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. 220399)

Petitioners, Respondent, and Intervenor

• Petitioners: Liban, Bernardo, and Viari, claiming forfeiture of Gordon’s senate seat under Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
• Respondent: Senator Richard J. Gordon.
• Intervenor: Philippine National Red Cross, asserting the validity and unique nature of its charter.

Key Dates

• PNRC Charter enacted by Republic Act No. 95: March 22, 1947.
• Amendments by Presidential Decree (PD) Nos. 1264 (1977) and 1643 (1979).
• Supreme Court Decision on merits: July 15, 2009.
• Resolution on motions for clarification and reconsideration: January 18, 2011.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 13 (incompatibility of dual public offices).
• 1987 Constitution, Article XII, Section 16 (prohibition on private corporations by special law).
• Geneva Conventions and Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Procedural History

Petitioners filed for a declaration that Senator Gordon forfeited his seat by holding office in a government-owned or controlled corporation. The Supreme Court found petitioners lacked standing yet proceeded to rule on the merits. Motions for reconsideration were later filed by Gordon and the PNRC.

Original Decision on Senator’s Seat

The Court held that the PNRC is neither a government office nor a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Senator Gordon therefore did not forfeit his seat upon assuming PNRC chairmanship.

Original Decision on PNRC Charter

Despite upholding Gordon’s position, the Court declared void Sections 1–13 of RA 95 (as amended) for constituting PNRC as a private corporation created by special law, in violation of Article XII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution. Remaining provisions were deemed mere recognition of PNRC’s status under international law.

Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration

Senator Gordon argued that the constitutionality of RA 95 was not a live issue—petitioners lacked standing—so the Court’s declaration of unconstitutionality amounted to obiter dictum and exceeded the case’s scope.

Intervenor’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration

The PNRC contended it was not a party at the time, its charter amendments derived from Presidential decrees (not Congress), and that its sui generis structure as an auxiliary to government under the Geneva Conventions distinguishes it from ordinary private corporations.

Judicial Restraint and Lis Mota Doctrine

The Court reaffirmed that it will not ordinarily decide a constitutional question unless it is the very lis mota or unavoidable. However, upon finding PNRC to be a private corporation, the unconstitutionality of its charter was integral to the Court’s disposition, not mere obiter.

Constitutional Prohibition and PNRC’s Structure

Article XII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution forbids creation of private corporations by special law. The Court held that PNRC, lacking government ownership or control, falls within this ban when created and empowered by RA 95 and its amendments.

PNRC’s Sui Generis Character and International Law

Acknowledging PNRC’s unique status under the Geneva Conventions and Movement Statutes—as an autonomous auxiliary to public authorities—the Court recognized PNRC’s humanitarian mission an


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.