G.R. No. 175352, January 18, 2011
DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO and SALVADOR M. VIARI, Petitioners, vs. RICHARD J. GORDON, Respondent. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RED CROSS, Intervenor.

FACTS

Petitioners Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M. Bernardo, and Salvador M. Viari filed a petition. The case involves respondent Senator Richard J. Gordon, who accepted the chairmanship of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of Governors. In a Decision promulgated on July 15, 2009, the Supreme Court held that Senator Gordon did not forfeit his Senate seat because the office of the PNRC Chairman is not a government office or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the constitutional prohibition under Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. However, the same Decision declared void the PNRC Charter (Republic Act No. 95, as amended) insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation and ruled that the PNRC should incorporate under the Corporation Code. Respondent Gordon and intervenor PNRC filed motions for reconsideration and clarification. Respondent argued that the constitutionality of R.A. No. 95 was not raised by the parties and was therefore unnecessary for the Court to decide, and that since the Court found petitioners lacked standing, the pronouncement on the validity of R.A. No. 95 should be considered obiter. The PNRC argued that it was deprived of due process as it was not a party to the original controversy and the constitutionality of its charter was never an issue, that its current charter is Presidential Decree No. 1264 (not an act of Congress), and that its structure is sui generis.

ISSUE

The primary issue for reconsideration is whether the Supreme Court erred in declaring void certain provisions of the PNRC Charter (R.A. No. 95, as amended) on constitutional grounds when such issue was not raised by the parties and was not the lis mota of the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the motions for reconsideration and SET ASIDE its prior pronouncements regarding the nature of the PNRC and the constitutionality of its Charter. The Court held that it should not have declared void sections of R.A. No. 95, as amended. The issue of the charter’s constitutionality was not raised by the parties and was not the lis mota of the case. The Court should have exercised judicial restraint, especially since there was another ground (lack of standing of petitioners) upon which to base its judgment. The Court recognized that the PNRC’s existence as a chartered corporation remained unchallenged on constitutional grounds for over sixty years despite constitutional proscriptions against creating private corporations by special law (under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions). The passage of several laws amending the PNRC Charter is a recognition that the PNRC is not strictly a private corporation contemplated by the constitutional ban. The Court found merit in PNRC’s contention that its structure is sui generis. The PNRC is a unique entity created by legislative fiat as a voluntary organization impressed with public interest, succeeding the chapter of the American Red Cross. It was established after the Philippines adhered to the Geneva Conventions to participate in humanitarian work. Its nature is distinct: while performing humanitarian functions as an auxiliary to the government, it is a neutral entity separate and independent of government control, yet not strictly private in character. Therefore, the Court reconsidered and set aside its earlier declaration of unconstitutionality of the PNRC Charter.