Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS 267 SCRA 402 February 1997 En BancFACTS: Pursuant to the privatization program of the government, GSIS chose to aar! !uring bi!!ingin September 199" the "1# outstan!ing shares of the respon!ent $ani%a &ote% 'orp( )$&'* to the +enong Berha!, a $a%aysian firm, for the amount of Php ,,(-- per share against herein petitioner hich is a Fi%ipino corporation ho offere! Php ,1(". per share( Pen!ing the !ec%aration of +enong Berha! as the inning bi!!er/strategic partner of $&', petitioner matche! the former0s bi! prize a%so ith Php ,,(-- per share fo%%oe! by a manager0s chec1 orth Php 22 mi%%ion as Bi! Security, but the GSIS refuse! to accept both the bi! match an! the manager0s chec1( 3ne !ay after the fi%ing of the petition in 3ctober 199", the 'ourt issue! a 4+3 en5oining the respon!ents from perfecting an! consummating the sa%e to the +enong Berha!( In September1996, the Supreme 'ourt En Banc accepte! the instant case( ISSU: 7hether or not the GSIS vio%ate! Section 1-, secon! paragraph, 8rtic%e 11 of the 19.7 'onstitution C!URT RU"I#G: 4he Supreme 'ourt !irecte! the GSIS an! other respon!ents to cease an! !esist from se%%ing the "1# shares of the $&' to the $a%aysian firm +enong Berha!, an! instea! to accept the matching bi! of the petitioner $ani%a Prince &ote%( 8ccor!ing to 9ustice Be%%osi%%o, ponente of the case at bar, Section 1-, secon! paragraph, 8rtic%e 11 of the 19.7 'onstitution is a man!atory provision, a positive comman! hich is comp%ete in itse%f an! nee!s no further gui!e%ines or imp%ementing %as to enforce it( 4he 'ourt En Banc emphasize! that :ua%ifie! Fi%ipinos sha%% be preferre! over foreigners, as man!ate! by the provision in :uestion( 4he $ani%a &ote% ha! %ong been a %an!mar1, therefore, ma1ing the "1# of the e:uity of sai! hote% to fa%% ithin the purvie of the constitutiona% she%ter for it emprises the ma5ority an! contro%%ing stoc1( 4he 'ourt a%so reiterate! ho much of nationa% pri!e i%% vanish if the nation0s cu%tura% heritage i%% fa%% on the han!s of foreigners( In his !issenting opinion, 9ustice Puno sai! that the provision in :uestion shou%! be interprete! as pro;Fi%ipino an!, at the same time, not anti;a%ien in itse%f because it !oes not prohibit the State from granting rights, privi%eges an! concessions to foreigners in the absence of :ua%ifie! Fi%ipinos( &e a%so argue! that the petitioner is estoppe! from assai%ing the inning bi! of +enong Berha! because the former 1ne the ru%es of the bi!!ing an! that the foreigners are :ua%ifie!, too( MU#ICIPA"IT$ !F SA# %UA# v. CAFACTS:$7SS entere! into a contract for ater service connections ith cavate that particu%ar portion for the tapping of pipes for the ater connections to the concessionaires( Beteen 1- o0c%oc1 an! 11 o0c%oc1 in the evening of 21 $ay 19.., Prisci%%a 'han as !riving her 4oyota 'ron car ith P%ate @o( PA< 991 at a spee! of thirty )2-* 1i%ometers per hour on the right si!e of Santo%an +oa! toar!s the !irection of Pinag%abanan, San 9uan, $etro $ani%a( She as ith prosecutor Baura Big%ang;aa( 4he roa! as f%oo!e! as it as then raining har!( Su!!en%y, the %eft front hee% of the car fe%% on a manho%e here the or1ers of cavation of the groun! for the %aying of gas, ater, seer, an! other pipesH, an! Ga!opt measures to ensure pub%ic safety against open cana%s, manho%es, %ive ires an! other simi%ar hazar!s to %ife an!propertyH, are not mo!ifie! by the term Gmunicipa% roa!H( 8n! neither can it be fair%y inferre! from the sameprovision of Section 1,9 that petitioner0s poer of regu%ation vis;I;vis the activities therein mentione! app%ies on%y in cases here such activities are to be performe! in municipa% roa!s(4o our min!, the municipa%ity0s %iabi%ity for in5uries cause! by its fai%ure to regu%ate the !ri%%ingan! e>cavation of the groun! for the %aying of gas, ater, seer, an! other pipes, attaches regar!%ess of hether the !ri%%ing or e>cavation is ma!e on a nationa% or municipa% roa!, for as %ong as the same is ithin its territoria% 5uris!iction(@either is the DpetitionerE re%ieve! of %iabi%ity base! on its purporte! %ac1 of 1no%e!ge of the e>cavation an! the con!ition of the roa! !uring the perio! from $ay =-, 19.. up to $ay 2-, 19.. hen the acci!ent occurre!( Itmust be borne in min! that the ob%igation of the DpetitionerE to maintain the safe con!ition of the roa! ithin its territory is a continuing one hich is not suspen!e! hi%e a street is being repaire!MATI'AG (S. '#IPA$!G.R. #o. )4*0+6, A-ril 2, 2002FACTS:3n February 1999, petitioner $atibag as appointe! 8cting Airector IJ of the 'ome%ec0s EIA by then 'ome%ec 'hairperson &arriet Aemetriou in a temporary capacity( 3n $arch =--1, respon!ent Benipayo as appointe! 'ome%ec 'hairman together ith other commissioners in an a! interim appointment( 7hi%e on such a! interim appointment, respon!ent Benipayo in his capacity as 'hairman issue! a $emoran!um a!!ress transferring petitioner to the Ba Aepartment( Petitioner re:ueste! Benipayo to reconsi!er her re%ief as Airector IJ of the EIA an! her reassignment to the Ba Aepartment( She cite! 'ivi% Service 'ommission $emoran!um 'ircu%ar @o( 7 !ate! 8pri% 1-, =--1, remin!ing hea!s of government offices that Ftransfer an! !etai% of emp%oyees are prohibite! !uring the e%ection perio!( Benipayo !enie! her re:uest for reconsi!eration on 8pri% 1., =--1, citing '3$EBE' +eso%ution @o( 22--!ate! @ovember 6, =---, e>empting 'ome%ec from the coverage of the sai! $emo 'ircu%ar( Petitioner appea%e! the !enia% of her re:uest for reconsi!eration to the '3$EBE' en banc( She a%so fi%e! an a!ministrative an! crimina% comp%aint16 ith the Ba Aepartment17against Benipayo, a%%eging that her reassignment vio%ate! Section =61 )h* of the 3mnibus E%ection 'o!e, '3$EBE' +eso%ution @o( 2="., 'ivi% Service $emoran!um 'ircu%ar @o( -7, s( --1, an! other pertinent a!ministrative an! civi% service %as, ru%es an! regu%ations( Auring the pen!ency of her comp%aint before the Ba Aepartment, petitioner fi%e! the instant petition :uestioning the appointment an! the right to remain in office of Benipayo, Borra an! 4uason, as 'hairman an! 'ommissioners of the '3$EBE', respective%y( Petitioner c%aims that the a! interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra an! 4uason vio%ate the constitutiona% provisions on the in!epen!ence of the '3$EBE'( ISSUS:7hether or not the assumption of office by Benipayo, Borra an! 4uason on the basis of the a!interim appointments issue! by the Presi!ent amounts to a temporary appointment prohibite! by Section 1 )=*, 8rtic%e IK;' of the 'onstitution(RU"I#G:7e fin! petitioner0s argument ithout merit( 8n a! interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it ta1es effect imme!iate%y an! can no %onger be ith!ran by the Presi!ent once the appointee has :ua%ifie! into office( 4he fact that it is sub5ect to confirmation by the 'ommission on 8ppointments !oes not a%ter its permanent character( 4he'onstitution itse%f ma1es an a! interim appointment permanent in character by ma1ing it effective unti% !isapprove! by the 'ommission on 8ppointments or unti% the ne>t a!5ournmentof 'ongress( In the instant case, the Presi!ent !i! in fact appoint permanent 'ommissioners to fi%% the vacancies in the '3$EBE', sub5ect on%y to confirmation by the 'ommission on 8ppointments( Benipayo, Borra an! 4uason ere e>ten!e! permanent appointments !uring the recess of 'ongress( 4hey ere not appointe! or !esignate! in a temporary or acting capacity, un%i1e 'ommissioner &ay!ee Corac in Bri%%antes vs( Corac2, an! So%icitor Genera% Fe%i> Bautista in @aciona%ista Party vs( Bautista( 2" 4he a! interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra an! 4uason are e>press%y a%%oe! by the 'onstitution hich authorizes the Presi!ent, !uring the recess of 'ongress, to ma1e appointments that ta1e effect imme!iate%y( 7hi%e the 'onstitution man!ates that the '3$EBE' Fsha%% be in!epen!entF26, this provision shou%! be harmonize! ith the Presi!ent0s poer to e>ten! a! interim appointments( 4o ho%! that the in!epen!ence of the '3$EBE' re:uires the 'ommission on 8ppointments to first confirm a! interim appointees before the appointees can assume office i%% negate the Presi!ent0s poer to ma1e a! interim appointments( 4his is contrary to the ru%e on statutory construction to give meaning an! effect to every provision of the %a( It i%% a%so run counter to the c%ear intent of the framers of the 'onstitution('"AS F. !P" v. RU'# &. T!RRS, 8BEK8@AE+ 8GLI++E, &E'43+ JIBB8@LEJ8, 'IEBI43 &8BI43, +3BE+4 B8+BE+S, '8+$E@'I48 +E3AI'8, 'ES8+ S8+I@3, +E@843 J8BE@'I8, 43$8S P( 8F+I'8, &E8A 3F 4&E @84I3@8B '3$PL4E+ 'E@4E+ an! '&8I+$8@ 3F 4&E '3$$ISSI3@ 3@ 8LAI4Facts:4he petition at bar is a commen!ab%e effort on the part of Senator B%as F( 3p%e to prevent the shrin1ing of the right to privacy, hich the revere! $r( 9ustice Bran!eis consi!ere! as Fthe most comprehensive of rights an! the right most va%ue! by civi%ize! men(F Petitioner 3p%e prays that e inva%i!ate 8!ministrative 3r!er @o( 2-. entit%e! F8!option of a @ationa% 'omputerize! I!entification +eference SystemF on to important constitutiona% groun!s, vizM )1* it is a usurpation of the poer of 'ongress to %egis%ate, an! )=* it impermissib%y intru!es on our citizenryNs protecte! zone of privacy( 7e grant the petition for the rights sought to be vin!icate! by the petitioner nee! stronger barriers against further erosion( 8(3( @o( 2-. as pub%ishe! in four nespapers of genera% circu%ation on 9anuary ==, 1997 an! 9anuary =2, 1997( 3n 9anuary =,, 1997, petitioner fi%e! the instant petition against respon!ents, then E>ecutive Secretary +uben 4orres an! the hea!s of the government agencies, ho as members of the Inter;8gency 'oor!inating 'ommittee, are charge! ith the imp%ementation of 8(3( @o( 2-.( 3n 8pri% ., 1997, e issue! a temporary restraining or!er en5oining its imp%ementation(Iss.e: 73@ the petitioner has the stan! to assai% the va%i!ity of 8(3( @o( 2-.R.lin/: CESRationale:8s is usua% in constitutiona% %itigation, respon!ents raise the thresho%! issues re%ating to the stan!ing to sue of the petitioner an! the 5usticiabi%ity of the case at bar( $ore specifica%%y, respon!ents aver that petitioner has no %ega% interest to upho%! an! that the imp%ementing ru%es of 8(3( @o( 2-. have yet to be promu%gate!( 4hese submissions !o not !eserve our sympathetic ear( Petitioner 3p%e is a !istinguishe! member of our Senate( 8s a Senator, petitioner is possesse! of the re:uisite stan!ing to bring suit raising the issue that the issuance of 8(3( @o( 2-. is a usurpation of %egis%ative poer( , 8s ta>payer an! member of the Government Service Insurance System )GSIS*, petitioner can a%so impugn the %ega%ity of the misa%ignment of pub%ic fun!s an! the misuse of GSIS fun!s to imp%ement 8(3( @o( 2-.(4he ripeness for a!5u!ication of the Petition at bar is not affecte! by the fact that the imp%ementing ru%es of 8(3( @o( 2-. have yet to be promu%gate!( Petitioner 3p%e assai%s 8(3( @o( 2-. as inva%i! per se an! as infirme! on its face( &is action is not premature for the ru%es yet to be promu%gate! cannot cure its fata% !efects( $oreover, therespon!ents themse%ves have starte! the imp%ementation of 8(3( @o( 2-. ithout aiting for the ru%es( 8s ear%y as 9anuary 19, 1997, respon!ent Socia% Security System )SSS* cause! the pub%ication of a notice to bi! for the manufacture of the @ationa% I!entification )IA* car!( +espon!ent E>ecutive Secretary 4orres has pub%ic%y announce! that representatives from the GSIS an! the SSS have comp%ete! the gui!e%ines for the nationa% i!entification system(8%% signa%s from the respon!ents sho their unserving i%% to imp%ement 8(3( @o( 2-. an! e nee! not ait for the forma%ity of the ru%es to pass 5u!gment on its constitutiona%ity( In this %ight, the !issenters insistence that e tighten the ru%e on stan!ing is not a commen!ab%estance as its resu%t ou%! be to thrott%e an important constitutiona% princip%e an! a fun!amenta% right(