Case Summary (G.R. No. 175352)
Relevant Dates and Acts (selection)
PNRC charter enacted by Republic Act No. 95 (March 22, 1947) and later amended (notably by P.D. No. 1264); Senator Gordon elected to the Senate in May 2004; alleged election as PNRC Chairman cited as February 23, 2006. (Decision uses the 1987 Constitution as governing law.)
Applicable Law and Procedural Rules
- 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 13 (prohibition on Members of Congress holding other government office or employment during their term).
- Rules of Court, Rule 66 (quo warranto proceedings), including Sections 1 and 5 concerning actions by the Republic and private claimants.
- Administrative Code (definition of government-owned or controlled corporation, GOCC) and related precedents (Camporedondo, Flores v. Drilon, Feliciano v. Commission on Audit) as considered by the Court.
The Petition and Principal Claim
Petitioners sought a judicial declaration that Senator Gordon forfeited his Senate seat by accepting and holding the PNRC chairmanship, alleging the PNRC is a government-owned or controlled corporation and that Section 13, Article VI mandates automatic forfeiture upon holding another government office.
Court’s Characterization of the Action and Standing
The Court treated the petition as an action for quo warranto under Section 1(b), Rule 66 because petitioners alleged a public officer committed an act constituting a ground for forfeiture. Under Section 5, Rule 66 only a person claiming entitlement to the office may bring a quo warranto in his own name; accordingly, petitioners—who did not claim entitlement to the Senate seat—lack standing. The Court therefore found the petition procedurally infirm for want of locus to pursue quo warranto on their own behalf.
Alternative Treatment as Taxpayer Suit and Jurisdiction
The Court noted petitioners’ alternative contention that the action is a taxpayer’s suit alleging unlawful disbursement (salary and emoluments paid to a person no longer entitled to the office). The Court nonetheless proceeded to resolve the substantive constitutional question, finding the petition without merit on the merits even if treated otherwise.
Nature of the PNRC — Court’s Finding of Private Organization Performing Public Functions
The Court analyzed the PNRC Charter, its membership and financing, and the structure of its Board of Governors. It emphasized that:
- PNRC is a non-profit, donor-funded, voluntary humanitarian organization and National Society of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, required by Movement statutes to be autonomous, neutral and independent.
- PNRC financing is primarily private contributions (Section 11 of the Charter) and it does not receive regular congressional appropriations nor does the State own its assets.
- The Board of Governors consists of thirty members of whom only six are presidential appointees; the majority (24 of 30) are chosen by private-sector members, indicating private-sector control.
- The PNRC Chairman is elected by the Board, not appointed by the President or other executive head, and the President lacks power to review or reverse PNRC board decisions in ordinary governance.
On this basis the Court concluded the PNRC is a private entity (a private organization performing public humanitarian functions) and that the PNRC Chairmanship is not a government office or an office in a GOCC for purposes of Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
Analysis of GOCC Status and Precedent
The Court addressed prior authority (Camporedondo) that had labeled PNRC a GOCC and contrasted that with the statutory definition of GOCC in the Administrative Code (ownership/control by the Government is a necessary element). The Court held that creation by special charter alone does not make an entity a GOCC absent government ownership or control; since PNRC lacks such ownership/control in fact, it is not a GOCC under the Administrative Code definition and thus PNRC Chairmanship is not an office covered by the constitutional prohibition.
Constitutionality of the PNRC Charter — Severance and Void Provisions
Noting that Congress in 1947 created PNRC by special law, the Court held that Congress cannot create private corporations by special law under the constitutional prohibition, and therefore the charter provisions that create PNRC as a private corporate entity are unconstitutional. The Court declared Sections 1, 2, 3, 4(a), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of R.A. No. 95, as amended, VOID insofar as they create PNRC as a private corporation or grant it corporate powers. The Court, however, sustained as valid those provisions that reflect recognition of an unincorporated national society and that implement treaty obligations: specifically Sections 4(b) and (c), 14, 15, 16 and 17 remain valid.
Practical Effect and Directive
The Court concluded that, for constitutional purposes, the office of PNRC Chairman is not a government office nor an office in a GOCC; consequently, Senator Gordon’s acceptance and holding of that chairmanship did not cause automatic forfeiture of his Senate seat under Section 13, Article VI. The Court nevertheless directed that the PNRC should incorporate under the Corporation Code and register with the Securities and Exchange Commission if it wishes to be a private corporation, given that the charter provisions creating it as a private corporation were void.
Dissent — Procedural Posture and Standing (Justice Nachura)
Justice Nachura dissented in part, arguing the petition should be treated as one for prohibition (preventive relief) rather than quo warranto, and that petitioners as citizens and taxpayers had standing to seek relief concerning continuous constitutional violations of public office. He emphasized the Court should not let procedural labels impede adjudication of important constitutional questions.
Dissent — PNRC as GOCC or Government Instrumentality
The dissent maintained that PNRC is a government-owned or controlled corporation or at least a government instrumentality, relying on: the charter language designating PNRC to assist the Republic in performing Geneva Convention obligations; governmental participation in the Board (including presidential appointees and designation of the President as Honorary President); statutory exemptions and allotments (e.g., PCSO lottery draws); and analogies to U.S. jurisprudence treating the American Red Cross as a federal instrumentality. The dissent criticized the majority’s reliance on ownership-control tests to the exclusion of the charter’s public
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 175352)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petitioners Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M. Bernardo, and Salvador M. Viari, officers of the Board of Directors of the Quezon City Red Cross Chapter, filed with the Supreme Court a "Petition to Declare Richard J. Gordon as Having Forfeited His Seat in the Senate."
- The petition seeks a declaration that respondent Senator Richard J. Gordon forfeited his Senate seat upon accepting and holding the Chairmanship of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of Governors, and seeks to restrain respondent from acting or representing himself as a Senator and from collecting salaries and emoluments.
- The Supreme Court considered questions of standing, the nature of the PNRC, the applicability of Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution, and the constitutionality of provisions of the PNRC Charter (Republic Act No. 95, as amended).
Parties
- Petitioners: Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M. Bernardo, Salvador M. Viari — officers of the Board of Directors, Quezon City Red Cross Chapter.
- Respondent: Senator Richard J. Gordon — Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross Board of Governors and incumbent Senator (elected May 2004).
Relevant Facts
- Respondent was elected Senator in May 2004.
- Respondent had been a Red Cross volunteer for about 40 years and was elected Chairman of the PNRC Board of Governors in 2003, re-elected in 2005, and again elected Chairman during the PNRC Board meeting of 23 February 2006.
- Petitioners allege respondent accepted and exercised the chairmanship during his incumbency as Senator and thereby ceased to be a Senator under Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution.
- Petitioners relied on prior jurisprudence (Camporedondo v. NLRC) holding PNRC a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) and on Flores v. Drilon (appointment to another government office effects forfeiture).
- Respondent contended petitioners lacked standing, that the petition was in form a quo warranto (or barred by prescription), that as a taxpayer they could not raise the constitutional question absent injury or illegal public fund disbursement, that declaratory relief jurisdiction lies with the RTC, that PNRC is not a GOCC, and that volunteer service is not an office or employment.
Issues Presented
- Whether the PNRC is a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) or a government instrumentality.
- Whether Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution applies to respondent’s holding of the PNRC Chairmanship while serving as Senator.
- Whether respondent should be automatically removed as Senator pursuant to Section 13, Article VI.
- Whether petitioners have legal standing to institute the petition.
Governing Legal Provisions and Authorities Cited
- Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution: prohibition on members of Congress holding other government office or employment during term (including GOCCs) under penalty of forfeiture.
- Section 1, Rule 66, Rules of Court: action for usurpation of public office (quo warranto), including public officers who do or suffer an act which by law constitutes ground for forfeiture.
- Section 5 and Section 11, Rule 66 (procedural requirements and prescription for quo warranto actions).
- Section 2(13), Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987: definition of government-owned or controlled corporation.
- Sections of the PNRC Charter (Republic Act No. 95), as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 1264 and 1643, including provisions on corporate creation, purposes, Board of Governors composition, membership, funding, exemptions, and annual reporting.
- Article 4 of the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (conditions for recognition and requirement of autonomy).
- Jurisprudence cited in the parties’ pleadings and opinions: Camporedondo v. NLRC; Flores v. Drilon; Feliciano v. Commission on Audit; Rufino/Endriga cases; Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary; Adaza v. Pacana, Jr.; and other supervisory and definitional authorities referenced in the ponencia and dissent.
Petitioners’ Main Contentions
- PNRC is a GOCC (relying on Camporedondo v. NLRC).
- By accepting the chairmanship of PNRC Board of Governors while an incumbent Senator, respondent automatically forfeited his Senate seat under Section 13, Article VI.
- The forfeiture is immediate and petitioners seek enforcement; respondent’s continued exercise of senatorial functions results in unlawful collection of salaries and emoluments and injury to the Government and people.
- Petitioners characterize the action as a taxpayer’s suit in some pleadings, alleging unlawful disbursement of funds to respondent as an unentitled Senator.
Respondent’s Main Defenses and Contentions
- Petitioners lack standing: the pleading constitutes a quo warranto action that should be brought by the Government or by a person who claims entitlement to the office; petitioners do not claim entitlement to respondent’s Senate seat.
- If the petition is treated as quo warranto, it is time-barred under Section 11, Rule 66.
- If treated as a taxpayer’s suit, petitioners failed to allege actual damage or threatened injury and fail to allege illegal disbursement or diversion of public funds; taxpayer suits must concern public funds or restraining enforcement of invalid law.
- If treated as declaratory relief, original jurisdiction lies with the Regional Trial Court, not the Supreme Court.
- PNRC is not a GOCC; PNRC service as volunteer is not an "office" or "employment" contemplated by Section 13, Article VI.
Supreme Court Majority Holding — Disposition and Core Rulings
- The petition is dismissed for lack of standing: the petition, as pleaded, is an action for quo warranto under Section 1(b), Rule 66 (a public officer who does or suffers an act which by law constitutes ground for forfeiture). Petitioners did not claim entitlement to the Senate office; under Section 5, Rule 66 a private individual may only file quo warranto in his own name if he claims entitlement to the office.
- On the merits (in the alternative), the Court ruled that the PNRC is a private, autonomous, voluntary, non-profit organization performing public humanitarian functions but not a government-owned or controlled corporation for purposes of Section 13, Article VI:
- PNRC was created by Republic Act No. 95 (March 22, 1947) as a voluntary, donor-funded humanitarian organization designated to assist the Republic in discharging Geneva Convention obligations.
- PNRC’s mission and Fundamental Principles require autonomy, neutrality and independence to preserve trust in conflict situations; thus it must be and be seen to be autonomous and not government-controlled.
- The PNRC does not have government assets, does not receive congressional appropriations,