Title
Liban vs. Gordon
Case
G.R. No. 175352
Decision Date
Jan 18, 2011
The case questioned whether Senator Gordon forfeited his Senate seat by chairing the PNRC, a sui generis entity aiding government in humanitarian tasks. The Supreme Court ruled the PNRC is neither a government office nor a private corporation, upholding Gordon's seat and the PNRC Charter's constitutionality.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175352)

Applicable Constitutional Provisions and Legal Instruments

Primary constitutional provisions applied: Article VI, Section 13 (prohibition on a Senator holding other government office during term) and Article XII, Section 16 (prohibition on Congress creating private corporations except by general law). The Court also treated the Philippines’ adherence to international humanitarian law (Geneva Conventions) and the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as relevant and as part of the law of the land under Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Relevant precedents and authorities cited include Camporedondo v. NLRC, Feliciano v. Commission on Audit, Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc., and various international materials submitted by PNRC (IFRC/ICRC position papers and the Movement’s statutes).

Core Issues Presented

(1) Whether the office of PNRC Chairman is a “government office” or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) within the meaning of Article VI, Section 13, such that Senator Gordon’s acceptance of the PNRC chairmanship would forfeit his Senate seat.
(2) Whether the PNRC charter (Republic Act No. 95, as amended by R.A. Nos. 855 and 6373 and P.D. Nos. 1264 and 1643) is unconstitutional insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation by special law in violation of Article XII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution.
(3) Whether the Court should have decided the constitutionality of the PNRC Charter when that issue was not raised by the original parties.

Procedural and Standing Considerations

The Court reaffirmed the principle that it will not pass upon constitutional questions unless they are the “very lis mota” or unavoidable issues, citing Alvarez v. PICOP and earlier authorities. It also noted that the petitioners’ standing was questioned in the original Decision (the Court had held petitioners lacked standing to bring a quo warranto) but that the Court nevertheless addressed the merits in the earlier Decision. In this Resolution the Court recognized that the constitutionality of R.A. No. 95 was not raised by the original parties and therefore should not have been decided sua sponte.

Original July 15, 2009 Decision — Holdings Summarized

The Court’s July 15, 2009 decision (as described) initially held: (a) the office of PNRC Chairman is not a government office nor an office in a GOCC for purposes of Article VI, Section 13, so Senator Gordon did not forfeit his Senate seat by accepting the chairmanship; and (b) certain sections of the PNRC Charter (Sections 1–13, and provisions creating it as a private corporation or granting corporate powers) were void because they created the PNRC as a private corporation by special law in violation of the constitutional proscription against special-laws creating private corporations.

Grounds for Respondent’s and PNRC’s Motions

Respondent Gordon argued that the Court erred by deciding the constitutionality of R.A. No. 95 because that issue was not raised by the parties and the Court had disposed of the case on another ground (lack of petitioners’ standing), so the constitutional pronouncement should be treated as obiter. The PNRC contended that: (a) it was not a party and was deprived of due process by having its charter declared void; (b) the constitutionality of the charter was not an issue in the case; (c) its current legal basis is P.D. No. 1264 rather than R.A. No. 95; and (d) the PNRC is sui generis — neither strictly private nor public — functioning as an independent, neutral auxiliary to the State under the Geneva Conventions and the Movement’s Statutes.

Court’s Reconsideration and Resolution — Main Rationale

After review, the Court GRANTED both respondent’s and PNRC’s motions in part and MODIFIED the dispositive portion of the July 15, 2009 Decision. The Court concluded that it should not have declared portions of R.A. No. 95 void because: (1) the constitutionality of R.A. No. 95 was not raised by the original parties and therefore was not the “very lis mota” of the case; (2) the Court should exercise judicial restraint and avoid deciding constitutional questions that are not necessary to resolve the case; and (3) the PNRC’s long-standing existence, distinct historical origins, public service role, treaty-linked creation, and treatment under international humanitarian law support recognition of a sui generis status that precludes mechanically applying the constitutional ban on special-law creation of private corporations. The Resolution explicitly restored R.A. No. 95 “in its entirety” and directed modification of the prior dispositive paragraph so that the only declaration retained is that the office of PNRC Chairman is not a government office or an office in a GOCC for purposes of Article VI, Section 13.

Court’s Findings on PNRC’s Nature and International Law

The Court emphasized the PNRC’s distinctive characteristics: its origin in the Philippines’ adherence to the Geneva Conventions, continuity from the American Red Cross chapter, its designation to perform humanitarian functions contemplated by the Conventions, and its membership in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement governed by the Movement’s Statutes and the Movement’s Fundamental Principles (Humanity, Impartiality, Neutrality, Independence, Voluntary Service, Unity, Universality). Those features, together with the protections and special treatment afforded under international humanitarian law (e.g., Articles 24 and 26 of the First Geneva Convention), persuaded the Court that PNRC is sui generis — not strictly a private corporation and not an instrumentality or GOCC of the State — and that a strict mechanical application of Article XII, Section 16 would improperly disregard treaty obligations and international-law-derived status.

Reconciliation of International Obligations with Constitutional Proscriptions

The Court reasoned that the Constitution adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and that treaty obligations (here, the Geneva Conventions and Movement Statutes) must be reconciled with the Constitution. A rigid application of Article XII, Section 16 to force the PNRC to reconstitute under the Corporation Code would impair the PNRC’s internationally required autonomy and its auxiliary role to public authorities, potentially undermining its neutrality and capacity to fulfill treaty-based humanitarian functions.

Practical and Policy Considerations Emphasized by the Court

The Court noted that declaring the PNRC’s charter void would have immediate and severe practical consequences: sudden organizational disruption after more than sixty years, adverse effects on disaster-relief activities (including blood services), potential damage to the Philippines’ international reputation and fulfillment of treaty obligations, and widespread collateral consequences (tax, immunities, contractual capacity). These pragmatic considerations reinforced the Court’s decision to abstain from invalidating the PNRC Charter.

Concurring Opinion (Justice Abad) — Emphasis on Sui Generis Status and Case-by-Case Approach

Justice Abad concurred, agreeing that the PNRC is sui generis, deriving its character from treaty obligations and international recognition rather than ordinary corporate categories. He emphasized that PNRC’s autonomous status is a recognition requirement of the Movement and that its hybrid nature means disputes involving PNRC should be resolved case-by-case, adjusting rules applicable to ordinary private or public entities as appropriate. Justice Abad agreed that Senator Gordon did not forfeit his seat.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Carpio) — Constitutional Text, Martial-Law Decrees, and Remedy

Justice Carpio dissented from the decision to grant reconsideration and to restore the PNRC Charter in full. He maintained that: (1) Congress’s enactment of R.A. No. 95 creating PNRC as a private corporation by special law violates the constitutional prohibition (traced from the 1935 Constitution through the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions); (2) even P.D. No. 1264 (issued under martial-law legislative power) cannot validly circumvent the constitutional ban, because decrees must still conform to constitutional limits and presidential or emergency legislative actions can be declared void when unconstitutional; (3) PNRC’s private character performing public functions does not exempt it from the categorical constitutional prohibition against special-law creation of private corporations; and (4) the proper constitutional remedy is to void charter provisions that actually create a private corporation and instruct PNRC either to remain unincorporated or to incorporate under the Corporation Code if it seeks private corporate status. Justice Carpio

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms