CASE 5

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, GR No.

122156, 1997-02-03
Facts:
The controversy arose when respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),
pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation No. 50
dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and
outstanding... shares of respondent MHC. 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.
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard 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. Renong Berhad x x x x[5]... which respondent GSIS refused to
accept.
On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that respondent GSIS has disregarded the tender
of the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be hastened by respondent GSIS
and consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner came to this Court on prohibition and
mandamus. On
18 October 1995 the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from
perfecting and consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm.
In the main, petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and
submits that the Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically
become a historical monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and... culture.
It is a proud legacy of an earlier generation of Filipinos who believed in the nobility and
sacredness of independence and its power and capacity to release the full potential of the
Filipino people. To all intents and purposes, it has become a part of the national... patrimony.
Issues:
that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is clearly not self-executing... that
the non-self-executing nature of Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII is implied from the tenor of the
first and third paragraphs of the same section which undoubtedly are not self-executing.
Ruling:
The argument is flawed. If the first... and third paragraphs are not self-executing because
Congress is still to enact measures to encourage the formation and operation of enterprises
fully owned by Filipinos, as in the first paragraph, and the State still needs legislation to
regulate and exercise authority over... foreign investments within its national jurisdiction, as in
the third paragraph, then a fortiori, by the same logic, the second paragraph can only be self-
executing as it does not by its language require any legislation in order to give preference to
qualified Filipinos... in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national
economy and patrimony. A constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part and non-
self-executing in another.[
On the other hand, Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory,
positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or
implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not
require any... legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially enforceable. When our
Constitution mandates that [i]n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering
national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means
just that

 qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. 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. Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus
ibi remedium.
CASE 5
In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage.[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.
Manila Hotel has become a landmark - a living testimonial of Philippine heritage.
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. Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony.
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. In this instance, 51% of the MHC
cannot be disassociated from the hotel and the land on which the hotel edifice stands.
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.
In the instant case, where a foreign firm submits the highest bid in a public bidding concerning
the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony,
thereby exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there is no question that the Filipino will have... to be
allowed to match the bid of the foreign entity. And if the Filipino matches the bid of a foreign
firm the award should go to the Filipino. It must be so if we are to give life and meaning to the
Filipino First Policy provision of the 1987 Constitution. For, while this may... neither be
expressly stated nor contemplated in the bidding rules, the constitutional fiat is omnipresent to
be simply disregarded. To ignore it would be to sanction a perilous skirting of the basic law.
The Manila Hotel or, for that matter, 51% of the MHC, is not just any commodity to be sold to
the highest bidder solely for the sake of privatization. We are not talking about an ordinary
piece of property in a commercial district. We are talking about a historic relic that has...
hosted many of the most important events in the short history of the Philippines as a nation.
We are talking about a hotel where heads of states would prefer to be housed as a strong
manifestation of their desire to cloak the dignity of the highest state function to their... official
visits to the Philippines. Thus the Manila Hotel has played and continues to play a significant
role as an authentic repository of twentieth century Philippine history and culture. In this
sense, it has become truly a reflection of the Filipino soul - a place with a... history of
grandeur; a most historical setting that has played a part in the shaping of a country.
WHEREFORE, respondents GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL
CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT
CORPORATE COUNSEL are directed to CEASE and DESIST from selling 51% of the shares of
the Manila Hotel Corporation to RENONG BERHAD, and... to ACCEPT the matching bid of
petitioner MANILA PRINCE HOTEL CORPORATION to purchase the subject 51% of the shares
of the Manila Hotel Corporation at P44.00 per share and thereafter to execute the necessary
agreements and documents to effect the sale, to issue the necessary... clearances and to do
such other acts and deeds as may be necessary for the purpose.
Principles:
A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a
nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority from which
it emanates. It has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the... nation.[10] It
prescribes the permanent framework of a system of government, assigns to the different
departments their respective powers and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on
which government is founded. The fundamental conception in... other words is that it is a
supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private
rights must be determined and all public authority administered.[11] Under the doctrine of
constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract... violates any norm of the constitution that law
or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into
by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus,
since the Constitution is the... fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is
deemed written in every statute and contract.
Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and principles. Their
provisions command the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the framers
who merely establish an outline of government providing for the different departments of the...
governmental machinery and securing certain fundamental and inalienable rights of citizens
CASE 5
A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of the 1987
Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a provision which is... complete in itself and
becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which
supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is
self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing if... the nature and extent of
the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can
be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language
indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for... action.
Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a
constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are...
self-executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of
self-executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the
mandate of the fundamental law.[14] This can be cataclysmic. That is... why the prevailing view
is, as it has always been, that -... x x x x in case of doubt, the Constitution should be
considered self-executing rather than non-self-executing x x x x Unless the contrary is clearly
intended, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a contrary
rule would give the... legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be
effective. 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.
A constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part and non-self-executing in another.
Citation preview
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS GSIS

Facts:
The controversy arose when respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),
pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government, decided to sell through
public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent Manila Hotel
Corporation (MHC). The winning bidder, or the eventual “strategic partner,” will provide
management expertise or an international marketing/reservation system, and financial support
to strengthen the profitability and performance of the Manila Hotel.

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. Prior to the declaration of Renong Berhard as the
winning bidder, petitioner Manila Prince Hotel matched the bid price and sent a manager’s
check as bid security, which GSIS refused to accept.

Apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that the sale may
be consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner filed a petition before the Court.

Issues:
Whether or not Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing
provision. Whether or not the Manila Hotel forms part of the national patrimony. Whether or
not the submission of matching bid is premature Whether or not there was grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the respondents in refusing the matching bid of the petitioner.

Rulings:
In the resolution of the case, the Court held that:

It is a self-executing provision. Since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and

supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. A provision
which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is
usually not self-executing. But a provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative
without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule
by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. A
constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the
liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an
examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject
is referred to the legislature for action. Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is
necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of
the constitution are self-executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring
legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and
practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987
CASE 5
Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no
further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the
provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially
enforceable. When our Constitution mandates that in the grant of rights, privileges, and
concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to
qualified Filipinos, it means just that – qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. 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. Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium. The
Court agree. In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage. 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. It also refers to Filipino’s intelligence in arts, sciences
and letters. In the present case, Manila Hotel has become a landmark, a living testimonial of
Philippine heritage. While it was restrictively an American hotel when it first opened in 1912, a
concourse for the elite, it has since then become the venue of various significant events which
have shaped Philippine history. Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy
and patrimony. 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. In this
instance, 51% of the MHC cannot be disassociated from the hotel and the land on which the
hotel edifice stands. It is not premature.

In the instant case, where a foreign firm submits the highest bid in a public bidding concerning
the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony,
thereby exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there is no question that the Filipino will have to be
allowed to match the bid of the foreign entity. And if the Filipino matches the bid of a foreign
firm the award should go to the Filipino. It must be so if the Court is to give life and meaning to
the Filipino First Policy provision of the 1987 Constitution. For, while this may neither be
expressly stated nor contemplated in the bidding rules, the constitutional fiat is omnipresent to
be simply disregarded. To ignore it would be to sanction a perilous skirting of the basic law.
The Court does not discount the apprehension that this policy may discourage foreign
investors. But the Constitution and laws of the Philippines are understood to be always open to
public scrutiny. These are given factors which investors must consider when venturing into
business in a foreign jurisdiction. Any person therefore desiring to do business in the
Philippines or with any of its agencies or instrumentalities is presumed to know his rights and
obligations under the Constitution and the laws of the forum. There was grave abuse of
discretion. To insist on selling the Manila Hotel to foreigners when there is a Filipino group
willing to match the bid of the foreign group is to insist that government be treated as any
other ordinary market player, and bound by its mistakes or gross errors of judgement,
regardless of the consequences to the Filipino people. The miscomprehension of the
Constitution is regrettable. Thus, the Court would rather remedy the indiscretion while there is
still an opportunity to do so than let the government develop the habit of forgetting that the
Constitution lays down the basic conditions and parameters for its actions. Since petitioner
has already matched the bid price tendered by Renong Berhad pursuant to the bidding rules,
respondent GSIS is left with no alternative but to award to petitioner the block of shares of
MHC and to execute the necessary agreements and documents to effect the sale in accordance
not only with the bidding guidelines and procedures but with the Constitution as well. The
refusal of respondent GSIS to execute the corresponding documents with petitioner as provided
in the bidding rules after the latter has matched the bid of the Malaysian firm clearly
constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

Hence, respondents GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL

CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT
CORPORATE COUNSEL are directed to CEASE and DESIST from selling 51% of the shares of
the Manila Hotel Corporation to RENONG BERHAD, and to ACCEPT the matching bid of
petitioner MANILA PRINCE HOTEL CORPORATION to purchase the subject 51% of the shares
of the Manila Hotel Corporation at P44.00 per share and thereafter to execute the necessary
agreements and documents to effect the sale, to issue the necessary clearances and to do such
other acts and deeds as may be necessary for the purpose.

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS [267 SCRA 408; G.R. No. 122156; 3 Feb 1997] Facts: The
controversy arose when respondent Government Service InsuranceSystem (GSIS), pursuant to
the privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation No. 50 dated 8
December 1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and
outstanding shares of respondent Manila Hotel Corporation. In a close bidding held on 18
September 1995 only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a
CASE 5
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.

Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning bidder/strategic partner and the
execution of the necessary contracts, matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by
Renong Berhad. On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that respondent GSIS has
disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be
hastened by respondent GSIS and consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner came to this
Court on prohibition and mandamus. In the main, petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art.
XII, of the 1987 Constitutionand submits that the Manila Hotel has been identified with the
Filipino nation and has practically become a historical monument which reflects the vibrancy
of Philippine heritage and culture. It is a proud legacy of an earlier generation of Filipinos who
believed in the nobility and sacredness of independence and its power and capacity to release
the full potential of the Filipino people. To all intents and purposes, it has become a part of the
national patrimony. 6 Petitioner also argues that since 51% of the shares of the MHC carries
with it the ownership of the business of the hotel which is owned by respondent GSIS, a
government-owned and controlled corporation, the hotel business of respondent GSIS being a
part of the tourism industry is unquestionably a part of the national economy. Issue: Whether
or Not the sale of Manila Hotel to Renong Berhad is violative of the Constitutional provision of
Filipino First policy and is therefore null and void. Held: The Manila Hotel or, for that matter,
51% of the MHC, is not just any commodity to be sold to the highest bidder solely for the sake
of privatization. The Manila Hotel has played and continues to play a significant role as an
authentic repository of twentieth century Philippine history and culture. This is the plain and
simple meaning of the Filipino First Policy provision of the Philippine Constitution. And this
Court, heeding the clarion call of the Constitution and accepting the duty of being the elderly
watchman of the nation, will continue to respect and protect the sanctity of the Constitution. It
was thus ordered that GSIS accepts the matching bid of petitioner MANILA PRINCE HOTEL
CORPORATION to purchase the subject 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation at
P44.00 per share and thereafter to execute the necessary clearances and to do such other acts
and deeds as may be necessary for purpose.

The Supreme Court directed the GSIS and other respondents to cease and desist from selling
the 51% shares of the MHC to the Malaysian firm Renong Berhad, and instead to accept the
matching bid of the petitioner Manila Prince Hotel.

According to Justice Bellosillo, ponente of the case at bar, Section 10, second paragraph,
Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory provision, a positive command which is
complete in itself and needs no further guidelines or implementing laws to enforce it. The Court
En Banc emphasized that qualified Filipinos shall be preferred over foreigners, as mandated by
the provision in question.

The Manila Hotel had long been a landmark, therefore, making the 51% of the equity of said
hotel to fall within the purview of the constitutional shelter for it emprises the majority and
controlling stock. The Court also reiterated how much of national pride will vanish if the
nation’s cultural heritage will fall on the hands of foreigners.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Puno said that the provision in question should be
interpreted as pro-Filipino and, at the same time, not anti-alien in itself because it does not
prohibit the State from granting rights, privileges and concessions to foreigners in the absence
of qualified Filipinos. He also argued that the petitioner is estopped from assailing the winning
bid of Renong Berhad because the former knew the rules of the bidding and that the foreigners
are qualified, too.

Citation preview
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL vs. GSIS G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

Facts: Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to a privatization program,

decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of
Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). In the close bidding only two (2) bidders participated: Manila
Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC at
P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, which bid for the same at P44.00 per
share. Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning bidder/strategic partner and
the execution of the necessary contracts, MHC in a letter to GSIS matched the bid price of
P44.00 per share tendered by Renong Berhad. In a subsequent letter MHC sent a managers
check for Thirty-three Million Pesos (P33,000,000.00) as Bid Security to match the bid of the
Malaysian Group which respondent GSIS refused to accept. Perhaps apprehensive that GSIS
CASE 5
has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC by GSIS
with Renong Berhad might be consummate, MHC came to the Supreme Court on prohibition
and mandamus resulting to the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining GSIS from
perfecting and consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm.

Arguments: MHC invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submits
that the Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a
historical monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture. To all
intents and purposes, it has become a part of the national patrimony. Thus, any transaction
involving 51% of the shares of stock of the MHC is clearly covered by the term national
economy, to which Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, 1987 Constitution, applies. Since Manila
Hotel is part of the national patrimony and its business also unquestionably part of the
national economy petitioner should be preferred after it has matched the bid offer of the
Malaysian firm under the Filipino First Policy enshrined in the Constitution. On the other
hand, GSIS maintained that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a
statement of principle and policy since it is not a self-executing provision and requires
implementing legislations. Issue: Whether or not Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987
Constitution a self-executing provision?

Ruling: Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and principles. Their
provisions command the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the framers
who merely establish an outline of government providing for the different departments of the
governmental machinery and securing certain fundamental and inalienable rights of citizens. A
provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of the 1987
Constitution, is usually not selfexecuting. But a provision which is complete in itself and
becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which
supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is
self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the
right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be
determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language
indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action.

Quite apparently, Sec. 10, second par., of Art XII is couched in such a way as not to make it
appear that it is non-self-executing but simply for purposes of style. Respondents argue that
the non-selfexecuting nature of Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII is implied from the tenor of the
first and third paragraphs of the same section which undoubtedly are not self-executing. The
argument is flawed. If the first and third paragraphs are not self-executing because Congress is
still to enact measures to encourage the formation and operation of enterprises fully owned by
Filipinos, as in the first paragraph, and the State still needs legislation to regulate and exercise
authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction, as in the third paragraph,
then a fortiori, by the same logic, the second paragraph can only be self-executing as it does
not by its language require any legislation in order to give preference to qualified Filipinos in
the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. A
constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part and non-selfexecuting in another. On
the other hand, Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive
command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing
laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not require any
legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially enforceable. When our Constitution
mandates that [i]n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering national economy
and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that -
qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. 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.
Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium.