Dante Liban et. al. v.

Richard Gordon (Motion for Reconsideration)

G. R. No. 175352 January 18, 2011

FACTS:
Petitioners Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M. Bernardo, and Salvador M. Viari
(petitioners) filed with this Court a Petition to Declare Richard J. Gordon as Having
Forfeited His Seat in the Senate. Petitioners are officers of the Board of Directors of the
Quezon City Red Cross Chapter while respondent is Chairman of the Philippine
National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of Governors.
During respondent’s incumbency as a member of the Senate of the Philippines,
he was elected Chairman of the PNRC during the 23 February 2006 meeting of the
PNRC Board of Governors. Petitioners allege that by accepting the chairmanship of the
PNRC Board of Governors, respondent has ceased to be a member of the Senate as
provided in Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution.
Petitioners claim that in accepting and holding the position of Chairman of the
PNRC Board of Governors, respondent has automatically forfeited his seat in the
Senate, pursuant to Flores v. Drilon, which held that incumbent national legislators
lose their elective posts upon their appointment to another government office.
Respondent insists that the PNRC is not a government-owned or controlled
corporation and that the prohibition under Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution
does not apply in the present case since volunteer service to the PNRC is neither an
office nor an employment.
ISSUE:
Is PNRC a private or government-owned or controlled corporation?
RULING:
PNRC is neither private nor government-owned or controlled corporation. It is
considered a sui-generis.
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.
The PNRC, as a National Society of the International Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement, can neither be classified as an instrumentality of the State, so as
not to lose its character of neutrality as well as its independence, nor strictly as a
private corporation since it is regulated by international humanitarian law and is
treated as an auxiliary of the State. Although the PNRC is neither a subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality of the government, nor a GOCC or a subsidiary thereof,
such a conclusion does not ipso facto imply that the PNRC is a private corporation
within the contemplation of the provision of the Constitution that must be organized
under the Corporation Code. The sui generis character of PNRC requires us to
approach controversies involving the PNRC on a case-to-case basis.
First, the PNRC is not organized for profit. It is an organization dedicated to
assist victims of war and administer relief to those who have been devastated by
calamities, among others. It is entirely devoted to public service. It is not covered by
the prohibition since the Constitution aims to eliminate abuse by the Congress, which
tend to favour personal gain. Secondly, the PNRC was created in order to participate in
the mitigation of the effects of war, as embodied in the Geneva Convention. The
creation of the PNRC is compliance with international treaty obligations. Lastly, the
PNRC is a National Society, an auxiliary of the government. It is not like government
instrumentalities and GOCC. The PNRC is regulated directly by international
humanitarian law, as opposed to local law regulating the other mentioned entities. As
such, it was improper for the Court to have declared certain portions of the PNRC
statute as unconstitutional. However, it is the stand of Justice Carpio that there is no
mandate for the Government to create a National Society to this effect. He also raises
the fact that the PNRC is not sui generis in being a private corporation organized for
public needs. Justice Abad is of the opinion that the PNRC is neither private or
governmental, hence it was within the power of Congress to create.
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.