Ifurung v. Morales
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns the constitutionality of Section 8(3) of Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which provides that a newly appointed Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman, in case of vacancy due to death, resignation, removal, or permanent disability, shall serve a full seven-year term. The petitioner argues that this provision contravenes the 1987 Constitution, which, he contends, mandates that successors in such positions should only serve the unexpired term of their predecessors, similar to other constitutional offices. Procedural History: The petitioner, Rey Nathaniel C. Ifurung, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to declare Section 8(3) of R.A. No. 6770 unconstitutional and to declare the positions of the incumbent Ombudsman and Deputies Ombudsman vacant. The respondents, the Ombudsman and Deputies Ombudsman, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Comment arguing that the petitioner's interpretation is flawed and that the statute is constitutional. The Supreme Court, in its decision, first addressed the procedural issues, including the propriety of the remedy and the Court's jurisdiction, before delving into the substantive issue of constitutionality. The Petition: Petitioner Ifurung invokes his standing as a taxpayer and concerned citizen, citing Funa v. Villar, to challenge Section 8(3) of R.A. No. 6770. He argues that this provision, by granting a full seven-year term to successors appointed due to vacancies other than the expiration of a predecessor's term, violates Sections 8, 10, and 11 of Article XI of the Constitution. He contends that the Ombudsman and Deputies should serve only the unexpired portion of the predecessor's term, asserting that the current incumbents have overstayed their terms. The petition seeks a declaration of unconstitutionality and consequently, the vacancy of the respondent officials' positions. The petitioner also argues that the issue is of transcendental importance, justifying direct resort to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 8(3) of R.A. No. 6770 is unconstitutional for being violative of Section 11 in relation to Sections 8 and 10, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and applicable jurisprudence. Whether the instant petition is the proper remedy. Whether this Honorable Court has jurisdiction.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. Section 8(3) of R.A. No. 6770 is declared constitutional. The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove that the said provision transgresses the 1987 Constitution. The Court also ruled that a petition for certiorari and prohibition is the proper remedy to challenge the constitutionality of the law, distinguishing it from a quo warranto proceeding which attacks a public officer's title. The Court asserted its jurisdiction over the case due to the transcendental importance of the constitutional issue raised.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of Section 8(3) of R.A. No. 6770: The Court ruled that Section 8(3) of R.A. No. 6770 is constitutional. It clarified that the Office of the Ombudsman is not a constitutional commission, despite the Ombudsman and Deputies having the rank and salary of Chairman and Members of such commissions, respectively, as provided in Section 10, Article XI of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the intent of the framers was to provide a reference for rank and salary, not to equate their terms of office or collegial nature. The rotational plan observed in constitutional commissions, requiring successors to serve only the unexpired term, was found inapplicable to the Office of the Ombudsman, which is not a collegial body. Furthermore, the Court found no constitutional provision mandating that successors to the Ombudsman and Deputies must serve only the unexpired term; instead, Section 11, Article XI of the Constitution clearly states a seven-year term without reappointment, which applies to all appointments, whether for a full or unexpired term. The Court distinguished the ruling in Gaminde v. COA, which applied to constitutional commissions, from the present case. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate beyond doubt that Section 8(3) of R.A. No. 6770 transgresses the Constitution. On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that a petition for certiorari and prohibition is the proper remedy to challenge the constitutionality of Section 8(3) of R.A. No. No. 6770, as it directly assails the validity of a law and not the title of a public officer. Unlike in Topacio v. Ong, where the issue was the qualification of an appointee, this petition primarily questions the constitutionality of a statute. The Court emphasized that its expanded power of judicial review allows it to determine grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which includes reviewing the constitutionality of legislative acts. The Court found that the petition presented an actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication, involving alleged infringement of the fundamental law and potential illegal disbursement of public funds. On the jurisdiction of the Court: The Court affirmed its jurisdiction, noting the transcendental importance of the issue raised concerning the integrity of the Office of the Ombudsman. The petitioner's direct resort to the Supreme Court was justified by several exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, including the genuine issue of constitutionality, the transcendental importance of the issue, the time element, and the fact that the petition involves a constitutional organ. The Court acknowledged that while other respondents could have been impleaded, the OSG's representation would cover their arguments, and the Court's expanded power of review warranted taking cognizance of the case.
Main Doctrine
Section 8(3) of R.A. No. 6770, which provides that in case of vacancy in the Office of the Ombudsman due to death, resignation, removal, or permanent disability, the successor shall be appointed for a full term of seven (7) years, is constitutional and does not contravene Section 11, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. The term of office of the Ombudsman and his Deputies is seven years, and any successor, regardless of the cause of vacancy, is appointed for a full term.