View full case

DANTE V. LIBAN v. RICHARD J. GORDON

FACTS:

The Supreme Court received a Motion for Clarification and/or for Reconsideration filed by respondent Richard J. Gordon, as well as a Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC). The Court's decision, promulgated on July 15, 2009, previously held that Richard Gordon did not forfeit his seat in the Senate when he accepted the chairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors. The Court further ruled that certain provisions of the PNRC Charter, Republic Act No. 95, were void as they created the PNRC as a private corporation. Respondent Gordon raised grounds for clarification and reconsideration, arguing that the constitutionality of R.A. No. 95 was not raised by the parties. The PNRC also filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, asserting that the decision deprived them of due process and that the current PNRC Charter is Presidential Decree No. 1264, not R.A. No. 95. Following a thorough study of the arguments, the Supreme Court reconsidered its pronouncements regarding the nature of the PNRC and the constitutionality of certain provisions of the PNRC Charter. It acknowledged that the issue of constitutionality was not raised by the parties and should not have been considered.

The Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) was created by an Act of Congress after the Republic of the Philippines became an independent nation on July 6, 1946. The creation of PNRC was in adherence to the Convention of Geneva of July 29, 1929. The PNRC succeeded the chapter of the American Red Cross in the Philippines, which was established since 1917. The PNRC's existence as a chartered corporation was unchallenged despite a constitutional prohibition on the creation of private corporations by special law. The PNRC Charter was amended multiple times, recognizing that the PNRC is not strictly a private corporation but a voluntary organization with public interest. The PNRC's structure is unique and it serves a significant role in promoting the health and welfare of the people in peace and war. The historical background and legal basis of PNRC's creation can be found in various laws, such as R.A. No. 95, as amended by R.A. Nos. 855 and 6373, and P.D. Nos. 1264 and 1643.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the office of the Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) constitute a government office or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution?

  2. Was it proper for the Court to rule on the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 95, the PNRC Charter, even though the issue was not raised by the parties?

RULING:

  1. The office of the Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross is not a government office or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

  2. The Court should not have ruled on the constitutionality of R.A. No. 95, as the issue was not raised by the parties and was not the lis mota of the case. R.A. No. 95 remains valid and constitutional in its entirety.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Judicial Restraint: Courts should avoid ruling on constitutional issues unless absolutely necessary (the very lis mota of the case).

  2. Sui Generis Doctrine: The special, unique status of the PNRC as neither purely public nor purely private, but an auxiliary of the government with international humanitarian roles and obligations.

  3. Auxiliary Functions: National Red Cross Societies act as auxiliary voluntary organizations assisting governments in fulfilling international obligations.

  4. Constitutional Interpretation: Constitutional provisions must be harmonized to support state measures serving the public interest, rather than negating them.

  5. Adherence to International Obligations: Recognition of the humanitarian role of the PNRC in consonance with the Geneva Conventions as part of international law adopted by the Philippines.