STONEHILL VS DIOKNO

Stonehill et al and the corporation they form were alleged to have committed acts in violation of !entral "an# Laws$
Tari% and !&stoms Laws$ Internal 'even&e (!ode) and 'evised *enal !ode+, "y the strength of this allegation a search
warrant was iss&ed against their persons and their corporation+ The warrant provides a&thority to search the persons
a-ove.named and/or the premises of their o0ces$ wareho&ses and/or residences$ and to sei1e and ta#e possession of
the following personal property to wit2
"oo#s of acco&nts$ 3nancial records$ vo&chers$ correspondence$ receipts$ ledgers$ 4o&rnals$ portfolios$ credit 4o&rnals$
typewriters$ and other doc&ments and/or papers showing all -&siness transactions incl&ding dis-&rsements receipts$
-alance sheets and pro3t and loss statements and "o--ins (cigarette wrappers)+,
The doc&ments$ papers$ and things sei1ed &nder the alleged a&thority of the warrants in 5&estion may -e split into (6)
ma4or gro&ps$ namely2
(a) those fo&nd and sei1ed in the o0ces of the aforementioned corporations and
(-) those fo&nd sei1ed in the residences of petitioners herein+
Stonehill averred that the warrant is illegal for2
(7) they do not descri-e with partic&larity the doc&ments$ -oo#s and things to -e sei1ed8
(6) cash money$ not mentioned in the warrants$ were act&ally sei1ed8
(9) the warrants were iss&ed to 3sh evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases 3led against
them8
(:) the searches and sei1&res were made in an illegal manner8 and
(;) the doc&ments$ papers and cash money sei1ed were not delivered to the co&rts that iss&ed the warrants$ to -e
disposed of in accordance with law+
The prosec&tion co&nters$ invo#ing the <oncado doctrine$ that the defects of said warrants$ if any$ were c&red -y
petitioners= consent8 and (9) that$ in any event$ the e%ects sei1ed are admissi-le in evidence against them+ In short$
the criminal cannot -e set free 4&st -eca&se the government -l&nders+
ISSUE: >hether or not the search warrant iss&ed is valid+
HELD: The S! r&led in favor of Stonehill et al+ The S! emphasi1ed however that Stonehill et al cannot assail the
validity of the search warrant iss&ed against their corporation for Stonehill are not the proper party hence has no
ca&se of action+ It sho&ld -e raised -y the o0cers or -oard mem-ers of the corporation+ The constit&tion protects the
people=s right against &nreasona-le search and sei1&re+ It provides8 (7) that no warrant shall iss&e -&t &pon pro-a-le
ca&se$ to -e determined -y the 4&dge in the manner set forth in said provision8 and (6) that the warrant shall
partic&larly descri-e the things to -e sei1ed+ In the case at -ar$ none of these are met+ The warrant was iss&ed from
mere allegation that Stonehill et al committed a violation of !entral "an# Laws$ Tari% and !&stoms Laws$ Internal
'even&e (!ode) and 'evised *enal !ode+, In other words$ no speci3c o%ense had -een alleged in said applications+
The averments thereof with respect to the o%ense committed were a-stract+ ?s a conse5&ence$ it was impossi-le for
the 4&dges who iss&ed the warrants to have fo&nd the e@istence of pro-a-le ca&se$ for the same pres&pposes the
introd&ction of competent proof that the party against whom it is so&ght has performed partic&lar acts$ or committed
speci3c omissions$ violating a given provision of o&r criminal laws+ ?s a matter of fact$ the applications involved in this
case do not allege any speci3c acts performed -y herein petitioners+ It wo&ld -e a legal heresy$ of the highest order$ to
convict any-ody of a violation of !entral "an# Laws$ Tari% and !&stoms Laws$ Internal 'even&e (!ode) and 'evised
*enal !ode$, A as alleged in the aforementioned applications A witho&t reference to any determinate provision of said
laws or codes+
The grave violation of the !onstit&tion made in the application for the contested search warrants was compo&nded -y
the description therein made of the e%ects to -e searched for and sei1ed$ to wit2
"oo#s of acco&nts$ 3nancial records$ vo&chers$ 4o&rnals$ correspondence$ receipts$ ledgers$ portfolios$ credit 4o&rnals$
typewriters$ and other doc&ments and/or papers showing all -&siness transactions incl&ding dis-&rsement
receipts$ -alance sheets and related pro3t and loss statements+,
Th&s$ the warrants a&thori1ed the search for and sei1&re of records pertaining to all -&siness transactions of Stonehill
et al$ regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal+ The warrants sanctioned the sei1&re of all records of
Stonehill et al and the aforementioned corporations$ whatever their nat&re$ th&s openly contravening the e@plicit
command of the "ill of 'ights A that the things to -e sei1ed -e partic&larly descri-ed A as well as tending to defeat
its ma4or o-4ective2 the elimination of general warrants+ The <oncado doctrine is li#ewise a-andoned and the right of
the acc&sed against a defective search warrant is emphasi1ed+
BACHE & CO. VS. RUIZ (GR 32409, FEB. 27, 1971) Di!"#
FAC$S:
% !ommissioner of Internal 'even&e Vera wrote a letter addressed to B&dge Vivencio <+ '&i1 re5&esting the iss&ance of
a search warrant against "acheC !o+ (*hil+)$ Inc+ and Drederic# E+ Seggerman for violation of the National Internal
'even&e !ode (NI'!) and a&thori1ing 'even&e E@aminer 'odolfo de Leon to ma#e and 3le the application for search
warrant which was attached to the letter+
.In the afternoon of the following day$ De Leon and his witness$ ?rt&ro Logronio$ went to the !o&rt of Dirst Instance
(!DI) of 'i1al+ They -ro&ght with them the following papers2 Vera=s letter.re5&est8 an application for search
warrant already 3lled &p -&t still &nsigned -y De Leon8 an a0davit of Logronio s&-scri-ed -efore De Leon8 a deposition
in printed form of Logronio already accomplished and signed -y him -&t not yet s&-scri-ed8 and a search warrant
already accomplished -&t still &nsigned -y B&dge '&i1+
% ?t that time B&dge '&i1 was hearing a certain case8 so$ -y means of a note$ he instr&cted his Dep&ty !ler# of !o&rt to
ta#e the depositions of De Leon and Logronio+ ?fter the session had ad4o&rned$ B&dge '&i1 was informed that the
depositions had already -een ta#en+ The stenographer read to him her stenographic notes8 and thereafter$ B&dge '&i1
as#ed respondent Logronio to ta#e the oath and warned him that if his deposition was fo&nd to -e false and witho&t
legal -asis$ he co&ld -e charged for per4&ry+
.The B&dge signed de Leon=s application for search warrant and Logronio=s deposition+ Search >arrant was then signed
-y the 4&dge and accordingly iss&ed+ 9 days later (a Sat&rday)$ the "I' agents served the search warrant to the
corporation and Seggerman at the o0ces of the corporation+
ISSUE:
>ON the search warrant is valid+
HELD:
Search warrant is invalid+
RA$IO:
There was no personal e@amination cond&cted -y the B&dge of the complainant (De Leon) and his witness
(Logronio)+ The 4&dge did not as# either of the two any 5&estion the answer to which co&ld possi-ly -e the -asis for
determining whether or not there was pro-a-le ca&seagainst "ache C !o+ and Seggerman+ The participation of the
4&dge in the proceedings which led to the iss&ance of the search was th&s limited to listening to the stenographer=s
readings of her notes$ to a few words of warning against the commission of per4&ry$ and to administering the oath to
the
complainant and his witness+ This cannot -e considered a personal e@amination+ *ersonal e@amination -y the 4&dge of
the complainant and his witnesses is necessary to ena-le him to determine the e@istence or non.e@istence of a
pro-a-le ca&se+
Ne@t$ the search warrant was iss&ed for more than one speci3c o%ense+ The search warrant was iss&ed for at least :
distinct o%enses &nder the Ta@ !ode+ ?s r&led in Stonehill S&ch is the serio&sness of the irreg&larities committed in
connection with the disp&ted search warrants$ that this !o&rt deemed it 3t to amend Section 9 of '&le 766 of the
former '&les of !o&rt that Ea search warrant shall not iss&e -&t &pon pro-a-le ca&se in connection with one speci3c
o%ense+= Not satis3ed with this 5&ali3cation$ the !o&rt added thereto a paragraph$ directing that Eno search warrant
shall iss&e for more than one speci3c o%ense+
The description does not meet the re5&irement in ?rt III$ Sec+ 7$ of the !onstit&tion$ and of Sec+ 9$ '&le 76F of the
'evised '&les of !o&rt$ that the warrant sho&ld partic&larly descri-e the things to -e sei1ed+
? search warrant may -e said to partic&larly descri-e the things to -e sei1ed when the description therein is as
speci3c as the circ&mstances will ordinarily allow or when the description e@presses a concl&sion of fact not of law -y
which the warrant o0cer may -e g&ided in ma#ing the search and sei1&re or when the things descri-ed are limited to
those which -ear direct relation to the o%ense for which the warrant is -eing iss&ed+
"ataan Shipyard !o vs *!GG
150 SCRA 181 Business Organization Corporation Law A Corporation Cannot Invoke the Right Against Sel!
In"ri#ination
>hen *resident !ora1on ?5&ino too# power$ the *residential !ommission on Good Government (*!GG) was formed in
order to recover ill gotten wealth allegedly ac5&ired -y former *resident <arcos and his cronies+ ?5&ino then iss&ed
two e@ec&tive orders in 7HIF and p&rs&ant thereto$ a se5&estration and a ta#eover order were iss&ed against "ataan
Shipyard C engineering !o+$ Inc+ ("?SE!O)+ "?SE!O was alleged to -e in act&ality owned and controlled -y the
<arcoses thro&gh the 'om&alde1 family$ and in t&rn$ thro&gh d&mmy stoc#holders+
The se5&estration order iss&ed in 7HIF re5&ired$ among others$ that "?SE!O prod&ce corporate records from 7HJ9 to
7HIF &nder pain of contempt of the *!GG if it fails to do so+ "?SE!O assails this order as it avers$ among others$ that
it is against "?SE!O=s right against self incrimination and &nreasona-le searches and sei1&res+
ISSUE: >hether or not "?SE!O is correct+
HELD: No+ Dirst of all$ *!GG has the right to re5&ire the prod&ction of s&ch doc&ments p&rs&ant to the power granted
to it+ Second$ and more importantly$ right against self.incrimination has no application to 4&ridical persons+ There is a
reserve right in the legislat&re to investigate the contracts of a corporation and 3nd o&t whether it has e@ceeded its
powers+ It wo&ld -e a strange anomaly to hold that a state$ having chartered a corporation li#e "?SE!O to ma#e &se of
certain franchises$ co&ld not$ in the e@ercise of sovereignty$ in5&ire how these franchises had -een employed$ and
whether they had -een a-&sed$ and demand the prod&ction of the corporate -oo#s and papers for that p&rpose+
Neither is the right against &nreasona-le searches and sei1&res applica-le here+ There were no searches made and no
sei1&re p&rs&ant to any search was ever made+ "?SE!O was merely ordered to prod&ce the corporate records+
&'i(i))i*! S+,i!#- .+/ #'! &/!0!*#i+* +. !r&elty to ?nimals 0" C+11i""i+* +* A23i#
G.R. 4+. 159762
S!)#!17!/ 26, 2007
F8,#"2
*S*!? was incorporated as a 4&ridical entity -y virt&e of ?ct No+ 76I; -y the *hilippine !ommission in order to enforce
laws relating to the cr&elty inKicted &pon animals and for the protection of and to perform all things which may tend to
alleviate the s&%ering of animals and promote their welfare+
In order to enhance its powers$ *S*!? was initially im-&ed with (7) power to apprehend violators of animal welfare
laws and (6) share ;LM of the 3nes imposed and collected thro&gh its e%orts p&rs&ant to the violations of related laws+
However$ !ommonwealth ?ct No+ 7:I recalled the said powers+ *resident N&e1on then iss&ed E@ec&tive Order No+ F9
directing the !ommission of *&-lic Safety$ *rovost <arshal General as head of the !onsta-&lary Division of the
*hilippine ?rmy$ <ayors of chartered cities and every m&nicipal president to detail and organi1e special o0cers to
watch$ capt&re$ and prosec&te o%enders of criminal.cr&elty laws+
On Decem-er 7$ 6LL9$ an a&dit team from the !ommission on ?&dit visited petitioner=s o0ce to cond&ct a s&rvey+
*S*!? dem&rred on the gro&nd that it was a private entity and not &nder the !o?=s 4&risdiction$ citing Sec +6(7)$ ?rt+ IO
of the !onstit&tion+

I""2!":
>ON the *S*!? is s&-4ect to !o?=s ?&dit ?&thority+
H!(3:
No+
The charter test cannot -e applied+ It is predicated on the legal regime esta-lished -y the 7H9; !onstit&tion$ Sec+J$
?rt+ OIII+ Since the &nderpinnings of the charter test had -een introd&ced -y the 7H9; !onstit&tion and not earlier$ the
test cannot -e applied to *S*!? which was incorporated on Ban&ary 7H$ 7HL;+ Laws$ generall%$ have no retroa"tive
e&e"t unless the "ontrar% is provi'e'+ There are a few e@ceptions2 (7) when e@pressly provided8 (6) remedial stat&tes8
(9) c&rative stat&tes8 and (:) laws interpreting others+
None of the e@ceptions apply in the instant case+
The mere fact that a corporation has -een created -y a special law doesn=t necessarily 5&alify it as a p&-lic
corporation+ ?t the time *S*!? was formed$ the *hilippine "ill of 7HL6 was the applica-le law and no proscription
similar to the charter test can -e fo&nd therein+ There was no restriction on the legislat&re to create private
corporations in 7HL9+ The amendments introd&ced -y !? 7:I made it clear that *S*!? was a private corporation$ not
a government agency+
*S*!?=s charter shows that it is not s&-4ect to control or s&pervision -y any agency of the State+ Li#e all private
corporations$ the s&ccessors of its mem-ers are determined vol&ntarily and solely -y the petitioner$ and may e@ercise
powers generally accorded to private corporations+
*S*!?=s employees are registered and covered -y the SSS at the latter=s initiative and not thro&gh the GSIS+
(he a"t that a private "orporation is i#presse' with pu)li" interest 'oes not #ake the entit% a pu)li" "orporation+
They may -e considered *uasi!pu)li" "orporations which areprivate corporations that render p&-lic service$ s&pply
p&-lic wants and p&rs&e other e@emplary o-4ectives+ The true "riterion to 'eter#ine whether a "orporation is pu)li" or
private is oun' in the totalit% o the relation o the "orporate to the State+ It is p&-lic if it is created -y the latter=s own
agency or instr&mentality$ otherwise$ it is private
Dante Li-an$ et al+ v+ 'ichard Gordon$ G+'+ No+ 7J;9;6$ Ban&ary 7I$ 6L77
R E S O L U $ I O 4
LEO4ARDO%DE CAS$RO, J.:
I. $HE FAC$S
*etitioners Li-an$ et al+$ who were o0cers of the "oard of Directors of the N&e1on !ity 'ed !ross !hapter$ 3led with
the S&preme !o&rt what they styled as ,-etition to .e"lare Ri"har' /+ 0or'on as 1aving 2oreite' 1is Seat in the
Senate3 against respondent Gordon$ who was elected !hairman of the *hilippine National 'ed !ross (*N'!) "oard of
Governors d&ring his inc&m-ency as Senator+
*etitioners alleged that -y accepting the chairmanship of the *N'! "oard of Governors$ respondent Gordon ceased to
-e a mem-er of the Senate p&rs&ant to Sec+ 79$ ?rticle VI of the !onstit&tion$ which provides that ,4n5o Senator + + +
#a% hol' an% other o6"e or e#plo%#ent in the 0overn#ent$ or an% su)'ivision$ agen"%$ or instru#entalit% thereo$
in"lu'ing govern#ent!owne' or "ontrolle' "orporations or their su)si'iaries$ 'uring his ter# without oreiting his
seat+3 *etitioners cited the case of Camporedondo vs. NLRC$ G.R. No. 129049, decided August 6, 1999,

which
held that the *N'! is a GO!!$ in s&pporting their arg&ment that respondent Gordon a&tomatically forfeited his seat in
the Senate when he accepted and held the position of !hairman of the *N'! "oard of Governors+
Dormerly$ in its Decision dated B&ly 7;$ 6LLH$ the !o&rt$ voting J.;$91: held thatthe o0ce of the *N'! !hairman is NOT
a government o0ce or an o0ce in a GO!! for p&rposes of the prohi-ition in Sec+ 79$ ?rticle VI of the 7HIJ
!onstit&tion+ The *N'! !hairman is elected -y the *N'! "oard of Governors8 he is not appointed -y the *resident or
-y any s&-ordinate government o0cial+ <oreover$ the *N'! is NOT a GO!! -eca&se it is a privately.owned$ privately.
f&nded$ and privately.r&n charita-le organi1ationand -eca&se it is controlled -y a "oard of Governors fo&r.3fths of
which are private sector individ&als+ Therefore$ respondent Gordon did not forfeit his legislative seat when he was
elected as *N'! !hairman d&ring his inc&m-ency as Senator+
The !o&rt however held f&rther that the *N'! !harter$ '+?+ H;$ as amended -y *D 76F: and 7F:9$ is void insofar as it
creates the *N'! as a private corporationsince Section J$ ?rticle OIV of the 7H9; !onstit&tion
states that ,4t5he Congress shall not$ e7"ept )% general law$ provi'e or the or#ation$ organization$ or regulation o
private "orporations$ unless su"h "orporations are owne' or "ontrolle' )% the 0overn#ent or an% su)'ivision or
instru#entalit% thereo+3 The !o&rt th&s directed the *N'! to incorporate &nder the !orporation !ode and register
with the Sec&rities and E@change !ommission if it wants to -e a private corporation+ The allo of the Decision read2
>HE'EDO'E$ we declare that the o0ce of the !hairman of the *hilippine National 'ed !ross is not a government o0ce
or an o0ce in a government.owned or controlled corporation for p&rposes of the prohi-ition in Section 79$ ?rticle VI of
the 7HIJ !onstit&tion+ >e also declare that Sections 7$ 6$ 9$ :(a)$ ;$ F$ J$ I$ H$ 7L$ 77$ 76$ and 79 of the !harter of the
*hilippine National 'ed !ross$ or 'ep&-lic ?ct No+ H;$ as amended -y *residential Decree Nos+ 76F: and 7F:9$ are
VOID -eca&se they create the *N'! as a private corporation or grant it corporate powers+
'espondent Gordon 3led a otion !or C"ari#cation and$or !or Reconsideration of the Decision+ The *N'! li#ewise
moved to intervene and 3led its own otion !or %artia" Reconsideration+ They -asically 5&estioned the second part
of the Decision with regard to the prono&ncement on the *8#2/! +. #'! &4RC and the ,+*"#i#2#i+*8(i#- +. "+1!
)/+0i"i+*" +. #'! &4RC C'8/#!/+
II. $HE ISSUE
>as it correct for the !o&rt to have passed &pon and decided on the iss&e of the constit&tionality of the *N'! charterP
!orollarily2 >hat is the nat&re of the *N'!P
III. $HE RULI4G
4(he Court 0RA8(9. re"onsi'eration an' :O.I2I9. the 'ispositive portion o the .e"ision )% 'eleting the se"on'
senten"e thereo+5
N&, it 'as not correct !or t(e Court to (ave decided on t(e constitutiona" issue )ecause it 'as not t(e
ver* "is mota o! t(e case. +(e %NRC is sui generis in nature, it is neit(er strict"* a G&CC nor a private
corporation.

The iss&e of constit&tionality of '+?+ No+ H; was not raised -y the parties$ and was not among the iss&es de3ned in the
-ody of the Decision8 th&s$ it was not the very lis #ota of the case+ >e have reiterated the r&le as to when the !o&rt
will consider the iss&e of constit&tionality in Alvarez v+ -ICO- Resour"es$ In"+$ th&s2
This !o&rt will not to&ch the iss&e of &nconstit&tionality &nless it is the very lis #ota+ It is a well.esta-lished r&le that a
co&rt sho&ld not pass &pon a constit&tional 5&estion and decide a law to -e &nconstit&tional or invalid$ &nless s&ch
5&estion is raised -y the parties and that when it is raised$ if the record also presents some other gro&nd &pon which
the co&rt may QrestR its 4&dgment$ that co&rse will -e adopted and the constit&tional 5&estion will -e left for
consideration &ntil s&ch 5&estion will -e &navoida-le+
QTRhis !o&rt "'+2(3 *+# have declared void certain sections of + + + the *N'! !harter+ Instead$ the !o&rt sho&ld have
e@ercised 4&dicial restraint on this matter$ especially since there was some other gro&nd &pon which the !o&rt co&ld
have -ased its 4&dgment+ D&rthermore$ the *N'!$ the entity most adversely a%ected -y this declaration of
&nconstit&tionality$ which was not even originally a party to this case$ was -eing compelled$ as a conse5&ence of the
Decision$ to s&ddenly reorgani1e and incorporate &nder the !orporation !ode$ 8.#!/ 1+/! #'8* "i;#- (50) -!8/" +.
!;i"#!*,! i* #'i" ,+2*#/-+
Since its enactment$ the *N'! !harter was amended several times$ partic&larly on B&ne 77$ 7H;9$ ?&g&st 7F$ 7HJ7$
Decem-er 7;$ 7HJJ$ and Octo-er 7$ 7HJH$ -y virt&e of '+?+ No+ I;;$ '+?+ No+ F9J9$ *+D+ No+ 76F:$ and *+D+ No+ 7F:9$
respectively+ The passage of several laws relating to the *N'!=s corporate e@istence notwithstanding the e%ectivity of
the constit&tional proscription on the creation of private corporations -y law is a recognition that the *N'! is not
strictly in the nat&re of a private corporation contemplated -y the aforesaid constit&tional -an+
? closer loo# at the nat&re of the *N'! wo&ld show that there is none li#e itQ$R not 4&st in terms of str&ct&re$ -&t also in
terms of history$ p&-lic service and o0cial stat&s accorded to it -y the State and the international comm&nity+ There is
merit in *N'!=s contention that its str&ct&re is sui generis+ It is in recognition of this sui generis character of the *N'!
that '+?+ No+ H; has remained valid and e%ective from the time of its enactment in <arch 66$ 7H:J &nder the 7H9;
!onstit&tion and d&ring the e%ectivity of the 7HJ9 !onstit&tion and the 7HIJ !onstit&tion+ The *N'! !harter and its
amendatory laws have not -een 5&estioned or challenged on constit&tional gro&nds$ not even in this case -efore the
!o&rt now+
QTRhis !o&rt Qm&stR recogni1e the co&ntry=s adherence to the Geneva !onvention and respect the &ni5&e stat&s of the
*N'! in consonance with its treaty o-ligations+ The Geneva !onvention has the force and e%ect of law+ Snder the
!onstit&tion$ the *hilippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land+
This constit&tional provision m&st -e reconciled and harmoni1ed with ?rticle OII$ Section 7F of the !onstit&tion$ instead
of &sing the latter to negate the former+ "y re5&iring the *N'! to organi1e &nder the !orporation !ode 4&st li#e any
other private corporation$ the Decision of B&ly 7;$ 6LLH lost sight of the *N'!=s special stat&s &nder international
h&manitarian law and as an a&@iliary of the State$ designated to assist it in discharging its o-ligations &nder the
Geneva !onventions+

The *N'!$ as a National Society of the International 'ed !ross and 'ed !rescent <ovement$ can neither -e classi3ed
as an instr&mentality of the State$ so as not to lose its character of ne&trality, as well as its independence$ nor strictly
as a private corporation since it is reg&lated -y international h&manitarian law and is treated as an 82;i(i8/- of the
State+
?ltho&gh Qthe *N'!R is neither a s&-division$ agency$ or instr&mentality of the government$ nor a GO!! or a s&-sidiary
thereof + + + so m&ch so that respondent$ &nder the Decision$ was correctly allowed to hold his position as !hairman
thereof conc&rrently while he served as a Senator$ s&ch a concl&sion does *+# ipso a"to imply that the *N'! is a
private corporation, within the contemplation of the provision of the !onstit&tion$ that m&st -e organi1ed &nder the
!orporation !ode+ QTRhe sui generis character of *N'! re5&ires &s to approach controversies involving the *N'! on a
case.to.case -asis+
In s&m$ the *N'! en4oys a special stat&s as an important ally and a&@iliary of the government in the h&manitarian 3eld
in accordance with its commitments &nder international law+ This !o&rt cannot all of a s&dden ref&se to recogni1e its
e@istence$ especially since the iss&e of the constit&tionality of the *N'! !harter was never raised -y the parties+ It
-ears emphasi1ing that the *N'! has responded to almost all national disasters since 7H:J$ and is widely #nown to
provide a s&-stantial portion of the co&ntry=s -lood re5&irements+ Its h&manitarian wor# is &nparalleled+ The !o&rt
sho&ld not sha#e its e@istence to the core in an &ntimely and drastic manner that wo&ld not only have negative
conse5&ences to those who depend on it in times of disaster and armed hostilities -&t also have adverse e%ects on the
image of the *hilippines in the international comm&nity+ The sections of the *N'! !harter that were declared void
m&st therefore stay+
4(hus$ R+A+ 8o+ ;5 re#ains vali' an' "onstitutional in its entiret%+ (he Court :O.I2I9. the 'ispositive portion o the
.e"ision )% 'eleting the se"on' senten"e$ to now rea' as ollows<
-./R/0&R/$ we 'e"lare that the o6"e o the Chair#an o the -hilippine 8ational Re' Cross is not a govern#ent
o6"e or an o6"e in a govern#ent!owne' or "ontrolle' "orporation or purposes o the prohi)ition in Se"tion 1=$
Arti"le >I o the 1;8? Constitution+5