Manila xxx adult usa n freesex


28-Mar-2019 23:21

In this instance, 51% of the MHC cannot be disassociated from the hotel and the land on which the hotel edifice stands. I would like to introduce an amendment to the Nolledo amendment. Madam President, apparently the proponent is agreeable, but we have to raise a question. The Nolledo amendment would refer to an individual Filipino. It is a basic principle in constitutional law that all laws and contracts must conform with the fundamental law of the land. 1 of the bidding rules provides that [if] for any reason the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS may offer this to other Qualified Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided that these Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in terms of price per share.

Consequently, we cannot sustain respondents' claim that the Filipino First Policy provision is not applicable since what is being sold is only 51% of the outstanding shares of the corporation, not the Hotel building nor the land upon which the building stands. The term qualified Filipinos as used in Our Constitution also includes corporations at least 60% of which is owned by Filipinos. And the amendment would consist in substituting the words "QUALIFIED FILIPINOS" with the following: "CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES OR CORPORATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS WHOSE CAPITAL OR CONTROLLING STOCK IS WHOLLY OWNED BY SUCH CITIZENS. Suppose it is a corporation that is 80-percent Filipino, do we not give it preference? What about a corporation wholly owned by Filipino citizens? Those which violate the Constitution lose their reason for being. 47 Certainly, the constitutional mandate itself is reason enough not to award the block of shares immediately to the foreign bidder notwithstanding its submission of a higher, or even the highest, bid.

In 1986 the hotel was the site of a failed coup d' etat where an aspirant for vice-president was "proclaimed" President of the Philippine Republic. Since the "Filipino First Policy provision of the Constitution bestows preference on qualified Filipinos the mere tending of the highest bid is not an assurance that the highest bidder will be declared the winning bidder.

For more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel has bore mute witness to the triumphs and failures, loves and frustrations of the Filipinos; its existence is impressed with public interest; its own historicity associated with our struggle for sovereignty, independence and nationhood. Resultantly, respondents are not bound to make the award yet, nor are they under obligation to enter into one with the highest bidder.

That is why the prevailing view is, as it has always been, that . 35 When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. We cannot simply afford the government a defense that arises out of the failure to enact further enabling, implementing or guiding legislation. The responsibility for reading and understanding the Constitution and the laws is not the sole prerogative of Congress.

Manila Hotel has become a landmark a living testimonial of Philippine heritage. "IN THE GRANT OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND CONCESSIONS COVERING THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY, THE STATE SHALL GIVE PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS." MR FOZ. If it were, the executive would have to ask Congress, or perhaps the Court, for an interpretation every time the executive is confronted by a constitutional command. J., this fact alone makes the sale of the assets of respondents GSIS and MHC a "state action." In constitutional jurisprudence, the acts of persons distinct from the government are considered "state action" covered by the Constitution (1) when the activity it engages in is a "public function;" (2) when the government is so significantly involved with the private actor as to make the government responsible for his action; and, (3) when the government has approved or authorized the action.

For sure, 51% of the equity of the MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the majority and controlling stock, so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have actual control and management of the hotel. Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the subject constitutional provision is, as it should be, impliedly written in the bidding rules issued by respondent GSIS, lest the bidding rules be nullified for being violative of the Constitution.

50 dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent MHC. Requisite approvals from the GSIS/MHC and COP (Committee on Privatization)/OGCC (Office of the Government Corporate Counsel) are obtained.3 Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning bidder/strategic partner and the execution of the necessary contracts, petitioner in a letter to respondent GSIS dated 28 September 1995 matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by Renong Berhad.4 In a subsequent letter dated 10 October 1995 petitioner sent a manager's check issued by Philtrust Bank for Thirty-three Million Pesos (P33.000.000.00) as Bid Security to match the bid of the Malaysian Group, Messrs. On 10 September 1996 the instant case was accepted by the Court En Banc after it was referred to it by the First Division. For the bidding rules mandate that if for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS may offer this to the other Qualified Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided that these Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in terms of price per share.8 Respondents except. Certainly, 51% of the equity of the MHC cannot be considered part of the national patrimony. Respondents postulate that the privilege of submitting a matching bid has not yet arisen since it only takes place if for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares.

The winning bidder, or the eventual "strategic partner," is to provide management expertise and/or an international marketing/reservation system, and financial support to strengthen the profitability and performance of the Manila Hotel.2 In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner. The Highest Bidder must execute the Stock Purchase and Sale Agreement with GSIS . The case was then set for oral arguments with former Chief Justice Enrique M. Moreover, if the disposition of the shares of the MHC is really contrary to the Constitution, petitioner should have questioned it right from the beginning and not after it had lost in the bidding. Thus the submission by petitioner of a matching bid is premature since Renong Berhad could still very well be awarded the block of shares and the condition giving rise to the exercise of the privilege to submit a matching bid had not yet taken place.

it plays host to dignitaries and official visitors who are accorded the traditional Philippine hospitality. Before we vote, may I request that the amendment be read again. 46 When the Constitution addresses the State it refers not only to the people but also to the government as elements of the State.

36 The history of the hotel has been chronicled in the book The Manila Hotel: The Heart and Memory of a City. After all, government is composed of three (3) divisions of power legislative, executive and judicial.

13 As against constitutions of the past, modern constitutions have been generally drafted upon a different principle and have often become in effect extensive codes of laws intended to operate directly upon the people in a manner similar to that of statutory enactments, and the function of constitutional conventions has evolved into one more like that of a legislative body. These provisions would be subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which could make them entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute. If the wording of "PREFERENCE" is given to QUALIFIED FILIPINOS," can it be understood as a preference to qualified Filipinos vis-a-vis Filipinos who are not qualified. And when our Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject; consequently, if there is no statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance, and from which all legislations must take their bearings. It also refers to our intelligence in arts, sciences and letters. If the foreigner is more qualified in some aspects than the Filipino enterprise, will the Filipino still be preferred? To adopt such a line of reasoning is to renounce the duty to ensure faithfulness to the Constitution. J., on constitutional government is apt The executive department has a constitutional duty to implement laws, including the Constitution, even before Congress acts provided that there are discoverable legal standards for executive action.