G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997,
♦ Decision,
Bellosillo, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion,
Padilla, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion,
Vitug, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion,
Mendoza, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion,
Torres, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Puno, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Panganiban, [J]
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 122156, February 03, 1997 ]
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, PETITIONER, VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION AND OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, RESPONDENTS.
CONCURRING OPINION
PADILLA, J.:
I concur with the ponencia of Mr. Justice Bellosillo. At the same time, I would like to expound a bit more on the concept of national patrimony as including with in its scope and meaning institutions such as the Manila Hotel.
It is argued by petitioner that the Manila Hotel comes under “national patrimony” over which qualified Filipinos have the preference, in ownership and operation. The Constitutional provision on point states:
“x x x x x x x x x
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.”1
Petitioners argument, I believe, is well taken. Under the 1987 Constitution, “national patrimony” consists of the natural resources provided by almighty God (Preamble) in our territory (Article 1) consisting of land, sea, and air.2 A study of the 1935 Constitution, where the concept of “national patrimony” originated, would show that its framers decided to adopt the even more comprehensive expression “Patrimony of the Nation” in the belief that the phrase encircles a concept embracing not only the natural resources of the country but practically everything that belongs to the Filipino people, the tangible and the material as well as the intangible and the spiritual assets and possessions of the people. It is to be noted that the framers did not stop with conservation. They knew that conservation alone does not spell progress; and that this may be achieved only through development as a correlative factor to assure to the people not only the exclusive ownership, but also the exclusive benefits of their national patrimony.3
Moreover, the concept of national patrimony has been viewed as referring not only to our rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of our race.4
There is no doubt in my mind that the Manila Hotel is very much a part of our national patrimony and, as such, deserves constitutional protection as to who shall own it and benefit from its operation. This institution has played an important role in our nation’s history, having been the venue of many a historical event, and serving as it did, and as it does, as the Philippine Guest House for visiting foreign heads of state, dignitaries, celebrities, and others.5
It is therefore our duty to protect and preserve it for future generations of Filipinos. As President Manuel L. Quezon once said, we must exploit the natural resources of our country, but we should do so with an eye to the welfare of the future generations. In other words, the leaders of today are the trustees of the patrimony of our race. To preserve our national patrimony and reserve it for Filipinos was the intent of the distinguished gentlemen who first framed our Constitution. Thus, in debating the need for nationalization of our lands and natural resources, one expounded that we should “put more teeth into our laws, and; not make the nationalization of our lands and natural resources a subject of ordinary legislation but of constitutional enactment”.6 To quote further: “Let not our children be mere tenants and trespassers in their own country. Let us preserve and bequeath to them what is rightfully theirs, free from all foreign liens and encumbrances”.7
Now a word on preference. In my view “preference to qualified Filipinos”, to be meaningful, must refer not only to things that are peripheral, collateral, or tangential. It must touch and affect the very “heart of the existing order.” In the field of public bidding in the acquisition of things that pertain to the national patrimony, preference to qualified Filipinos must allow a qualified Filipino to match or equal the higher bid of a non-Filipino; the preference shall not operate only when the bids of the qualified Filipino and the non-Filipino are equal in which case, the award should undisputedly be made to the qualified Filipino. The Constitutional preference should give the qualified Filipino an opportunity to match or equal the higher bid of the non-Filipino bidder if the preference of the qualified Filipino bidder is to be significant at all.
It is true that in this present age of globalization of attitude towards foreign investments in our country, stress is on the elimination of barriers to foreign trade and investments in the country. While government agencies, including the courts should re-condition their thinking to such a trend, and make it easy and even attractive for foreign investors to come to our shores, yet we should not preclude ourselves from reserving to us Filipinos certain areas where our national identity, culture and heritage are involved. In the hotel industry, for instance, foreign investors have established themselves creditably, such as in the Shangri-La, the Nikko, the Peninsula, and Mandarin Hotels. This should not stop us from retaining 51% of the capital stock of the Manila Hotel Corporation in the hands of Filipinos. This would be in keeping with the intent of the Filipino people to preserve our national patrimony, including our historical and cultural heritage in the hands of Filipinos.
Footnotes
1 Article XII, Section 10, par. 2, 1987 Constitution.
2 Padilla, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Volume III, p. 89.
3 Sinco, Philippine Political Law, 11th ed., p.112.
4 Nolledo, The New Constitution of the Philippines, Annotated, 1990 ed, p. 72.
5 Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 1.
6 Laurel, Proceedings of the Philippine Constitutional Convention (1934-1935), p. 507.
7 Id., p. 562.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation