2d. Ifurung vs. Carpio-Morales

IFURUNG VS.
CARPIO-MORALES
G.R. No. 232131, April 24, 2018
FACTS:
After then-Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez resigned to avoid impeachment trial in the Senate
over allegations of incompetence and inaction on various cases, Conchita Carpio-Morales was
appointed to a seven-year term. Ifurung is arguing that Morales and her deputies must serve
only the unexpired term of their predecessor. He alleges that Sec. 8 (3), in relation to Sec. 7 of
R.A. No. 6770 otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act, which provides that in case of a vacancy
at the Office of the Ombudsman due to death, resignation, removal or permanent disability of
the incumbent Ombudsman and his deputies, the newly appointed Ombudsman and his
deputies shall be appointed to a full term of seven (7) years, is constitutionally infirm as it
contravenes Sec. 11 in relation to Secs. 8 and 10 of Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution. He avers
that, like all constitutionally created positions, i.e., President, Vice-President, Senators,
Members of the House of Representatives and Members of the Civil Service Commission (CSC),
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), and the Commission on Audit (COA), the successor
to the positions of the Ombudsman and deputies should serve only the unexpired term of the
predecessor. Hence, he insists that the incumbent Ombudsman and deputies have been
overstaying in their present positions for more than two years considering that the term of their
predecessors have expired already. According to him, “to allow them to stay in the said positions
one day longer constitutes a continuing affront to the 1987 Constitution, unduly clips
presidential prerogatives, and deprives the nation of the services of legitimate Ombudsman and
Deputies Ombudsman.”
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not there is an actual case or controversy which can be made a subject for
judicial review by the Supreme Court.
2. Whether or not the contested section is unconstitutional for being outright transgression of
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
RULING:
1. Yes. An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of
opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a
hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. Closely linked to this requirement is that the
question must be ripe for adjudication, i.e., when the act being challenged has had a
direct adverse effect on the individual or entity challenging it. It is a prerequisite that
something had then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may
come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or
threatened injury to itself as a result of the challenged action. The Court holds that the
present petition involves an actual case or controversy and that the same is ripe for judicial
determination. It will be noted that, granting there was merit to the petition raised by the
petitioner that Sec. 8 (3) of R.A. No. 6770 is unconstitutional, the incumbent Ombudsman
and deputies are de facto officers who have overstayed in office for 2 years. Of prime
consideration, too, if petitioner’s position is correct, is the alleged pervasive non-compliance
and non-observance of the Constitution relative to the seven-year term of office of the
Ombudsman and the deputies, the principles of which, albeit relevant to the constitutional
commissions, have been settled in Gaminde v. COA. It should likewise be taken into account,
Khristian Damielle A. Jamer – 4th Year, Block A

granting that petitioner’s challenge to Sec. 8 (3) of R.A. No. 6770 was valid and legal, that
there are continuing illegal disbursements of public funds to pay the salaries of the de facto
Ombudsman and deputies. From these considerations, it cannot be gainsaid that there is
indeed a justiciable controversy involving an alleged serious infringement of the
fundamental law, and which the Court is duty-bound to resolve.
2. No. In our review of Sec. 8 (3) of R.A. No. 6770, we note that in case of death, resignation,
removal, or permanent disability of the Ombudsman, the new Ombudsman shall be
appointed for a full term. Undoubtedly, such section is consistent with Art. XI, Sec. 11 of the
1987 Constitution insofar as it provides that the Ombudsman and the deputies shall serve for
a term of seven years. Every statute is presumed valid. The presumption is that the
legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible and just law and one which operates no further
than may be necessary to effectuate the specific purposes of the law. Contrary to the position
of Ifurung, Art. XI, Sec. 11 by itself is clear and can stand on its own. Notably, the framers
plainly provided for a seven-year term of the Ombudsman and the deputies. For
sure, nowhere in the Constitution can it be gathered that the appointment to any vacancy for
the position of Ombudsman and the deputies shall be only for the unexpired term of the
predecessor. This can only mean that it was the intent of the framers that the
appointment to the positions of the Ombudsman and the deputies, whether it be
for the expired or unexpired term of the predecessor, shall always be for a full term of
seven (7) years.
Khristian Damielle A. Jamer – 4th Year, Block A

2d. Ifurung vs. Carpio-Morales

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2d. Ifurung vs. Carpio-Morales

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2d. Ifurung vs. Carpio-Morales

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IFURUNG VS.

Khristian Damielle A. Jamer – 4th Year, Block A

Khristian Damielle A. Jamer – 4th Year, Block A

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.