Case Summary (G.R. No. 232131)
The Petition
Ifurung asserts that he has standing to bring the petition, as he is a taxpayer and concerned citizen, and argues that both the Ombudsman and his deputies are holding office beyond their mandated term of seven years, as stipulated under Article XI, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. He contends that due to the unconstitutionality of the law that allows the appointment of a successor for a full term, the current officials have overstayed their tenure beyond their rightful term end, which should have concluded on February 1, 2015.
Argument for Unconstitutionality
Ifurung's principal argument focuses on the interpretation of Section 8(3) of R.A. No. 6770, which permits full seven-year appointments for successors even if the vacancy was not due to a term ending. He claims that similar constitutional offices must adhere to the principle of serving for only the unexpired portion of any predecessor's term, a principle that he argues should apply equally to the Ombudsman and his deputies.
Intent of the Framers of the Constitution
Petitioner highlights that the framers of the 1987 Constitution aimed to afford the Ombudsman autonomy and independence similar to other constitutional offices, thereby setting a concrete framework governing tenure and designations. This intent, he asserts, is violated by the current interpretation of R.A. No. 6770.
Historical Context and Legislative Intent
The petitioner lays out the historical context of the Ombudsman's office, tracing back to the provisions in the 1973 Constitution and the legislation that preceded the 1987 Constitution. He notes that the power to create an Ombudsman with specific duties and terms originated from previous presidential decrees and legislative actions, aiming for accountability in government operations.
Respondents' Defense
In response, the Office of the Solicitor General defends the constitutionality of Section 8(3) of R.A. No. 6770, asserting that the provision clearly states the term of the Ombudsman and deputies as seven years without reappointment, regardless of the cause of vacancy. They argue against the need for distinguishing tenure based on resignation or removal since the constitutional provision regarding the appointment does not foreclose full-term appointments for successors.
Issues Raised
The principal legal questions include: (1) the constitutionality of Section 8(3) of R.A. No. 6770 concerning Article XI, Sections 8 and 11 of the 1987 Constitution; (2) whether the petition constitutes a proper judicial remedy; and (3) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling on Judicial Remedies and Jurisdiction
The Court finds that a petition for certiorari is indeed an appropriate remedy for constitutional issues, as outlined in existing jurisprudence which suggests that such petitions allow for review of actions involving grave abuse of discretion. It clarifies that locus standi exists for Ifurung based on his assertions of taxpayer status and alleged institutional violations, thus granting the Court jurisdiction over the case.
Interpret
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 232131)
Case Overview
- Title: Rey Nathaniel C. Ifurung vs. Hon. Conchita C. Carpio Morales, et al.
- Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Case Number: G.R. No. 232131
- Date of Decision: April 24, 2018
- Nature of Petition: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Parties Involved
Petitioner: Rey Nathaniel C. Ifurung
- Affirms his status as a taxpayer, concerned citizen, and member of the Bar.
- Invokes the jurisprudence of Funa v. Villar to claim standing.
Respondents:
- Hon. Conchita C. Carpio Morales (Ombudsman)
- Melchor Arthur H. Carandang (Overall Deputy Ombudsman)
- Gerard Abeto Mosquera (Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon)
- Paul Elmer M. Clemente (Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas)
- Rodolfo M. Elman (Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao)
- Cyril Enguerra Ramos (Deputy Ombudsman for the Military)
- Office of the Ombudsman
Petitioner's Claims
Constitutional Violations:
- Challenges the constitutionality of Section 8(3) in relation to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6770, claiming it violates Section 11 in relation to Sections 8 and 10 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
- Argues that the Ombudsman and deputies should only serve the unexpired term of their predecessors and that they have overstayed their terms since February 1, 2015.
Importance of the Issue:
- Asserts that the constitutional issue is of transcendental importance since it determines the tenure of the Ombudsman and deputies and addresses ongoing noncompliance with constitutional provisions.
Historical Context:
- Claims that the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended for the Ombudsman to have a status equal to other constitutional commissions, hence should adhere to the same rules regarding term limits.
Respondents' Arguments
Constitutional Interpretation:
- Respondents argue that Section 11, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution clearly states that the Ombudsman and deputies shall serve a full term of seven years without reappointment, irrespective of the cause for fillin