32.Liban vs Gordon GR 175352 Dtd 7-15-09

8/20/2019 32.Liban vs Gordon GR 175352 Dtd 7-15-09

1/9

EN BANC

DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO, and SALVADOR M. VIARI,

Petitioners,

- versus -

RICHARD J. GORDON, Respondent.

G.R. No. 175352

Present:

PUNO, C.J. ,QUISUMBING,YNARES-SANTIAGO,CARPIO,CORONA,CARPIO MORALES,CHICO-NAZARIO,VELASCO, JR.,

NACHURA,LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,

BRION,PERALTA, and

BERSAMIN, JJ .

Promulgated:July 15, 2009

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J. :

The Case

This is a petition to declare Senator Richard J. Gordon (respondent) as having forfeited his seat in the Senate.

The Facts

Petitioners Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M. Bernardo, and Salvador M. Viari (petitioners) filed with this Courta Petition to Declare Richard J. Gordon as Having Forfeited His Seat in the Senate . Petitioners are officers of theBoard of Directors of the Quezon City Red Cross Chapter while respondent is Chairman of the Philippine NationalRed Cross (PNRC) Board of Governors.

During respondent’s incumbency as a member of the Senate of the Philippines ,[1]

he was elected Chairman of thePNRC during the 23 February 2006 meeting of the PNRC Board of Governors. Petitioners allege that by accepting thechairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors, respondent has ceased to be a member of the Senate as provided inSection 13, Article VI of the Constitution, which reads:

SEC. 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office oremployment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, includinggovernment-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeitinghis seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emolumentsthereof increased during the term for which he was elected.

Petitioners cite Camporedondo v. NLRC ,[2] which held that the PNRC is a government-owned or controlledcorporation. Petitioners claim that in accepting and holding the position of Chairman of the PNRC Board of

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn1


2/9

Governors, respondent has automatically forfeited his seat in the Senate, pursuant to Flores v. Drilon ,[3] which held thatincumbent national legislators lose their elective posts upon their appointment to another government office.

In his Comment, respondent asserts that petitioners have no standing to file this petition which appears to be anaction for quo warranto, since the petition alleges that respondent committed an act which, by provision of law,constitutes a ground for forfeiture of his public office. Petitioners do not claim to be entitled to the Senate office ofrespondent. Under Section 5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, only a person claiming to be entitled to a publicoffice usurped or unlawfully held by another may bring an action for quo warranto in his own name. If the petition isone for quo warranto, it is already barred by prescription since under Section 11, Rule 66 of the Rules of CivilProcedure, the action should be commenced within one year after t he cause of the public officer’s forfeiture of office.In this case, respondent has been working as a Red Cross volunteer for the past 40 years. Respondent was alreadyChairman of the PNRC Board of Governors when he was elected Senator in May 2004, having been elected Chairmanin 2003 and re-elected in 2005.

Respondent contends that even if the present petition is treated as a taxpayer’s suit, petitioners cannot be allowedto raise a constitutional question in the absence of any claim that they suffered some actual damage or threatened injuryas a result of the allegedly illegal act of respondent. Furthermore, taxpayers are allowed to sue only when there is aclaim of illegal disbursement of public funds, or that public money is being diverted to any improper purpose, or where

petitioners seek to restrain respondent from enforcing an invalid law that results in wastage of public funds.

Respondent also maintains that if the petition is treated as one for declaratory relief, this Court would have no jurisdiction since original jurisdiction for declaratory relief lies with the Regional Trial Court.

Respondent further 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 tothe PNRC is neither an office nor an employment.

In their Reply, petitioners claim that their petition is neither an action for quo warranto nor an action fordeclaratory relief. Petitioners maintain that the present petition is a taxpayer’s suit questioning the unlawful

disbursement of funds, considering that respondent has been drawing his salaries and other compensation as a Senatoreven if he is no longer entitled to his office. Petitioners point out that this Court has jurisdiction over this petition sinceit involves a legal or constitutional issue which is of transcendental importance.

The Issues

Petitioners raise the following issues:

1. Whether the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) is a government- owned or controlledcorporation;

2. Whether Section 13, Article VI of the Philippine Constitution applies to the case of respondent

who is Chairman of the PNRC and at the same time a Member of the Senate;

3. Whether respondent should be automatically removed as a Senator pursuant to Section 13,Article VI of the Philippine Constitution; and

4. Whether petitioners may legally institute this petition against respondent .[4]

The substantial issue boils down to whether the office of the PNRC Chairman is a government office or an officein a government-owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of theConstitution.

The Court’s Ruling



3/9

We find the petition without merit.

Petiti oners Have No Standing to F il e thi s Petiti on

A careful reading of the petition reveals that it is an action for quo warranto. Section 1, Rule 66 of the Rules of

Court provides:

Section 1. Action by Government against individuals. – An action for the usurpation of apublic office , position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the nameof the Republic of the Philippines against :

(a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise;

(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which by provision of law, constitutes a ground for theforfeiture of his office ; or

(c) An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated orwithout lawful authority so to act. (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioners allege in their petition that:

4. Respondent became the Chairman of the PNRC when he was elected as such during theFirst Regular Luncheon-Meeting of the Board of Governors of the PNRC held on February 23, 2006,the minutes of which is hereto attached and made integral part hereof as Annex “A.”

5. Respondent was elected as Chairman of the PNRC Board of Governors, during hisincumbency as a Member of the House of Senate of the Congress of the Philippines, having beenelected as such during the national elections last May 2004.

6. Since his election as Chairman of the PNRC Board of Governors, which position he duly accepted,respondent has been exercising the powers and discharging the functions and duties of said office, despite the fact thathe is still a senator.

7. It is the respectful submission of the petitioner[s] that by accepting the chairmanship of the Board of

Governors of the PNRC, respondent has ceased to be a Member of the House of Senate as provided in Section13, Article VI of the Philippine Constitution , x x x

x x x x10. It is respectfully submitted that in accepting the position of Chairman of the Board of Governors of the

PNRC on February 23, 2006, respondent has automatically forfeited his seat in the House of Senate and,therefore, has long ceased to be a Senator , pursuant to the ruling of this Honorable Court in the case of FLORES, ETAL. VS. DRILON AND GORDON, G.R. No. 104732, x x x

11. Despite the fact that he is no longer a senator, respondent continues to act as such and still performs the powers, functions and duties of a senator, contrary to the constitution, law and jurisprudence.

12. Unless restrained, therefore, respondent will continue to falsely act and represent himself as a senator ormember of the House of Senate, collecting the salaries, emoluments and other compensations, benefits and privilegesappertaining and due only to the legitimate senators, to the damage, great and irreparable injury of the Government andthe Filipino people .[5] (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, petitioners are alleging that by accepting the position of Chairman of the PNRC Board of Governors,respondent has automatically forfeited his seat in the Senate. In short, petitioners filed an action for usurpationof public office against respondent, a public officer who allegedly committed an act which constitutes a ground for theforfeiture of his public office. Clearly, such an action is for quo warranto, specifically under Section 1(b), Rule 66 ofthe Rules of Court.

Quo warranto is generally commenced by the Government as the proper party plaintiff. However, under Section5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, an individual may commence such an action if he claims to be entitled to the publicoffice allegedly usurped by another, in which case he can bring the action in his own name. The person instituting quowarranto proceedings in his own behalf must claim and be able to show that he is entitled to the office in dispute,otherwise the action may be dismissed at any stage .[6] In the present case, petitioners do not claim to be entitled to theSenate office of respondent. Clearly, petitioners have no standing to file the present petition.



4/9


5/9

5. VOLUNTARY SERVICE – It is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner bydesire for gain.

6. UNITY – There can be only one Red Cross or one Red Crescent Society in any one country. It must be open to all.It must carry on its humanitarian work throughout its territory.7. UNIVERSALITY – The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in which all Societies have equalstatus and share equal responsibilities and duties in helping each other, is worldwide. (Emphasis supplied)

The Fundamental Principles provide a universal standard of reference for all members of the Movement. ThePNRC, as a member National Society of the Movement, has the duty to uphold the Fundamental Principles and idealsof the Movement. In order to be recognized as a National Society, the PNRC has to be autonomous and must operatein conformity with the Fundamental Principles of the Movement . [11]

The reason for this autonomy is fundamental. To be accepted by warring belligerents as neutral workers duringinternational or internal armed conflicts, the PNRC volunteers must not be seen as belonging to any side of the armedconflict. In the Philippines where there is a communist insurgency and a Muslim separatist rebellion, the PNRC cannot

be seen as government-owned or controlled, and neither can the PNRC volunteers be identified as government personnel or as instruments of government policy. Otherwise, the insurgents or separatists will treat PNRC volunteersas enemies when the volunteers tend to the wounded in the battlefield or the displaced civilians in conflict areas.

Thus, the PNRC must not only be, but must also be seen to be, autonomous, neutral and independent in order toconduct its activities in accordance with the Fundamental Principles. The PNRC must not appear to be an instrument oragency that implements government policy; otherwise, it cannot merit the trust of all and cannot effectively carry out itsmission as a National Red Cross Society .[12] It is imperative that the PNRC must be autonomous, neutral, andindependent in relation to the State.

To ensure and maintain its autonomy, neutrality, and independence, the PNRC cannot be owned or controlled bythe government. Indeed, the Philippine government does not own the PNRC. The PNRC does not have governmentassets and does not receive any appropriation from the Philippine Congress . [13] The PNRC is financed primarily bycontributions from private individuals and private entities obtained through solicitation campaigns organized by itsBoard of Governors, as provided under Section 11 of the PNRC Charter:

SECTION 11. As a national voluntary organization, the Philippine National Red Cross shallbe financed primarily by contributions obtained through solicitation campaigns throughout theyear which shall be organized by the Board of Governors and conducted by the Chapters intheir respective jurisdictions. These fund raising campaigns shall be conducted independently ofother fund drives by other organizations. (Emphasis supplied)

The government does not control the PNRC. Under the PNRC Charter, as amended, only six of the thirtymembers of the PNRC Board of Governors are appointed by the President of the Philippines. Thus, twenty-fourmembers, or four-fifths (4/5), of the PNRC Board of Governors are not appointed by the President. Section 6 of thePNRC Charter, as amended, provides:

SECTION 6. The governing powers and authority shall be vested in a Board of Governorscomposed of thirty members, six of whom shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines,eighteen shall be elected by chapter delegates in biennial conventions and the remaining six shall beselected by the twenty-four members of the Board already chosen. x x x.

Thus, of the twenty-four members of the PNRC Board, eighteen are elected by the chapter delegates of the PNRC, andsix are elected by the twenty-four members already chosen — a select group where the private sector members havethree-fourths majority. Clearly, an overwhelming majority of four-fifths of the PNRC Board are elected orchosen by the private sector members of the PNRC .

The PNRC Board of Governors, which exercises all corporate powers of the PNRC, elects the PNRC Chairmanand all other officers of the PNRC. The incumbent Chairman of PNRC, respondent Senator Gordon, was elected, asall PNRC Chairmen are elected, by a private sector-controlled PNRC Board four-fifths of whom are private sectormembers of the PNRC. The PNRC Chairman is not appointed by the President or by any subordinate governmentofficial.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn11


6/9

Under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution ,[14] the President appoints all officials and employees in theExecutive branch whose appointments are vested in the President by the Constitution or by law. The President alsoappoints those whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law. Under this Section 16, the law may alsoauthorize the “heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards” to appoint officers lower in rank than suchheads of departments, agencies, commissions or boards .[15] In Rufino v. Endriga ,[16] the Court explainedappointments under Section 16 in this wise:

Under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the President appoints three groups ofofficers. The first group refers to the heads of the Executive departments, ambassadors, other publicministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, andother officers whose appointments are vested in the President by the Constitution. The second grouprefers to those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint. The third group refers to allother officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law.

Under the same Section 16, there is a fourth group of lower-ranked officers whose appointments Congress may by law vest in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. x x x

x x x

In a department in the Executive branch, the head is the Secretary. The law may not authorize theUndersecretary, acting as such Undersecretary, to appoint lower-ranked officers in the Executive department. In anagency, the power is vested in the head of the agency for it would be preposterous to vest it in the agency itself. In acommission, the head is the chairperson of the commission. In a board, the head is also the chairperson of the board. Inthe last three situations, the law may not also authorize officers other than the heads of the agency, commission, or

board to appoint lower-ranked officers.

x x x

The Constitution authorizes Congress to vest the power to appoint lower-ranked officers specifically in the“heads” of the specified offices, and in no other person. The word “heads” refers to the chairpersons of thecommissions or boards and not to their members, for several reasons.

The President does not appoint the Chairman of the PNRC. Neither does the head of any department, agency,commission or board appoint the PNRC Chairman. Thus, the PNRC Chairman is not an official or employee of theExecutive branch since his appointment does not fall under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution. Certainly, thePNRC Chairman is not an official or employee of the Judiciary or Legislature. This leads us to the obvious conclusionthat the PNRC Chairman is not an official or employee of the Philippine Government. Not being a governmentofficial or employee, the PNRC Chairman, as such, does not hold a government office or employment.

Under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution ,[17] the President exercises control over all government officesin the Executive branch. If an office is legally not under the control of the President, then such office is not part ofthe Executive branch . In Rufino v. Endriga ,[18] the Court explained the President’s power of control over allgovernment offices as follows:

Every government office, entity, or agency must fall under the Executive, Legislative, orJudicial branches, or must belong to one of the independent constitutional bodies, or must be a quasi-

judicial body or local government unit. Otherwise, such government office, entity, or agency has nolegal and constitutional basis for its existence.

The CCP does not fall under the Legislative or Judicial branches of government. The CCP is also not one of theindependent constitutional bodies. Neither is the CCP a quasi-judicial body nor a local government unit. Thus, the CCPmust fall under the Executive branch. Under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, any agency “not placed by lawor order creating them under any specific department” falls “under the Office of the President.”

Since the President exercises control over “all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices,” the Presidentnecessarily exercises control over the CCP which is an office in the Executive branch. In mandating that the President“shall have control of all executive . . . offices,” Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution does not exempt anyexecutive office — one performing executive functions outside of the independent constitutional bodies — from the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn14


7/9

President’s power of control. There is no dispute that the CCP performs executive, and not legislative, judicial, orquasi-judicial functions.

The President’s power of control applies to the acts or decisions of all officers in the Executive branch.This is true whether such officers are appointed by the President or by heads of departments, agencies,commissions, or boards. The power of control means the power to revise or reverse the acts or decisions of a

subordinate officer involving the exercise of discretion.

In short, the President sits at the apex of the Executive branch, and exercises “control of all the executivedepartments, bureaus, and offices.” There can be no instance under the Constitution where an officer of the Executive

branch is outside the control of the President. The Executive branch is unitary since there is only one President vestedwith executive power exercising control over the entire Executive branch. Any office in the Executive branch that isnot under the control of the President is a lost command whose existence is without any legal or constitutional

basis. (Emphasis supplied)

An overwhelming four-fifths majority of the PNRC Board are private sector individuals elected to the PNRCBoard by the private sector members of the PNRC. The PNRC Board exercises all corporate powers of thePNRC. The PNRC is controlled by private sector individuals. Decisions or actions of the PNRC Board are not

reviewable by the President. The President cannot reverse or modify the decisions or actions of the PNRCBoard. Neither can the President reverse or modify the decisions or actions of the PNRC Chairman . It is thePNRC Board that can review, reverse or modify the decisions or actions of the PNRC Chairman. This proves again thatthe office of the PNRC Chairman is a private office, not a government office.

Although the State is often represented in the governing bodies of a National Society, this can be justified by theneed for proper coordination with the public authorities, and the government representatives may take part in decision-making within a National Society. However, the freely- elected representatives of a National Society’s active membersmust remain in a large majority in a National Society’s governing b odies .[19]

The PNRC is not government-owned but privately owned. The vast majority of the thousands of PNRCmembers are private individuals, including students . Under the PNRC Charter, those who contribute to the annualfund campaign of the PNRC are entitled to membership in the PNRC for one year. Thus, any one between 6 and 65

years of age can be a PNRC member for one year upon contributing P35, P100, P300, P500 or P1,000 for theyear .[20] Even foreigners, whether residents or not, can be members of the PNRC. Section 5 of the PNRC Charter, asamended by Presidential Decree No. 1264 ,[21] reads:

SEC. 5. Membership in the Philippine National Red Cross shall be open to the entire population in the Philippines regardless of citizenship. Any contribution to the Philippine NationalRed Cross Annual Fund Campaign shall entitle the contributor to membership for one year and saidcontribution shall be deductible in full for taxation purposes.

Thus, the PNRC is a privately owned, privately funded, and privately run charitable organization. The PNRC is not agovernment-owned or controlled corporation.

Petitioners anchor their petition on the 1999 case of Camporedondo v. NLRC ,[22] which ruled that the PNRC is agovernment-owned or controlled corporation. In ruling that the PNRC is a government-owned or controlledcorporation, the simple test used was whether the corporation was created by its own special charter for the exercise ofa public function or by incorporation under the general corporation law. Since the PNRC was created under a specialcharter, the Court then ruled that it is a government corporation. However, the Camporedondo ruling failed to considerthe definition of a government-owned or controlled corporation as provided under Section 2(13) of the IntroductoryProvisions of the Administrative Code of 1987:

SEC. 2. General Terms Defined . – x x x(13) Government-owned or controll ed corporati on refers to any agency organized as a stock

or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmentalor proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through itsinstrumentalities either wholly, or where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to theextent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock : Provided , That government-owned or

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn19


8/9

controlled corporations may be further categorized by the Department of the Budget, the Civil ServiceCommission, and the Commission on Audit for purposes of the exercise and discharge of theirrespective powers, functions and responsibilities with respect to such corporations.(Boldfacing andunderscoring supplied)

A government-owned or controlled corporation must be owned by the government, and in the case of a stockcorporation, at least a majority of its capital stock must be owned by the government. In the case of a non-stockcorporation, by analogy at least a majority of the members must be government officials holding such membership byappointment or designation by the government. Under this criterion, and as discussed earlier, the government does notown or control PNRC.

The PNRC Charter is Violative of th e Constitu tional Proscri ption against the Creation of Pri vate Corporations bySpecial L aw

The 1935 Constitution, as amended, was in force when the PNRC was created by special charter on 22March 1947. Section 7, Article XIV of the 1935 Constitution, as amended, reads:

SEC. 7. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation,

organization, or regulation of private corporations, unless such corporations are owned or controlled by the Government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof.

The subsequent 1973 and 1987 Constitutions contain similar provisions prohibiting Congress from creating privatecorporations except by general law. Section 1 of the PNRC Charter, as amended, creates the PNRC as a “bodycorporate and politic,” thus:

SECTION 1. There is hereby created in the Republic of the Philippines a body corporateand politic to be the voluntary organization officially designated to assist the Republic of thePhilippines in discharging the obligations set forth in the Geneva Conventions and to performsuch other duties as are inherent upon a National Red Cross Society. The national headquartersof this Corporation shall be located in Metropolitan Manila. (Emphasis supplied)

In Feliciano v. Commission on Audit ,[23] the Court explained the constitutional provision prohibiting Congress fromcreating private corporations in this wise:

We begin by explaining the general framework under the fundamental law. The Constitutionrecognizes two classes of corporations. The first refers to private corporations created under a generallaw. The second refers to government-owned or controlled corporations created by special charters.Section 16, Article XII of the Constitution provides:

Sec. 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation,organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned orcontrolled corporations may be created or established by special charters in theinterest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability.

The Constitution emphatically prohibits the creation of private corporations except by generallaw applicable to all citizens. The purpose of this constitutional provision is to ban privatecorporations created by special charters, which historically gave certain individuals, families orgroups special privileges denied to other citizens.

In short, Congress cannot enact a law creating a private corporation with a special charter.Such legislation would be unconstitutional. Private corporations may exist only under a generallaw. If the corporation is private, it must necessarily exist under a general law. Stateddifferently, only corporations created under a general law can qualify as private corporations. Underexisting laws, the general law is the Corporation Code, except that the Cooperative Code governs theincorporation of cooperatives.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn23


9/9

The Constitution authorizes Congress to create government-owned or controlled corporationsthrough special charters. Since private corporations cannot have special charters, it follows thatCongress can create corporations with special charters only if such corporations are government-owned or controlled .[24] (Emphasis supplied)

In Feliciano , the Court held that the Local Water Districts are government-owned or controlled corporationssince they exist by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 198, which constitutes their special charter. The seed capital assetsof the Local Water Districts, such as waterworks and sewerage facilities, were public property which were managed,operated by or under the control of the city, municipality or province before the assets were transferred to the LocalWater Districts. The Local Water Districts also receive subsidies and loans from the Local Water UtilitiesAdministration (LWUA). In fact, under the 2009 General Appropriations Act , [25] the LWUA has a budget amountingto P400,000,000 for its subsidy requirements .[26] There is no private capital invested in the Local WaterDistricts . The capital assets and operating funds of the Local Water Districts all come from the government, eitherthrough transfer of assets, loans, subsidies or the income from such assets or funds.

The government also controls the Local Water Districts because the municipal or city mayor, or the provincialgovernor, appoints all the board directors of the Local Water Districts. Furthermore, the board directors and other

personnel of the Local Water Districts are government employees subject to civil service laws and anti-graft laws.

Clearly, the Local Water Districts are considered government-owned or controlled corporations not only because oftheir creation by special charter but also because the government in fact owns and controls the Local Water Districts.

Just like the Local Water Districts, the PNRC was created through a special charter. However, unlike the LocalWater Districts, the elements of government ownership and control are clearly lacking in the PNRC . Thus,although the PNRC is created by a special charter, it cannot be considered a government-owned or controlledcorporation in the absence of the essential elements of ownership and control by the government. In creating the PNRCas a corporate entity, Congress was in fact creating a private corporation. However, the constitutional prohibitionagainst the creation of private corporations by special charters provides no exception even for non-profit or charitablecorporations. Consequently, the PNRC Charter, insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation and grants itcorporate powers ,[27] is void for being unconstitutional. Thus, Sections1,[28] 2,[29] 3,[30] 4(a) ,[31] 5,[32] 6,[33] 7,[34] 8,[35] 9,[36] 10,[37] 11 ,[38] 12,[39] and 1 3[40] of the PNRC Charter, as amended, arevoid.

The other provision s[41] of the PNRC Charter remain valid as they can be considered as a recognition by the Statethat the unincorporated PNRC is the local National Society of the International Red Cross and Red CrescentMovement, and thus entitled to the benefits, exemptions and privileges set forth in the PNRC Charter. The other

provisions of the PNRC Charter implement the Philippine Government’s treaty obligations under Article 4(5) of theStatutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, which provides that to be recognized as a

National Society, the Society must be “duly recognized by the legal government of its country on the basis of theGeneva Conventions and of the national legislation as a voluntary aid society, auxiliary to the public authorities in thehumanitarian field.”

In sum, we hold that 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.However, since the PNRC Charter is void insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation, the PNRC shouldincorporate under the Corporation Code and register with the Securities and Exchange Commission if it wants to be a

private corporation.

WHEREFORE , we declare that the office of the Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross is not agovernment office or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition inSection 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. We also declare that Sections 1, 2, 3, 4(a), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and13 of the Charter of the Philippine National Red Cross, or Republic Act No. 95, as amended by Presidential Decree

Nos. 1264 and 1643, are VOID because they create the PNRC as a private corporation or grant it corporate powers.

SO ORDERED .
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/175352.htm#_ftn24

Documents

32.Liban vs Gordon GR 175352 Dtd 7-15-09