Case Digest (G.R. No. 175352) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M. Bernardo and Salvador M. Viari v. Richard J. Gordon, G.R. No. 175352 (Jan. 18, 2011, En Banc), petitioners challenged Senator Gordon’s concurrent acceptance of the chairmanship of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) as a violation of Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, alleging forfeiture of his Senate seat. The Supreme Court’s original Decision of July 15, 2009 declared that the PNRC Chairman’s post was not a government office or part of a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC), and thus Gordon did not forfeit his seat; but it also voided Sections 1–13 of the PNRC Charter (Republic Act No. 95, as amended) for creating a private corporation by special law. On August 10, 2009, respondent Gordon filed a Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration, and on August 27, 2009, the PNRC intervenor filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration and a Manifestation on December 23, 2009. The issues were fully argued before the Supr Case Digest (G.R. No. 175352) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Case Background
- Petitioners Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M. Bernardo and Salvador M. Viari filed a petition seeking to declare Senator Richard J. Gordon’s Senate seat forfeited under Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution for concurrently serving as Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of Governors.
- The PNRC intervened in the case; respondent Senator Gordon opposed forfeiture.
- July 15, 2009 Decision
- The Court held that the PNRC Chairman’s position is not a government office or in a government-owned or controlled corporation, so Senator Gordon did not forfeit his seat.
- The Court further declared void Sections 1–13 of Republic Act No. 95 (RA 95) as amended (the PNRC Charter) because they create the PNRC as a private corporation by special law, contrary to Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, and ordered the PNRC to incorporate under the Corporation Code.
- Post-Decision Motions
- Respondent’s Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration argued that the constitutionality of RA 95 was never raised by the parties and that the Charter invalidation was therefore obiter dicta.
- PNRC’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration contended:
- It was never a party and had no opportunity for due process on the Charter’s constitutionality.
- Its current legal basis is Presidential Decree No. 1264, not RA 95.
- It is a sui generis, autonomous auxiliary to government under international humanitarian law.
- Respondent later agreed with PNRC’s motion and noted pending legislation recognizing PNRC as a non-governmental organization auxiliary.
Issues:
- Standing and Scope
- Whether the Court erred in deciding the constitutionality of RA 95 when neither the petitioners nor the PNRC initially raised that issue.
- Whether the invalidation of RA 95 provisions should be treated as obiter given the standing ruling and the lack of direct challenge.
- Nature of the PNRC
- Whether the PNRC is strictly a private corporation subject to the constitutional prohibition on special-law creation.
- Whether the PNRC’s sui generis and treaty-mandated status places it outside the private-corporation ban and justifies its charter.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)