EN BANC
[G.R. No. 203603. January 8, 2013.]
LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO, petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS [COMELEC]), respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated January 8, 2013,which reads as follows: aIcSED
"G.R. No. 203603 (Louis 'Barok' C. Biraogo v. Commission on Elections [COMELEC]).— In the instant motion for reconsideration of the Court's Resolution dated November 13, 2012 dismissing the instant petition for mandamus seeking the enforcement of the constitutional prohibition against political dynasties, petitioner invokes the ruling in Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System 1 which declared that the Supreme Court is not devoid of power to provide a remedy where Congress deliberately fails to enact legislation explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.
Concomitantly, and in reiteration of his earlier motion, petitioner advances the opinion that the appointment of an amicus curiae in the instant proceedings, more particularly the ponente of the Manila Prince Hotel case in the person of the distinguished retired Supreme Court Justice Josue Bellosillo, will help in the judicious resolution of the issue.
However, reliance on the Manila Prince Hotel case is misplaced. In the said case, the Court upheld the bid of a Filipino corporation against that of a foreign corporation in the acquisition of shares in the Manila Hotel Corporation which owns the historic Manila Hotel, on the strength of the self-executing provision of Section 10, 2nd paragraph, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which states that 'in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.' The Court declared therein that the constitutional provision, also known as the Filipino First Policy, is a mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement, 2 and that, from its very words, does not require any legislation to put it in operation. 3
On the other hand, it is evident from the plain wordings of the provision against political dynasties, particularly, Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, which reads: 'the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law,' that it is not self-executing but is simply a statement of a general principle which further requires a law passed by Congress to define and give effect thereto. 4
Presently, the Court does not find the appointment of an amicus curiae indispensable and, accordingly, DENIES the instant motion for reconsideration." (adv95) TDEASC
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. G.R. No. 122156 February 3, 1997, 267 SCRA 408.
2. Id. at 436.
3. Id.
4. See Basco v. PAGCOR,274 Phil. 323, 343 (1991).