuting, the

legislature ould have the poer to ignore and practically nullify the mandate

of the fundamental la.1"his can be cataclysmic. "hat is hy the prevailing

vie is, as it has alays been, that L

. . . in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self

e9ecuting rather than nonselfe9ecuting . . . . >nless the contrary isclearly intended, the provisions of the Constitution should be

considered selfe9ecuting, as a contrary rule ould give the legislature

discretion to determine hen, or hether, they shall be effective. "hese

provisions ould be subordinated to the ill of the lamaking body

hich could make them entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass

the needed implementing statute. 15

#espondents argue that /ec. (:, second par., Art. D'', of the (*+)

Constitution is clearly not selfe9ecuting, as they %uote from discussions on

the floor of the (*+3 Constitutional Commission L


11/149

!#. #1#'41. !adam President, ' am asking this %uestion as the

Chairman of the Committee on /tyle. 'f the ording of 5P#E2E#ENCE5

is given to M>A-'2'E 2'-'P'N1/,5 can it be understood as a

preference to %ualified 2ilipinos vis4a4vis 2ilipinos ho are not %ualified.

/o, hy do e not make it clearI "o %ualified 2ilipinos as against

aliensI

"?E P#E/'EN". hat is the %uestion of Commissioner #odrigoI 's it

to remove the ord 5M>A-'2'EI5.

!#. #1#'41. No, no, but say definitely 5"1 M>A-'2'E 2'-'P'N1/5

as against homI As against aliens or over aliensI

!#. N1--E1. !adam President, ' think that is understood. e use

the ord 5M>A-'2'E5 because the e6istin+ la)s or prospective la)s

)ill al)as la !o)n con!itions un!er )*ic* #usiness (a #e

!one.For e6a(ple, :ualiications on t*e settin+ up o ot*er inancial

structures, et cetera


12/149

have shaped Philippine history. 't as called the Cultural Center o t*e

$%s. 't as the site of the festivities during the inauguration of the

Philippine Commonealth. ubbed as the Oicial Guest C?

C'"'6EN/.

999 999 999

!#. !1N/1. !adam President, apparently the proponent is

agreeable, but e have to raise a %uestion. /uppose it is a corporation

that is +:percent 2ilipino, do e not give it preferenceI

!#. A7'E. "he Nolledo amendment ould refer to an individual

2ilipino. hat about a corporation holly oned by 2ilipino citi$ensI

!#. !1N/1. At least 3: percent, !adam President.

!#. A7'E. 's that the intentionI

!#. !1N/1. @es, because, in fact, e ould be limiting it if e say

that the preference should only be (::percent 2ilipino.

!#8 A7'E. ' ant to get that meaning clear because 5M>A-'2'E

2'-'P'N1/5 may refer only to individuals and not to juridica

personalities or entities.

!#. !1N/1. e agree, !adam President. 39

999 999 999

!#. #1#'41. Before e vote, may ' re%uest that the amendment be

read again.

!#. N1--E1. "he amendment ill read8 5'N "?E 4#AN" 12

#'4?"/, P#'7'-E4E/ AN C1NCE//'1N/ C17E#'N4 "?

NA"'1NA- EC1N1!@ AN PA"#'!1N@, "?E /"A"E /?A-- 4'7E

P#E2E#ENCE "1 M>A-'2'E 2'-'P'N1/.5 And the ord 52ilipinos

here, as intended by the proponents, ill include not only individua

2ilipinos but also 2ilipinocontrolled entities or entities fullycontrolled by2ilipinos. 0

"he phrase preference to %ualified 2ilipinos as e9plained thus L

!#. 216. !adam President, ' ould like to re%uest Commissione

Nolledo to please restate his amendment so that ' can ask a %uestion.

!#. N1--E1. 5'N "?E 4#AN" 12 #'4?"/, P#'7'-E4E/ AN

C1NCE//'1N/ C17E#'N4 "?E NA"'1NA- EC1N1!@ AN

PA"#'!1N@, "?E /"A"E /?A-- 4'7E P#E2E#ENCE "1

M>A-'2'E 2'-'P'N1/.5

!# 216. 'n connection ith that amendment, if a foreign enterprise is

%ualified and a 2ilipino enterprise is also %ualified, ill the 2ilipino

enterprise still be given a preferenceI

!#. N1--E1. 1bviously.

!#. 216. 'f the foreigner is more %ualified in some aspects than the

2ilipino enterprise, ill the 2ilipino still be preferredI

!#. N1--E1. "he anser is 5yes.5

!#. 216. "hank you,

1

E9pounding further on the Filipino First Policprovision Commissione

Nolledo continues L

!#. N1--E1. @es, !adam President. 'nstead of 5!>/",5 it ill be

5/?A-- L "?E /"A"E /?A-- 4l7E P#E2E#ENCE "1 M>A-'2'E

2'-'P'N1/. "his embodies the socalled 52ilipino 2irst5 policy. "ha

means that 2ilipinos should be given preference in the grant o

concessions, privileges and rights covering the national patrimony. 4


13/149

"he e9change of vies in the sessions of the Constitutional Commission

regarding the subject provision as still further clarified by Commissioner

Nolledo 3:

Paragraph of /ection (: e9plicitly mandates the 5Pro2ilipino5 bias in

all economic concerns. 't is better knon as the 2'-'P'N1 2'#/" Policy

. . . "his provision as never found in previous Constitutions . . . .

"he term 5%ualified 2ilipinos5 simply means that preference shall be

given to those citi$ens ho can make a viable contribution to thecommon good, because of credible competence and efficiency. 't

certainly does N1" mandate the pampering and preferential treatment

to 2ilipino citi$ens or organi$ations that are incompetent or inefficient,

since such an indiscriminate preference ould be counter productive

and inimical to the common good.

'n the granting of economic rights, privileges, and concessions, hen a

choice has to be made beteen a 5%ualified foreigner5 end a 5%ualified

2ilipino,5 the latter shall be chosen over the former.5

-astly, the ord:ualiie!is also determinable. Petitioner as so considered

by respondent 4/'/ and selected as one of the :ualiie!#i!!ers. 't as pre

%ualified by respondent 4/'/ in accordance ith its on guidelines so that

the sole inference here is that petitioner has been found to be possessed of

proven management e9pertise in the hotel industry, or it has significant

e%uity onership in another hotel company, or it has an overall management

and marketing proficiency to successfully operate the !anila ?otel.

"he penchant to try to hittle aay the mandate of the Constitution by

arguing that the subject provision is not selfe9ecutory and re%uires

implementing legislation is %uite disturbing. "he attempt to violate a clear

constitutional provision L by the government itself L is only too distressing.

"o adopt such a line of reasoning is to renounce the duty to ensure

faithfulness to the Constitution. 2or, even some of the provisions of the

Constitution hich evidently need implementing legislation have juridical lifeof their on and can be the source of a judicial remedy. e cannot simply

afford the government a defense that arises out of the failure to enact further

enabling, implementing or guiding legislation. 'n fine, the discourse of 2r.

0oa%uin 4. Bernas, /.0., on constitutional government is apt L

"he e9ecutive department has a constitutional duty to implement las,

including the Constitution, even before Congress acts L provided that

there are discoverable legal standards for e9ecutive action. hen the

e9ecutive acts, it must be guided by its on understanding of the

constitutional command and of applicable las. "he responsibility for

reading and understanding the Constitution and the las is not the sole

prerogative of Congress. 'f it ere, the e9ecutive ould have to ask

Congress, or perhaps the Court, for an interpretation every time thee9ecutive is confronted by a constitutional command. "hat is not ho

constitutional government operates. 5

#espondents further argue that the constitutional provision is addressed to

the /tate, not to respondent 4/'/ hich by itself possesses a separate and

distinct personality. "his argument again is at best specious. 't is undisputed

that the sale of (K of the !?C could only be carried out ith the prior

approval of the /tate acting through respondent Committee on Privati$ation.

As correctly pointed out by 2r. 0oa%uin 4. Bernas, /.0., this fact alone makes

the sale of the assets of respondents 4/'/ and !?C a 5state action.5 'n

constitutional jurisprudence, the acts of persons distinct from the government

are considered 5state action5 covered by the Constitution


14/149

"his Court does not discount the apprehension that this policy may

discourage foreign investors. But the Constitution and las of the Philippines

are understood to be alays open to public scrutiny. "hese are given factors

hich investors must consider hen venturing into business in a foreign

jurisdiction. Any person therefore desiring to do business in the Philippines or

ith any of its agencies or instrumentalities is presumed to kno his rights

and obligations under the Constitution and the las of the forum.

"he argument of respondents that petitioner is no estopped from

%uestioning the sale to #enong Berhad since petitioner as ell aare fromthe beginning that a foreigner could participate in the bidding is meritless.

>ndoubtedly, 2ilipinos and foreigners alike ere invited to the bidding. But

foreigners may be aarded the sale only if no 2ilipino %ualifies, or if the

%ualified 2ilipino fails to match the highest bid tendered by the foreign entity.

'n the case before us, hile petitioner as already preferred at the inception

of the bidding because of the constitutional mandate, petitioner had not yet

matched the bid offered by #enong Berhad. "hus it did not have the right or

personality then to compel respondent 4/'/ to accept its earlier bid. #ightly,

only after it had matched the bid of the foreign firm and the apparent

disregard by respondent 4/'/ of petitioner&s matching bid did the latter have

a cause of action.

Besides, there is no time frame for invoking the constitutional safeguardunless perhaps the aard has been finally made. "o insist on selling the

!anila ?otel to foreigners hen there is a 2ilipino group illing 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 conse%uences to the 2ilipino people. "he

miscomprehension of the Constitution is regrettable. "hus e ould rather

remedy the indiscretion hile there is still an opportunity to do so than let the

government develop the habit of forgetting that the Constitution lays don

the basic conditions and parameters for its actions.

/ince petitioner has already matched the bid price tendered by #enong

Berhad pursuant to the bidding rules, respondent 4/'/ is left ith no

alternative but to aard to petitioner the block of shares of !?C and to

e9ecute the necessary agreements and documents to effect the sale in

accordance not only ith the bidding guidelines and procedures but ith the

Constitution as ell. "he refusal of respondent 4/'/ to e9ecute the

corresponding documents ith petitioner as provided in the bidding rules

after the latter has matched the bid of the !alaysian firm clearly constitutes

grave abuse of discretion.

"he Filipino First Policis a product of Philippine nationalism. 't is embodied

in the (*+) Constitution not merely to be used as a guideline for future

legislation but primarily to be enforced; so must it be enforced. "his Court as

the ultimate guardian of the Constitution ill never shun, under any

reasonable circumstance, the duty of upholding the majesty of theConstitution hich it is tasked to defend. 't is orth emphasi$ing that it is not

the intention of this Court to impede and diminish, much less undermine, the

influ9 of foreign investments. 2ar from it, the Court encourages and

elcomes more business opportunities but avoedly sanctions the

preference for 2ilipinos henever such preference is ordained by the

Constitution. "he position of the Court on this matter could have not been

more appropriately articulated by Chief 0ustice Narvasa L

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 e9ecutive about

the isdom and feasibility of legislation economic in nature, the

/upreme Court has not been spared criticism for decisions perceived

as obstacles to economic progress and development . . . in connection

ith a temporary injunction issued by the Court&s 2irst ivision agains

the sale of the !anila ?otel to a !alaysian 2irm and its partner, certain

statements ere published in a major daily to the effect that injunction

5again demonstrates that the Philippine legal system can be a major

obstacle to doing business here.

-et it be stated for the record once again that hile it is no business o

the Court to intervene in contracts of the kind referred to or set itself upas the judge of hether they are viable or attainable, it is its bounden

duty to make sure that they do not violate the Constitution or the las

or are not adopted or implemented ith grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or e9cess of jurisdiction. 't ill never shirk that duty

no matter ho buffeted by inds of unfair and illinformed criticism. J+

Privati$ation 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 nonmaterial values. A commercial

nay even a budgetary, objective should not be pursued at the e9pense of

national pride and dignity. 2or the Constitution enshrines higher and noble

nonmaterial values. 'ndeed, the Court ill alays 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 dra itself beyond judicial revie

hen the Constitution is involved. 9

Nationalism is inherent, in the very concept of the Philippines being a

democratic and republican state, ith sovereignty residing in the 2ilipino

people and from hom all government authority emanates. 'n nationalism

the happiness and elfare of the people must be the goal. "he nationstate

can have no higher purpose. Any interpretation of any constitutiona

provision must adhere to such basic concept. Protection of foreig

investments, hile laudible, is merely a policy. 't cannot override the

demands of nationalism. 50

"he !anila ?otel or, for that matter, (K of the !?C, is not just any

commodity to be sold to the highest bidder solely for the sake o

privati$ation. e are not talking about an ordinary piece of property in a

commercial district. e 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. e are talking about a hotel here heads of states ould 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. "hus the !anila

?otel has played and continues to play a significant role as an authentic

repository of tentieth century Philippine history and culture. 'n this sense, i

has become truly a reflection of the 2ilipino soul L a place )it* a *istor o

+ran!eur9 a (ost *istorical settin+ t*at *as plae! a part in t*e s*apin+ o a

countr. 51

"his Court cannot e9tract rhyme nor reason from the determined efforts o

respondents to sell the historical landmark L this Gran! Ol! a(e of hotels

in Asia L to a total stranger. 2or, indeed, the conveyance of this epic

e9ponent of the 2ilipino psyche to alien hands cannot be less than

mephistophelian for it is, in hatever manner vieed, a veritable alienation o

a nation&s soul for some pieces of foreign silver. And so e ask8 ha

advantage, hich cannot be e%ually dran from a %ualified 2ilipino, can be

gained by the 2ilipinos !anila ?otel L and all that it stands for L is sold to a

non2ilipinoI ?o much of national pride ill vanish if the nation&s cultura

heritage is entrusted to a foreign entityI 1n the other hand, ho much


15/149

dignity ill be preserved and reali$ed if the national patrimony is safekept in

the hands of a:ualiie!, $ealous and ellmeaning 2ilipinoI "his is the plain

and simple meaning of the Filipino First Policprovision of the Philippine

Constitution. And this Court, heeding the clarion call of the Constitution and

accepting the duty of being the elderly atchman of the nation, ill continue

to respect and protect the sanctity of the Constitution.

?E#E21#E, respondents 417E#N!EN" /E#7'CE 'N/>#ANCE

/@/"E!, !AN'-A ?1"E- C1#P1#A"'1N, C1!!'""EE 1N

P#'7A"'6A"'1N and 122'CE 12 "?E 417E#N!EN" C1#P1#A"EC1>N/E- are directed to CEA/E and E/'/" from selling (K of the

shares of the !anila ?otel Corporation to #EN1N4 BE#?A, and to

ACCEP" the matching bid of petitioner !AN'-A P#'NCE ?1"E-

C1#P1#A"'1N to purchase the subject (K of the shares of the !anila

?otel Corporation at PJJ.:: per share and thereafter to e9ecute the

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

necessary for purpose.

/1 1#E#E.

=e+ala!o, avi!e, Jr., =o(ero, Aapunan, Francisco an!


16/149

First, the provision in our fundamental la hich provides that 5


17/149

2or the foregoing reasons, ' vote to grant the petition.

TORRES, JR., J., separate opinion8

Constancy in la is not an attribute of a judicious mind. ' say this as e are

not confronted in the case at bar ith legal and constitutional issues L and

yet ' am driven so to speak on the side of history. "he reason perhaps is due

to the belief that in the ords of 0ustice 1liver endell ?olmes, 0r., a 5page

of history is orth a volume of logic.5

' ill, hoever, attempt to share my thoughts on hether the !anila ?otel

has a historical and cultural aspect ithin the meaning of the constitution and

thus, forming part of the 5patrimony of the nation5.

/ection (:, Article D'' of the (*+) Constitution provides8

999 999 999

'n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national

economy and patrimony, the /tate shall give preference to %ualified

2ilipinos.

"he /tate shall regulate and e9ercise authority over foreign

investments ithin its national goals and priorities.

"he foregoing provisions should be read in conjunction ith Article '' of the

same Constitution pertaining to 5eclaration of Principles and /tate Policies5

hich ordain L

"he /tate shall develop a selfreliant and independent national

economy effectively by 2ilipinos.


18/149

' vote 4#AN" the petition.

"NO, J., dissenting8

"his is a. petition for prohibition and (an!a(usfiled by the !anila Prince ?otel Corporation, a domestic corporation, to stop the 4overnment /ervice 'nsurance/ystem


19/149

999 999 999

. P#EM>A-'2'CA"'1N 1C>!EN"/

999 999 999

E. APP-'CA"'1N P#1CE>#E

(. OCD'ENTS 3H3I03"0E 3T T


20/149

3. "he parties that pre%ualified in the first !?C public bidding L '"" /heraton, !arriot 'nternational 'nc., #enaissance

?otels 'nternational 'nc., consortium of #CBC CapitalF#it$ Carlton L may participate in the Public Bidding ithout having

to undergo the pre%ualification process again.

4. SD30IFIE "IE=S

(. A notice of pre%ualification results containing the shortlist of Mualified Bidders ill be posted at the #egistration 1ffice

at the date specified in /ection '''.

. 'n the case of a ConsortiumF0oint 7enture, the ithdraal by member hose %ualification as a material considerationfor being included in the shortlist is ground for dis%ualification of the Applicant.

7. 4>'E-'NE/ 21# "?E P>B-'C B''N4

A. PA#"'E/ ?1 !A@ PA#"'C'PA"E 'N "?E P>B-'C B''N4

All parties in the shortlist of Mualified Bidders ill be eligible to participate in the Public Bidding.

B. B-1C 12 /?A#E/

A range of Nine !illion ! B' #EM>'#E 1N A P#'CE PE# /?A#E BA/'/

(. Bids ill be evaluated on a price per s*are #asis."he minimum bid re%uired on a price per share basis for the Block of

/hares is "hirty/i9 Pesos and /i9ty/even Centavos PP1#"'N4 1C>!EN"/

uring the Public Bidding, the folloing documents should be submitted along ith the bid in a separate envelop marked

5/>PP1#"'N4 1C>!EN"/58

(. =ITTEN 3DT


21/149


22/149

. "he /ecretariat of the PBAC ill be stationed at the Public Bidding to accept any and all bids and supporting

re%uirements. #epresentatives from the Commission on Audit and C1P ill be invited to itness the proceedings.

. "he Mualified Bidder should submit its bid using the 1fficial Bid 2orm. "he accomplished 1fficial Bid 2orm should be

submitted in a sealed envelope marked 5122'C'A- B'.5

J. "he Mualified Bidder should submit the folloing documents in anot*ersealed envelope marked 5/>PP1#"'N4 B'

1C>!EN"/5

a. ritten Authority Bid

b. Bid /ecurity

. "he to sealed envelopes marked 5122'C'A- B'5 and 5/>PP1#"'N4 B' 1C>!EN"/5 must be submitted

simultaneously to the /ecretariat beteen *8:: A! and 8:: P!, Philippine /tandard "ime, on the date of the Public

Bidding. No bid shall be accepted after the closing time. 1pened or tampered bids shall not be accepted.

3. "he /ecretariat ill log and record the actual time of submission of the to sealed envelopes. "he actual time of

submission ill also be indicated by the /ecretariat on the face of the to envelopes.

). After /tep No. 3, the to sealed envelopes ill be dropped in the corresponding bid bo9es provided for the purpose.

"hese bo9es ill be in full vie of the invited public.

?. 1PEN'N4 AN #EA'N4 12 B'/

(. After the closing time of 8:: P! on the date of the Public Bidding, the PBAC ill open all sealed envelopes marked

5/>PP1#"'N4 B' 1C>!EN"/5 for screening, evaluation and acceptance. "hose ho submitted

incompleteFinsufficient documents or documentFs hich isFare not substantially in the form re%uired by PBAC ill be

dis%ualified. "he envelope containing their 1fficial Bid 2orm ill be immediately returned to the dis%ualified bidders.

. "he sealed envelopes marked 5122'C'A- B'5 ill be opened at 8:: P!. "he name of the bidder and the amount of

its bid price ill be read publicly as the envelopes are opened.

. 'mmediately folloing the reading of the bids, the PBAC ill formally announce the highest bid and the ?ighest Bidder.

J. "he highest bid ill be, determined on a price per s*are #asis. 'n the event of a tie herein to or more bids have the

same e%uivalent price per share, priority ill be given to the bidder seeking the larger onership interest in !?C.

. "he Public Bidding ill be declared a failed bidding in case8

a. No single bid is submitted ithin the prescribed period; or

b. "here is only one


23/149

b. "he ?ighest Bidder must e9ecute the /tock Purchase and /ale Agreement ith 4/'/, a copy of

hich ill be distributed to each of the Mualified Bidder after the pre%ualification process is

completed.

. 'n the event that the ?ighest Bidder chooses a !anagement Contract for "he !anila ?otel, the ma9imum levels for the

management fee structure that 4/'/F!?C are prepared to accept in the !anagement Contract are as follos8

a. Basic management fee8 !a9imum of .K of gross revenues.-- PA@!EN" 21# "?E B-1C 12 /?A#E/

(. >pon e9ecution of the necessary contracts ith 4/'/F!?C, the inning BidderF/trategic Partner must fully pay, not

later than 1ctober , (**, the offered purchase price for the Block of /hares after deducting the Bid /ecurity appliedas donpayment.

. All payments should be made in the form of a !anager&s Check or unconditional emand raft, payable to the

54overnment /ervice 'nsurance /ystem,5 issued by a reputable banking institution licensed to do business in the

Philippines and acceptable to 4/'/.

!. 4ENE#A- C1N'"'1N/

(. "he 4/'/ unconditionally reserves the right to reject any or all applications, aive any formality therein, or accept such

application as maybe considered most advantageous to the 4/'/. "he 4/'/ similarly reserves the right to re%uire the

submission of any additional information from the Applicant as the PBAC may deem necessary.


24/149

. "he 4/'/ further reserves the right to call off the Public Bidding prior to acceptance of the bids and call for a ne

public bidding under amended rules, and ithout any liability hatsoever to any or all the Mualified Bidders, e9cept the

obligation to return the Bid /ecurity.

. "he 4/'/ reserves the right to reset the date of the pre%ualificationFbidding conference, the deadline for the

submission of the pre%ualification documents, the date of the Public Bidding or other pertinent activities at least three


25/149

Anent the first issue, it is no familiar learning that a Constitution provides the guiding policies and principles upon hich is built the substantial foundation and

general frameork of the la and government.5As a rule, its provisions are deemed selfe9ecuting and can be enforced ithout further legislative action. /ome of

its provisions, hoever, can be implemented only through appropriate las enacted by the -egislature, hence not selfe9ecuting.

"o determine hether a particular provision of a Constitution is selfe9ecuting is a hard ro to hoe. "he key lies on the intent of the framers of the fundamental la

oftentimes submerged in its language. A searching in%uiry should be made to find out if the provision is intended as a present enactment, complete in itself as a

definitive la, or if it needs future legislation for completion and enforcement. 7"he in%uiry demands a microanalysis of the te9t and the conte9t of the provision in

%uestion.8

Courts as a rule consider the provisions of the Constitution as selfe9ecuting,9rather than as re%uiring future legislation for their enforcement. 10"he reason is notdifficult to discern. 2or if they are not treated as selfe9ecuting, the mandate of the fundamental la ratified by the sovereign people can be easily ignored and

nullified by Congress. 11/uffused ith isdom of the ages is the unyielding rule that legislative actions may give breath to constitutional rights but congressional in

action should not suffocate them. 14

"hus, e have treated as selfe9ecuting the provisions in the Bill of #ights on arrests, searches and sei$ures, 13the rights of a person under custodial

investigation, 1the rights of an accused, 15and the privilege against selfincrimination, 1't is recogni$e a that legislation is unnecessary to enable courts to effectuate

constitutional provisions guaranteeing the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the protection of property. 17"he same treatment is accorded to constitutionalprovisions forbidding the taking or damaging of property for public use ithout just compensation. 18

Contrariise, case la lays don the rule that a constitutional provision is not selfe9ecuting here it merely announces a policy and its language empoers the

-egislature to prescribe the means by hich the policy shall be carried into effect. 19Accordingly, e have held that the provisions in Article '' of our Constitution

entitled 5eclaration of Principles and /tate Policies5 should generally be construed as mere statements of principles of the /tate. 40e have also ruled that some

provisions of Article D''' on 5/ocial 0ustice and ?uman #ights,5 41and Article D'7 on 5Education /cience and "echnology, Arts, Culture end /ports5 44cannot be thebasis of judicially enforceable rights. "heir enforcement is addressed to the discretion of Congress though they provide the frameork for legislation 43to effectuate

their policy content. 4

4uided by this map of settled jurisprudence, e no consider hether /ection (:, Article D'' of the (*+) Constitution is selfe9ecuting or not. 't reads8

/ec. (:. "he Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, hen the national interest dictates, reserve to

citi$ens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least si9typer centu(of hose capital is oned by such citi$ens, or such higher

percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. "he Congress shall enact measures that ill encourage the formation

and operation of enterprises hose capital is holly oned by 2ilipinos.

'n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the /tate shall give preference to %ualified

2ilipinos.

"he /tate shall regulate and e9ercise authority over foreign investments ithin its national jurisdiction and in accordance ith its national goals

and priorities.

"he first paragraph directs Congress to reserve certain areas of investments in the country 45to 2ilipino citi$ens or to corporations si9ty per

cent 4of hose capital stock is oned by 2ilipinos. 't further commands Congress to enact las that ill encourage the formation and operation of one

hundred percent 2ilipinooned enterprises. 'n checkered contrast, the second paragraph orders the entire /tate to give preference to %ualified 2ilipinos in

the grant of rights and privileges covering the national economy and patrimony. "he third paragraph also directs the /tate to regulate foreign investments

in line ith our national goals and ellset priorities.

"he first paragraph of /ection (: is not selfe9ecuting. By its e9press te9t, there is a categorical command for Congress to enact las restricting foreign

onership in certain areas of investments in the country and to encourage the formation and operation of hollyoned 2ilipino enterprises. "he rightgranted by the provision is clearly still in esse. Congress has to breathe life to the right by means of legislation. Parenthetically, this paragraph as

plucked from section , Article D'7 of the (*) Constitution. 47"he provision in the (*) Constitution affirmed our ruling in the landmark case of 0ao

Ic*on+ v.


26/149

"his submission is strengthened by Article '' of the Constitution entitled 5eclaration of Principles and /tate Policies.5 'ts /ection (* provides that 5G"Hhe /tate shall

develop a selfreliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by 2ilipinos.5 't engrafts the allimportant 2ilipino 2irst policy in our fundamental la

and by the use of the mandatory ord 5shall,5 directs its enforcement by the hole /tate ithout any pause or a half pause in time.

"he second issue is hether the sale of a majority of the stocks of the !anila ?otel Corporation involves the disposition of part of our national patrimony. "he records

of the Constitutional Commission sho that the Commissioners entertained the same vie as to its meaning. According to Commissioner Nolledo, 5patrimony5 refers

not only to our rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of our race. 30By this yardstick, the sale of !anila ?otel falls ithin the coverage of the

constitutional provision giving preferential treatment to %ualified 2ilipinos in the grant of rights involving our national patrimony. "he uni%ue value of the !anila ?otel

to our history and culture cannot be vieed ith a myopic eye. "he value of the hotel goes beyond pesos and centavos. As chronicled by Beth ay #omulo, 31the

hotel first opened on 0uly J, (*( as a firstclass hotel built by the American 'nsular 4overnment for Americans living in, or passing through, !anila hile traveling tothe 1rient. 'ndigenous materials and 2ilipino craftsmanship ere utili$ed in its construction, 2or sometime, it as e9clusively used by American and Caucasian

travelers and served as the 5official guesthouse5 of the American 'nsular 4overnment for visiting foreign dignitaries. 2ilipinos began coming to the ?otel as guests

during the Commonealth period. hen the 0apanese occupied !anila, it served as military head%uarters and lodging for the highestranking officers from "okyo. 't

as at the ?otel and the 'ntramuros that the 0apanese made their last stand during the -iberation of !anila. After the ar, the ?otel again served foreign guests and

2ilipinos alike. Presidents and kings, premiers and potentates, as ell as glamorous international film and sports celebrities ere housed in the ?otel. 't as also the

situs of international conventions and conferences. 'n the local scene, it as the venue of historic meetings, parties and conventions of political parties. "he ?otel has

reaped and continues reaping numerous recognitions and aards from international hotel and travel aardgiving bodies, a fitting acknoledgment of 2ilipino talent

and ingenuity. "hese are judicially cogni$able facts hich cannot be bent by a biased mind.

"he ?otel may not, as yet, have been declared a national cultural treasure pursuant to #epublic Act No. J+J3 but that does not e9clude it from our national

patrimony. #epublic Act No. J+J3, 5"he Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act,5 merely provides a procedure hereby a particular cultural property may

be classified a 5national cultural treasure5 or an 5important cultural property. 34Approved on 0une (+, (*33 and amended by P.. )J in (*)J, the la is limited in its

reach and cannot be read as the e9clusive la implementing section (:, Article D'' of the (*+) Constitution. "o be sure, the la does not e%uate cultural treasure andcultural property as synonymous to the phrase 5patrimony of the nation.5

"he third issue is hether the constitutional command to the /tate includes the respondent 4/'/. A look at its charter ill reveal that 4/'/ is a governmentoned

and controlled corporation that administers funds that come from the monthly contributions of government employees and the government. 33"he funds are held in

trust for a distinct purpose hich cannot be disposed of indifferently. 3"hey are to be used to finance the retirement, disability and life insurance benefits of the

employees and the administrative and operational e9penses of the 4/'/, 35E9cess funds, hoever, are alloed to be invested in business and other ventures for the

benefit of the employees.3't is thus contended that the 4/'/ investment in the !anila ?otel Corporation is a simple business venture, hence, an act beyond the

contemplation of section (:, paragraph of Article D'' of the Constitution.

"he submission is unimpressive. "he 4/'/ is not a pure private corporation. 't is essentially a public corporation created by Congress and granted an original charter

to serve a public purpose. 't is subject to the jurisdictions of the Civil /ervice Commission 37and the Commission on Audit. 38As stateoned and controlled

corporation, it is skinbound to adhere to the policies spelled out in the general elfare of the people. 1ne of these policies is the 2ilipino 2irst policy hich the peopleelevated as a constitutional command.

"he fourth issue demands that e look at the content of phrase 5%ualified 2ilipinos5 and their 5preferential right.5 "he Constitution desisted from defining their

contents. "his is as it ought to be for a Constitution only lays don fle9ible policies and principles hich can bent to meet today&s manifest needs and tomorro&s

unmanifested demands. 1nly a constitution strung ith elasticity can gro as a living constitution.

"hus, during the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, Commissioner Nolledo to define the phrase brushed aside a suggestion to define the phrase

5%ualified 2ilipinos.5 ?e e9plained that present and prospective 5las5 ill take care of the problem of its interpretation, viz8

999 999 999

"?E P#E/'EN". hat is the suggestion of Commissioner #odrigoI 's it to remove the ord

5M>A-'2'EI5

!#. #1#'41. No, no, but say definitely 5"1 M>A-'2'E 2'-'P'N1/5 as against homI As

against aliens over aliensI

!#. N1--E1. !adam President, ' think that is understood. e use the ord 5M>A-'2'E5

because the e9isting las or the prospective las ill alays lay don conditions under hich

business map be done, for e9ample, %ualifications on capital, %ualifications on the setting up of

other financial structures, et cetera.

!#. #1#'41. 't is just a matter of style.


27/149

!#. N1--E1 @es.

!#. #1#'41. 'f e say, 5P#E2E#ENCE "1 M>A-'2'E 2'-'P'N1/,5 it can be understood as

giving preference to %ualified 2ilipinos as against 2ilipinos ho are not %ualified.

!#. N1--E1. !adam President, that as the intention of the proponents. "he committee has

accepted the amendment.

999 999 999

As previously discussed, the constitutional command to enforce the 2ilipino 2irst policy is addressed to the /tate and not to Congress alone. ?ence, the

ord 5las5 should not be understood as limited to legislations but all state actions hich include appl icable rules and regulations adopted by agencies

and instrumentalities of the /tate in the e9ercise of their rulemaking poer. 'n the case at bar, the bidding rules and regulations set forth the standards to

measure the %ualifications of bidders 2ilipinos and foreigners alike. 't is not seriously disputed that petitioner %ualified to bid as did #enong Berhad. 39

"hus, e come to the critical issue of the degree of preference hich 4/'/ should have accorded petitioner, a %ualified 2ilipino, over #enong Berhad, a foreigner, in

the purchase of the controlling shares of the !anila ?otel. Petitioner claims that after losing the bid, this right of preference gives it a second chance to match the

highest bid of #enong Berhad.

ith due respect, ' cannot sustain petitioner&s submission. ' prescind from the premise that the second paragraph of section (:, Article D'' of the Constitution is pro

Pilipino but not antialien. 't is pro2ilipino for it gives preference to 2ilipinos. 't is not, hoever, antialien per se for it does not absolutely bar aliens in the grant of

rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. 'ndeed, in the absence of %ualified 2ilipinos, the /tate is not prohibited fromgranting these rights, privileges and concessions to foreigners if the act ill promote the eal of the nation.

'n implementing the policy articulated in section (:, Article D'' of the Constitution, the stellar task of our /tate policymakers is to maintain a creative tension beteen

to desiderata L first, the need to develop our economy and patrimony ith the help of foreigners if necessary, and, second, the need to keep our economy

controlled by 2ilipinos. #ightfully, the framers of the Constitution did not define the degree of the right of preference to be given to %ualified 2ilipinos. "hey kne that

for the right to serve the general elfare, it must have a malleable content that can be adjusted by our policymakers to meet the changing needs of our people. 'n

fine, the right of preference of %ualified 2ilipinos is to be determined by degree as time dictates and circumstances arrant. "he lesser the need for alien assistance,

the greater the degree of the right of preference can be given to 2ilipinos and vice verse.

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 /tate. hile under our

constitutional scheme, the right primarily belongs to Congress as the lamaking department of our government, other branches of government, and all their agencies

and instrumentalities, share the poer to enforce this state policy. ithin the limits of their authority, they can act or promulgate rules and regulations defining the

degree of this right of preference in cases here they have to make grants involving the national economy and judicial duty. 1n the other hand, our duty is to strike

don acts of the state that violate the policy.

"o date, Congress has not enacted a la defining the degree of the preferential right. Conse%uently, e must turn to the rules and regulations of on respondents

Committee Privati$ation and 4/'/ to determine the degree of preference that petitioner is entitled to as a %ualified 2ilipino in the subject sale. A tearless look at the

rules and regulations ill sho that they are silent on the degree of preferential right to be accorded %ualified 2ilipino bidder. espite their silence, hoever, they

cannot be read to mean that they do not grant any degree of preference to petitioner for paragraph , section (:, Article D'' of the Constitution is deemed part of said

rules and regulations. Pursuant to legal hermeneutics hich demand that e interpret rules to save them from unconstitutionality, ' submit that the right of preference

of petitioner arises only if it tied the bid of Benong Berhad. 'n that instance, all things stand e%ual, and bidder, as a %ualified Pilipino bidder, should be preferred.

't is ith deep regret that ' cannot subscribe to the vie that petitioner has a right to match the bid of #enong Berhad. Petitioner&s submission must be supported by

the rules but even if e e9amine the rules insideout .thousand times, they can not justify the claimed right. >nder the rules, the right to match the highest bid arises

only 5if for any reason, the highest bidder cannot be aarded block of shares . . .5 No reason has arisen that ill prevent the aard to #enong Berhad. 't %ualified asbidder. 't complied ith the procedure of bidding. 't tendered the highest bid. 't as declared as the highest bidder by the 4/'/ and the rules say this decision is final.

't deserves the aard as a matter of right for the rules clearly did not give to the petitioner as a %ualified 2ilipino privilege to match the higher bid of a foreigner. hat

the rules did not grant, petitioner cannot demand. 1ur symphaties may be ith petitioner but the court has no poer to e9tend the latitude and longtitude of the right

of preference as defined by the rules. "he parameters of the right of preference depend on gala9y of facts and factors hose determination belongs to the province

of the policymaking branches and agencies of the /tate. e are dutybound to respect that determination even if e differ ith the isdom of their judgment. "he

right they grant may be little but e must uphold the grant for as long as the right of preference is not denied. 't is only hen a /tate action amounts to a denial of the

right that the Court can come in and strike don the denial as unconstitutional.

2inally, ' submit that petitioner is estopped from assailing the inning bid of #enong Berhad. Petitioner as aare of the rules and regulations of the bidding. 't kne

that the rules and regulations do not provide that a %ualified 2ilipino bidder can match the inning bid submitting an inferior bid. 't kne that the bid as open to

foreigners and that foreigners %ualified even during the first bidding. Petitioner cannot be alloed to repudiate the rules hich it agreed to respect. 't cannot be


28/149

alloed to obey the rules hen it ins and disregard them hen it loses. 'f sustained, petitioners& stance ill reak havoc on he essence of bidding. 1ur las, rules

and regulations re%uire highest bidding to raise as much funds as possible for the government to ma9imi$e its capacity to deliver essential services to our people.

"his is a duty that must be discharged by 2ilipinos and foreigners participating in a bidding contest and the rules are carefully ritten to attain this objective. Among

others, bidders are pre%ualified to insure their financial capability. "he bidding is secret and the bids are sealed to prevent collusion among the parties. "his objective

ill be undermined if e grant petitioner that privilege to kno the inning bid and a chance to match it. 2or pla inly, a second chance to bid ill encourage a bidder

not to strive to give the highest bid in the first bidding.

e support the 2ilipino 2irst policy ithout any reservation. "he visionary nationalist on Claro !. #ecto has arned us that the greatest tragedy that can befall a

2ilipino is to be an alien in his on land. "he Constitution has embodied #ecto&s counsel as a state policy. But hile the 2ilipino 2irst policy re%uires that e incline to

a 2ilipino, it does not demand that e rong an alien. 1ur policy makers can rite las and rules giving favored treatment to the 2ilipino but e are not free to beunfair to a foreigner after riting the las and the rules. After the las are ritten, they must be obeyed as ritten, by 2ilipinos and foreigners alike. "he e%ual

protection clause of the Constitution protects all against unfairness. e can be pro2ilipino ithout unfairness to foreigner.

' vote to dismiss the petition.

Narvasa, C.J., an! 'elo, J., concur.

ANGANI$AN, J., dissenting8

' regret ' cannot join the majority. "o the incisive issenting 1pinion of !r. 0ustice #eynato /. Puno, may ' just add

(. "he majority contends the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that, after a bidding process is concluded, the losing 2ilipino bidder should be given the right

to e%ual the highest foreign bid, and thus to in. ?oever, the Constitution G/ec. (:


29/149

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1041 No*+;+ 10, 4003

ERNESTO $. FRANCISCO, JR.,petitioner,NAGMAMALASA6IT NA MGA MANANANGGOL NG MGAMANGGAGA


30/149


31/149

enjoin respondent ?ouse of #epresentatives from proceeding ith thesecond impeachment complaint.

'n G.R. No. 1044, petitioners /edfrey !. Candelaria, et. al.,as citi$ensand ta9payers, alleging that the issues of the case are of transcendentalimportance, pray, in their petition for CertiorariFProhibition, the issuance of arit 5perpetually5 prohib iting respondent ?ouse of #epresentatives from f ilingany Articles of 'mpeachment against the Chief 0ustice ith the /enate; andfor the issuance of a rit 5perpetually5 prohibiting respondents /enate and/enate President 2ranklin rilon from accepting any Articles of 'mpeachment

against the Chief 0ustice or, in the event that the /enate has accepted thesame, from proceeding ith the impeachment trial.

'n G.R. No. 1043, petitioners Arturo !. de Castro and /oledadCagampang, as citi$ens, ta9payers, layers and members of the 'ntegratedBar of the Philippines, alleging that their petition for Prohibition involvespublic interest as it involves the use of public funds necessary to conduct theimpeachment trial on the second impeachment complaint, pray for theissuance of a rit of prohibition enjoining Congress from conducting furtherproceedings on said second impeachment complaint.

'n G.R. No. 10477, petitioner 2rancisco '. Chave$, alleging that this Courthas recogni$ed that he has locus stan!i to bring petitions of this nature in thecases of C*avez v. PCGG(and C*avez v. PE343(ari Coastal "aevelop(ent Corporation,(3prays in his petition for 'njunction that thesecond impeachment complaint be declared unconstitutional.

'n G.R. No. 10494, petitioners Atty. ?arry -. #o%ue, et. al., as ta9payersand members of the legal profession, pray in their petition for Prohibition foran order prohibiting respondent ?ouse of #epresentatives from drafting,adopting, approving and transmitting to the /enate the second impeachmentcomplaint, and respondents e 7enecia and Na$areno from transmitting theArticles of 'mpeachment to the /enate.

'n G.R. No. 10495,petitioners #epresentatives /alacnib 2. Baterina andeputy /peaker #aul !. 4on$ale$, alleging that, as members of the ?ouseof #epresentatives, they have a legal interest in ensuring that onlyconstitutional impeachment proceedings are initiated, pray in their petition forCertiorariFProhibition that the second impeachment complaint and any actproceeding therefrom be declared null and void.

'n G.R. No. 10310,petitioners -eonilo #. Alfonso et al.,claiming that theyhave a right to be protected against all forms of senseless spending ofta9payers& money and that they have an obligation to protect the /upremeCourt, the Chief 0ustice, and the integrity of the 0udiciary, allege in theirpetition for Certiorari and Prohibition that it is instituted as 5a class suit5 andpray that


32/149

accepting the Articles of 'mpeachment and from conducting any proceedingsthereon.

'n G.R. No. 1005,petitioners emocrit C. Barcenas et. al.,as citi$ens andta9payers, pray in their petition for CertiorariFProhibition that


33/149

f= constitutionality of the ?ouse #ules on 'mpeachment vis4a4vis/ection


34/149

!endo$a,:the e9ecutive and legislative branches of our government in facteffectively acknoledged this poer of judicial revie in Article ) of the CivilCode, to it8

Article ). -as are repealed only by subse%uent ones, and theirviolation or nonobservance shall not be e9cused by disuse, or customor practice to the contrary.


35/149

a''+(ta'+and negates the poer of the courts to alter it, based onthe postulate that the framers and the people mean hat they say."hus these are the cases here the need for construction is reduced toa minimum.)/ Constitution to sho the intent toisolate judicial poer of revie in cases of impeachment.

#espondents& and intervenors& reliance upon American jurisprudence, theAmerican Constitution and American authorities 'aot be credited tosupport the proposition that the /enate&s 5sole poer to try and decideimpeachment cases,5 as provided for under Art. D', /ec.


36/149

/aid American jurisprudence and authorities, much less the AmericanConstitution, are of dubious application for these are no longer controllingithin our jurisdiction and have only limited persuasive merit insofar asPhilippine constitutional la is concerned. As held in the case of Garcia vs.CO'E0EC,5GiHn resolving constitutional disputes, Gthis CourtH should not bebeguiled by foreign jurisprudence some of hich are hardly applicablebecause they have been dictated by different constitutional settings andneeds.5'ndeed, although the Philippine Constitution can trace its origins tothat of the >nited /tates, their paths of development have long sincediverged. 'n the colorful ords of 2ather Bernas, 5GHe have cut the umbilicalcord.5

"he major difference beteen the judicial poer of the Philippine /upremeCourt and that of the >./. /upreme Court is that hile the poer of judicialrevie is only i(plie!l granted to the >./. /upreme Court and isdiscretionary in nature, that granted to the Philippine /upreme Court andloer courts, as e6pressl provi!e! or in t*e Constitution , is not just a poerbut also a !ut), and it as g%*+ a +@(a!+! !+-%%t%o to include thepoer to correct any grave abuse of discretion on the part of anygovernment branch or instrumentality.

"here are also glaring distinctions beteen the >./. Constitution and thePhilippine Constitution ith respect to the poer of the ?ouse of#epresentatives over impeachment proceedings. hile the >./. Constitutionbestos sole poer of impeachment to the ?ouse of #epresentatives

ithout limitation,Jour Constitution, though vesting in the ?ouse of#epresentatives the e9clusive poer to initiate impeachmentcases,provides for several limitations to the e9ercise of such poer asembodied in /ection uezon,*cited byrespondents in support of the argument that the impeachment poer isbeyond the scope of judicial revie, are not in point. "hese cases concernthe denial of petitions for rits of mandamus to compel the legislature toperform nonministerial acts, and do not concern the e9ercise of the poer ofjudicial revie.

"here is indeed a plethora of cases in hich this Court e9ercised the poerof judicial revie over congressional action. "hus, in Santia+o v. Guin+ona,Jr.,3:this Court ruled that it is ell ithin the poer and jurisdiction of theCourt to in%uire hether the /enate or its officials committed a violation ofthe Constitution or grave abuse of discretion in the e9ercise of their functionsand prerogatives. 'n Tana!a v. 3n+ara,3( in seeking to nullify an act of thePhilippine /enate on the ground that it contravened the Constitution, it heldthat the petition raises a justiciable controversy and that hen an action ofthe legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, itbecomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle thedispute. 'n "on!oc v. Pine!a,3this Court declared null and void a resolutionof the ?ouse of #epresentatives ithdraing the nomination, and rescindingthe election, of a congressman as a member of the ?ouse Electoral "ribunal

for being violative of /ection (), Article 7' of the Constitution. 'n Coseten+ v'itra,3it held that the resolution of hether the ?ouse representation in theCommission on Appointments as based on proportional representation othe political parties as provided in /ection (+, Article 7' of the Constitution issubject to judicial revie. 'n aza v. Sin+son,3Jit held that the act of the?ouse of #epresentatives in removing the petitioner from the Commission onAppointments is subject to judicial revie. 'n Tana!a v. Cuenco,3it held thaalthough under the Constitution, the legislative poer is vested e9clusively inCongress, this does not detract from the poer of the courts to pass uponthe constitutionality of acts of Congress. 'n3n+ara v. ElectoraCo((ission,33it ruled that confirmation by the National Assembly of the

election of any member, irrespective of hether his election is contested, isnot essential before such memberelect may discharge the duties and enjoythe privileges of a member of the Nat ional Assembly.

2inally, there e9ists no constitutional basis for the contention that thee9ercise of judicial revie over impeachment proceedings ould upset thesystem of checks and balances. 7erily, the Constitution is to be interpretedas a hole and 5one section is not to be alloed to defeat another.5 3)Bothare integral components of the calibrated system of independence andinterdependence that insures that no branch of government act beyond thepoers assigned to it by the Constitution.

#ssential e$uisites for Judicial e!ie"

As clearly stated in3n+ara v. Electoral Co((ission, the courts& poer ojudicial revie, like almost all poers conferred by the Constitution, is subjecto several limitations, namely8


37/149

>pon the other hand, the /olicitor 4eneral asserts that petitioners havestanding since this Court had, in the past, accorded standing to ta9payers,voters, concerned citi$ens, legislators in cases involving paramount publicinterest):and transcendental importance,)(and that procedural matters aresubordinate to the need to determine hether or not the other branches ofthe government have kept themselves ithin the limits of the Constitutionand the las and that they have not abused the discretion given tothem.)3(icus curiae ean #aul Pangalangan of the >.P. College of -a isof the same opinion, citing transcendental importance and the ellentrenched rule e9ception that, hen the real party in interest is unable tovindicate his rights by seeking the same remedies, as in the case of the

Chief 0ustice ho, for ethical reasons, cannot himself invoke the jurisdictionof this Court, the courts ill grant petitioners standing.

"here is, hoever, a difference beteen the rule on realpartyininterest andthe rule on standing, for the former is a concept of civil procedure )hile thelatter has constitutional underpinnings.)J'n vie of the arguments set forthregarding standing, it behooves the Court to reiterate the rulingin Ailos#aan, Inc. v. 'orato)to clarify hat is meant by locus standi and todistinguish it from real partyininterest.

"he difference beteen the rule on standing and real party in interesthas been noted by authorities thus8 5't is important to note . . . thatstanding because of its constitutional and public policy underpinnings,is very different from %uestions relating to hether a particular plaintiff

is the real party in interest or has capacity to sue. Although all threere%uirements are directed toards ensuring that only certain partiescan maintain an action, standing restrictions re%uire a partialconsideration o

Documents

I. Constitution of the Philippines (related cases)