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.

I agree with Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo on his clear-cut statements, shared by Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno in a well written separate (dissenting) opinion, that:

First, the provision in our fundamental law which provides that “(i)n the grants of rights, priveleges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos”1 is self-executory. The provision verily does not need, although it can obviously be amplified or regulated by, an enabling law or a set of rules.

Second, the term “patrimony” does not merely refer to the country’s natural resources but also to its cultural heritage. A “historical landmark,” to use the words of Mr. Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr., Manila Hotel has now indeed become part of Philippine Heritage.

Third, the act of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), a government entity which derives its authorirty from the State, in selling 51% of its share in MHC should be considered an act of the State subject to the Constitutional mandate.ℒαwρhi৷

On the pivotal issue of the degree of “preference to qualified Filipinos,” I find it somewhat difficult to take the same path traversed by the forceful reasoning of Justice Puno. In the particular case before us, the only meaningful preference, it seems, would really be to allow the qualified Filipino to match the foreign bid for, as practical matter, I cannot see any bid that literally calls for millions of dollars to be at par (to the last cent) with another. The magnitude of the bids is such that it becomes hardly possible for the competing bids to stand exactly “equal” which alone, under the dissenting view, could trigger the right of preference.

It is most unfortunate that Renong Berhad has not been spared this great disappointment, a letdown that it did not deserve, by a simple and timely advise of the proper rules of bidding along with the peculiar constitutional implications of the proposed transaction.ℒαwρhi৷ It is also regrettable that the Court at times is seen to, instead, be the refuge for bureaucratic inadequacies which create the perception that it even takes on non-justiciable controversies.