Liban v. Gordon
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M. Bernardo, and Salvador M. Viari filed a petition questioning respondent Richard J. Gordon's continued occupancy of his Senate seat after accepting the chairmanship of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of Governors. The Supreme Court, in a Decision promulgated on July 15, 2009, held that the PNRC Chairman's office was not a government office for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. However, the Court also declared void certain sections of the PNRC Charter (Republic Act No. 95, as amended) for creating the PNRC as a private corporation. Procedural History: Respondent Richard J. Gordon filed a Motion for Clarification and/or for Reconsideration, arguing that the constitutionality of R.A. No. 95 was not raised by the parties and thus the Court's pronouncement on its validity was obiter dictum. The movant-intervenor Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) also filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, asserting that its constitutional right to due process was violated as it was not a party to the case and the constitutionality of its charter was never an issue. The PNRC also argued that its current charter is Presidential Decree No. 1264, not R.A. No. 95, and that its structure is sui generis. The Petition: The core of the motions for reconsideration was to revisit the Supreme Court's declaration of the unconstitutionality of the PNRC Charter and its subsequent directive for the PNRC to incorporate under the Corporation Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court erred in declaring certain sections of the PNRC Charter (R.A. No. 95, as amended) void for creating the PNRC as a private corporation when the issue of its constitutionality was not raised by the parties. Whether the PNRC possesses a sui generis character that exempts it from the constitutional prohibition against the creation of private corporations by special law. Whether the declaration of unconstitutionality of the PNRC Charter violated the PNRC's right to due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the Motion for Clarification and/or for Reconsideration filed by respondent Richard J. Gordon and the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by movant-intervenor Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC). The Court MODIFIED the dispositive portion of its July 15, 2009 Decision by deleting the declaration that Sections 1, 2, 3, 4(a), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the PNRC Charter (Republic Act No. 95, as amended) are VOID. The Court held that R.A. No. 95 remains valid and constitutional in its entirety.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of passing upon the constitutionality of R.A. No. 95: The Court held that it should not have declared void certain sections of R.A. No. 95, as amended, because the issue of its constitutionality was not raised by the parties and was not the lis mota of the case. Citing Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc., the Court reiterated the rule that it will not pass upon a constitutional question unless it is the very lis mota and if the case can be disposed of on some other ground. In this instance, the Court could have based its judgment on the standing of the petitioners, making the pronouncement on the constitutionality of the PNRC Charter unnecessary and improper. The PNRC, as the entity most adversely affected, was not even an original party to the case, and the declaration compelled it to reorganize after decades of existence. On the sui generis character of the PNRC: The Court found merit in the PNRC's contention that its structure is sui generis. It is a chartered corporation created by legislative fiat, impressed with public interest, and recognized by international humanitarian law. The PNRC succeeds the chapter of the American Red Cross and adheres to the Geneva Conventions, performing humanitarian functions as an auxiliary to government authorities. Its unique status is recognized internationally, and it is regulated by international humanitarian law, distinguishing it from ordinary private entities or NGOs. This sui generis character means it is neither strictly private nor public, and its charter, R.A. No. 95, enacted in 1947, has remained valid despite constitutional proscriptions against creating private corporations by special law, as it does not grant special privileges but serves the common good. On the violation of due process: The Court acknowledged that the PNRC was not an original party to the controversy and that the constitutionality of its Charter was never an issue raised by the parties. The declaration of unconstitutionality in the original Decision compelled the PNRC to suddenly reorganize and incorporate under the Corporation Code after more than sixty years of existence. This action, without the PNRC being given an opportunity to be heard on the matter of its Charter's constitutionality, could be construed as a deprivation of its right to due process. The Court emphasized that its treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which have the force and effect of law, must be respected and harmonized with the Constitution, rather than using a strict interpretation of Article XII, Section 16 of the Constitution to negate them.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified its previous ruling, holding that the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) possesses a sui generis character, being neither strictly a private corporation nor a government entity, and thus its charter (R.A. No. 95, as amended) remains valid and constitutional. The Court also clarified that the constitutionality of the PNRC Charter was not an issue raised by the parties and should not have been passed upon in the original decision.