3. Liban v.
Gordon
Facts:
Richard J. Gordon (respondent) of the Decision promulgated by this Court on July 15, 2009 (the
Decision), filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration[2] filed on August 27, 2009 by movant-intervenor
Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC), and the latter's Manifestation and Motion to Admit Attached
Position Paper[3] filed on December 23, 2009.
In the Decision,[4] the Court held that respondent did not forfeit his seat in the Senate when he
accepted the chairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors, as "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
prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution."[5] The Decision, however, further
declared void the PNRC Charter "insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation" and
consequently ruled that "the PNRC should incorporate under the Corporation Code and register with the
Securities and Exchange Commission if it wants to be a private corporation."
Issue:
WON PNRC is a private corporation and must incorporate under the Corporation Code and register with
the SEC.
Held:
No. PNRC is a class of its own.
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.
National Societies such as the PNRC act as auxiliaries to the public authorities of their own countries in
the humanitarian field and provide a range of services including disaster relief and health and social
programmes. A National Society partakes of a sui generis character. National societies are
organizations that are directly regulated by international humanitarian law, in contrast to other
ordinary private entities, including NGOs.
The auxiliary status of [a] Red Cross Society means that it is at one and the same time a private
institution and a public service organization because the very nature of its work implies cooperation
with the authorities, a link with the State.
By requiring the PNRC to organize under the Corporation Code just like any other private
corporation, the Decision of July 15, 2009 lost sight of the PNRC’s special status under international
humanitarian law and as an auxiliary of the State, designated to assist it in discharging its obligations
under the Geneva Conventions. Although it is neither a subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the
government, nor a government-owned or -controlled corporation or a subsidiary thereof, as succinctly
explained in the Decision of July 15, 2009, so much so that respondent, under the Decision, was correctly
allowed to hold his position as Chairman thereof concurrently while he served as a Senator, 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. As correctly mentioned by Justice Roberto A. Abad, the sui generis character of PNRC requires us
to approach controversies involving the PNRC on a case-to-case basis.
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.
