A. In the case of MPHC [Petitioner] (Manila Prince Hotel Corporation) vs GSIS [Respondent] (Government Service Insurance System), GSIS—the respondent, loses the case mainly due to the existence of the Filipino First Policy, the status of MPHC as a Filipino company, and the cultural significance embedded within the structure that is the Manila Hotel. First, in Section 10, Article XII of the Philippine Constitution it is stated that the Filipino First Policy is put into function with the intention of empowering, prioritizing, and putting Filipino citizens and businesses in a place of management with regards to economic activities and matters concerning national patrimony. With the Filipino prioritization gifted by this policy, foreigners or foreign organizations are deemed less important than their Filipino counterparts in legal issues such as asset obtainment, control over certain economical sectors, etc., all as long as they entail resources that concern national identity, economy, and culture. Continuing on, the establishment of the identity of the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation as a filipino-run business contributed greatly to the final verdict of the Supreme Court. Utilizing the Filipino First Policy, the MPHC remains of top concern and prioritization over the Malaysian firm, Renong Berhad. In the initial bidding for the shares of Manila Hotel, Renong Berhad beat the bid of MPHC by two (2) pesos and forty-two (42) centavos per share, in which the GSIS essentially concluded that the Malaysian firm had gained ownership of these shares, and not the Filipino business MPHC. Despite the MPHC’s donation of thirty-three (33) million pesos and their attempts to match the bid of Renang Berhad, the GSIS had considered these entries invalid, retaining that the Malaysian Firm had won the bid. Albeit this rejection, once the parties had been taken to court, the ruling had made major use of the Filipino First policy, proclaiming that the MPHC held its status as a Filipino business and should therefore be granted prioritization and ownership of the shares of Manila Hotel. Lastly, the cultural significance embodied by the Manila Hotel is classified by the bountiful historical events that have contributed to the development of the Philippines; these memorable events that took place in this very structure (e.g. the temporary usage of the space as Military Headquarters during World War II, notable leaders such as John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, etc.). These events and instances present opportunities for the Philippines to be known on a larger, international scale.
B. Yes. I agree with the court’s decision due to the often overshadowing of the nation’s countrymen. With the Filipinos First policy presented in the Philippine Constitution, I believe it is a step in allowing the Filipino people to show capability in controlling and moderating our own economic affairs without the help of bodies from foreign countries. The popular colonial mindset held by many Filipinos sometimes lead to complacency and subservience in the presence of stronger authoritative figures. Allowing the MPHC to gain ownership over the shares of the Manila Hotel is a statement made in progressing towards a truly independent Philippine nation that proves to be capable in managing our own assets and responsibilities. From a standpoint considering the role of cultural heritage, I believe this ruling contributes to the preservation and further production of even more historically significant milestones in the Philippines. Allowing the Filipino people to take charge of issues concerning our own country and our own people is a promising assertion that these matters will be handled and settled properly, compared to if they were to be managed by that of foreign authority.