100%(4)4 out of 4 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 180 pages.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 11 | P a g eDean’s Circle 2016UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMASDigested by: DC 2016 MembersEditors: Tricia LacuestaLorenzo Luigi GayyaCristopher ReyesMacky SiazonJanine ArenasNinna BonsolLloyd JavierCONSTITUTIONAL LAW1FIRST SEM CASES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1Table of ContentsPRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS2THE STATE3STATE IMMUNITY6SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES15DELEGATION OF POWERS24STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES30LEGISLATURE42PRESIDENCY74JUDICIARY108CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS132CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION138COMMISSION ON ELECLTIONS147COMMISSION ON AUDIT154ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS159AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS1812 | P a g eCONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONSMANILA PRINCE HOTEL vs. GSIS, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION,OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSELG.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997, BELLOSILLO, J.Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the subject constitutional provision is, as it shouldbe, impliedly written in the bidding rules issued by respondent GSIS, lest the bidding rules be nullified for beingviolative of the Constitution.Facts:GSIS, pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government decided to sell throughpublic bidding issued and outstanding shares of respondent Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). Two biddersparticipated: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy the shares atP41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00per share.Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning bidder/strategic partner and theexecution of the necessary contracts, Manila Prince matched the bid price of P44.00 per share. Perhapsapprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid, Manila Prince came to the SupremeCourt on prohibition and mandamus. Issue:Whether GSIS is mandated to abide the dictates of the Constitution on National Economy andPatrimony.Ruling:YES.It should be stressed that while the Malaysian firm offered the higher bid it is not yet thewinning bidder. The bidding rules expressly provide that the highest bidder shall only be declared thewinning bidder after it has negotiated and executed the necessary contracts, and secured the requisiteapprovals. Since the Filipino First Policy provision of the Constitution bestows preference on qualifiedFilipinos the mere tending of the highest bid is not an assurance that the highest bidder will be declared thewinning bidder. Resultantly, respondents are not bound to make the award yet, nor are they under obligationto enter into one with the highest bidder. For in choosing the awardee, respondents are mandated to abide bythe dictates of the 1987 Constitution the provisions of which are presumed to be known to all the bidders andother interested parties.