G.R. No. 122156 - Separate Concurring Opinion

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]

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, PETITIONER, VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION AND OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, RESPONDENTS.

Constancy in law is not an attribute of judicious mind. I say this as we are confronted in the case at bar with legal and constitutional issues – and yet I am driven so to speak, on the side of history. The reason perhaps is due to the belief that, in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a “page of history is worth a volume of logic.”

I will, however, attempt to share my thoughts on whether the Manila Hotel has a historical and cultural aspect within the meaning of the constitution and thus, forming part of the “patrimony of the nation”.

“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 goals and priorities.”

The foregoing provisions should be read in conjunction with Article II of the same Constitution pertaining to “Declaration of Principles and State Policies” which ordain –

“The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.” (Sec. 19).

Interestingly, the matter of giving preference to “qualified Filipinos” was one of the highlights in the 1987 Constitution Commission proceedings, thus:

“MR. NOLLEDO. The Amendment will read: “IN THE GRANT OF THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND CONCESSIONS COVERING THE NATIONAL ECONOMY PATRIMONY, THE STATE SHALL GIVE PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS”. And the word “Filipinos” here, as intended by the proponents, will include not only individual Filipinos but also Filipino-Controlled entities fully controlled by Filipinos (Vol. III, Records of the Constitutional Commission, p. 608).

MR. MONSOD. We also wanted to add, as Commissioner Villegas said, this committee and this body already approved what is known as the Filipino First policy which was suggested by Commissioner de Castro. So that it is now in our Constitution (Vol. IV, Records of the Constitutional Commission, p. 225).

“MR NOLLEDO. In the grant of rights, privileges and concession covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.

MR. FOZ. In connection with that amendment, if a foreign enterprise is qualified and the Filipinos enterprise is also qualified, will the Filipino enterprise still be given a preference?

MR. FOZ. If the foreigner is more qualified in some aspect than the Filipino enterprise, will the Filipino still be preferred?

MR. NOLLEDO. The answer is “yes”. (Vol. III, p. 616, Records of the Constitutional Commission).

The nationalistic provisions of the 1987 Constitution reflect the history and spirit of the Malolos Constitution of 1898, the 1935 Constitution and the 1973 Constitutions. That we have not reneged on this nationalist policy is articulated in one of the earliest cases, this Court said –

“The ‘nationalistic tendency is manifested in various provisions of the Constitution. x x x It cannot therefore be said that a law imbued with the same purpose and spirit underlying many of the provisions of the Constitution is unreasonable, invalid or unconstitutional (Ichong, et al. vs. Hernandez, et al., 101 Phil. 1155).’”

I subscribe to the view that history, culture, heritage, and tradition are not legislated and is the product of events, customs, usages and practices. It is actually a product of growth and acceptance by the collective mores of a race. It is the spirit and soul of a people.

The Manila Hotel is part of our history, culture and heritage. Every inch of the Manila Hotel is witness to historic events (too numerous to mention) which shaped our history for almost 84 years.

As I intimated earlier, it is not my position in this opinion, to examine the single instances of the legal largesse which have given rise to this controversy, as I believe that has been exhaustively discussed in the ponencia. Suffice it to say at this point, that the history of the Manila Hotel should not be placed in the auction block of a purely business transaction, where profits subverts the cherished historical values of our people.

As a historical landmark in this “Pearl of the Orient Seas”, it has its enviable tradition which, in the words of the philosopher Salvador de Madarriaga, (tradition) is “more of a river than a stone, it keeps flowing, and one must view the flowing, and one must view the flow in both directions. If you look towards the hill from which the river flows, you see tradition in the form of forceful currents that push the river or people towards the future; and if you look the other way, you progress.”

Indeed, tradition and progress are the same, for progress depends on the kind of tradition. Let us not jettison the tradition of the Manila Hotel and thereby repeat our colonial history.

I grant, of course, that men of the law can see the same subject in different lights.

I remember, however, a Spanish proverb which says – “He is always right who suspects that he makes mistakes”. On this note, I say that if I have to make a mistake, I would rather err upholding the belief that the Filipino be first under his Constitution and in his own land.