MIGUEL LOUIE SARIGUMBA III

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. 175352, January 18, 2011

Dante Liban, et al.

vs.
Richard Gordon

Facts:

Petitioners Liban, et al., who were officers of the Board of Directors of the Quezon City
Red Cross Chapter, filed with the Supreme Court what they styled as “Petition to Declare
Richard J. Gordon as Having Forfeited His Seat in the Senate” against respondent
Gordon, who was elected Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board
of Governors during his incumbency as Senator. Petitioners alleged that by accepting the
chairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors, respondent Gordon ceased to be a
member of the Senate pursuant to Sec. 13, Article VI of the Constitution, which provides
that “[n]o Senator . . . may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat.” Petitioners
cited the case of Camporedondo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 129049, decided August 6,
1999, which held that the PNRC is a GOCC, in supporting their argument that respondent
Gordon automatically forfeited his seat in the Senate when he accepted and held the
position of Chairman of the PNRC Board of Governors.

Formerly, in its Decision dated July 15, 2009, the Court, voting 7-5, (1) held that
office of the PNRC Chairman is Not a government office or an office in a GOCC for
purposes of the prohibition in Sec. 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. The PNRC
Chairman is elected by the PNRC Board of Governors; he is not appointed by the
President or by any subordinate government official. Moreover, the PNRC is NOT a
GOCC because it is a privately-owned, privately-funded, and privately-run charitable
organization and because it is controlled by a Board of Governors four-fifths of which are
private sector individuals. Therefore, respondent Gordon did not forfeit his legislative seat
when he was elected as PNRC Chairman during his incumbency as Senator.

The Court however held further that the PNRC Charter, R.A. 95, as amended by PD 1264
and 1643, is void insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation since Section 7,
Article XIV of the 1935 Constitution states that “[t]he Congress shall not, except by
general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations,
unless such corporations are owned or controlled by the Government or any subdivision
or instrumentality thereof.” The Court thus directed the PNRC to incorporate under the
Corporation Code and register with the Securities and Exchange Commission if it wants
to be a private corporation. The fallo of the Decision read:

WHEREFORE, we declare that the office of the Chairman of the Philippine

National Red Cross is not a government office or an office in a government-owned or
controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution. We also declare that Sections 1, 2, 3, 4(a), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13
of the Charter of the Philippine National Red Cross, or Republic Act No. 95, as amended
by Presidential Decree Nos. 1264 and 1643, are VOID because they create the PNRC as
a private corporation or grant it corporate powers. Respondent Gordon filed a Motion for
Clarification and/or for Reconsideration of the Decision. The PNRC likewise moved to
intervene and filed its own Motion for Partial Reconsideration. They basically questioned
the second part of the Decision with regard to the pronouncement on the nature of the
PNRC and the constitutionality of some provisions of the PNRC Charter.
Issue/s:

Was it correct for the Court to have passed upon and decided on the issue of the
constitutionality of the PNRC charter? Corollary: What is the nature of the PNRC?

Ruling:

[The Court GRANTED reconsideration and MODIFIED the dispositive portion of the
Decision by deleting the second sentence thereof.]

NO, it was not correct for the Court to have decided on the constitutional issue because
it was not the very lis mota of the case. The PNRC is sui generis in nature; it is neither
strictly a GOCC nor a private corporation. The issue of constitutionality of R.A. No. 95
was not raised by the parties, and was not among the issues defined in the body of the
Decision. Thus, it was not the very lis mota of the case. We have reiterated the rule as to
when the Court will consider the issue of constitutionality in Alvarez v. PICOP Resources,
Inc., thus:

This Court will not touch the issue of unconstitutionality unless it is the very lis mota. It is
a well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a constitutional question and
decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised by the
parties and that when it is raised, if the record also presents some other ground upon
which the court may [rest] its judgment, that course will be adopted and the constitutional
question will be left for consideration until such question will be unavoidable. This
Court should not have declared void certain sections of . . . the PNRC Charter. Instead,
the Court should have exercised judicial restraint on this matter, especially since there
was some other ground upon which the Court could have based its
judgment. Furthermore, the PNRC, the entity most adversely affected by this declaration
of unconstitutionality, which was not even originally a party to this case, was being
compelled, as a consequence of the Decision, to suddenly reorganize and incorporate
under the Corporation Code, after more than sixty (60) years of existence in this country.

Since its enactment, the PNRC Charter was amended several times, particularly on June
11, 1953, August 16, 1971, December 15, 1977, and October 1, 1979, by virtue of R.A.
No. 855, R.A. No. 6373, P.D. No. 1264, and P.D. No. 1643, respectively. The passage
of several laws relating to the PNRC’s corporate existence notwithstanding the effectivity
of the constitutional proscription on the creation of private corporations by law is a
recognition that the PNRC is not strictly in the nature of a private corporation
contemplated by the aforesaid constitutional ban. A closer look at the nature of the PNRC
would show that there is none like it[,] not just in terms of structure, but also in terms of
history, public service and official status accorded to it by the State and
the international community. There is merit in PNRC’s contention that its structure is sui
generis. It is in recognition of this sui generis character of the PNRC that R.A. No. 95 has
remained valid and effective from the time of its enactment in March 22, 1947 under the
1935 Constitution and during the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution and the 1987
Constitution. The PNRC Charter and its amendatory laws have not been questioned or
challenged on constitutional grounds, not even in this case before the Court now. This
Court [must] recognize the country’s adherence to the Geneva Convention and respect
the unique status of the PNRC in consonance with its treaty obligations. The Geneva
Convention has the force and effect of law. Under the Constitution, the Philippines adopts
the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. This
constitutional provision must be reconciled and harmonized with Article XII, Section 16 of
the Constitution, instead of using the latter to negate the former.

In sum, the PNRC enjoys a special status as an important ally and auxiliary of the
government in the humanitarian field in accordance with its commitments under
international law. This Court cannot all of a sudden refuse to recognize its existence,
especially since the issue of the constitutionality of the PNRC Charter was never raised
by the parties. It bears emphasizing that the PNRC has responded to almost all national
disasters since 1947, and is widely known to provide a substantial portion of the country’s
blood requirements. Its humanitarian work is unparalleled. The Court should not shake
its existence to the core in an untimely and drastic manner that would not only have
negative consequences to those who depend on it in times of disaster and armed
hostilities but also have adverse effects on the image of the Philippines in the international
community. The sections of the PNRC Charter that were declared void must therefore
stay.

Thus, R.A. No. 95 remains valid and constitutional in its entirety. The Court MODIFIED
the dispositive portion of the Decision by deleting the second sentence, to now read as
follows:

WHEREFORE, we declare that the office of the Chairman of the Philippine National Red
Cross is not a government office or an ooffice in a government-owned or controlled
corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution.