Quantcast
Article Index |Advertise | Mobile | RSS | Wireless | Newsletter | Archive | Corrections | Syndication | Contact us | About Us| Services
 
  Breaking News :    
Advertisement
Robinsons Land Corp.
Radio on Inquirer.net

INQUIRER ALERT
Get the free INQUIRER newsletter
Enter your email address:




 
Inquirer Opinion/ Letters to the Editor Type Size: (+) (-)
You are here: Home > Opinion > Inquirer Opinion > Letters to the Editor

  ARTICLE SERVICES      
     Reprint this article     Print this article  
    Send Feedback  
    Post a comment   Share  

  RELATED STORIES  






imns



Merceditas Gutierrez not the legitimate Ombudsman


Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:18:00 08/01/2010

Filed Under: Laws, Politics, Government

HAS the term of office of current Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez expired under the Constitution? Yes, for the following reasons:

1. The Constitution is clear. It materially provides: ?The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven years without reappointment?? (Sec. 11, Article XI) ?All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur.? (Sec. 9, Article XI)

2. According to jurisprudence, where the law is clear, there is no room for interpretation. We must apply the law not as we think it ought to be but as we find it, and without regard to consequences. (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil 720) According to the same case, void means ?no legal existence.?

3. In the case of Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, his term of seven years began when former President Fidel Ramos appointed him effective Aug. 4, 1995, and it expired at midnight of Aug. 3, 2002. He continued to serve in a holdover capacity until Oct. 10, 2002, when his successor, Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, was appointed by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

4. Ombudsman Marcelo?s seven-year term thus began on Oct. 10, 2002 and expired at midnight of Oct. 9, 2009. However, his tenure in office ended on Dec. 1, 2005 when he resigned, thereby leaving his term of office a balance of about three years and 10 months. He was succeeded by Gutierrez.

5. Gutierrez?s appointment was, therefore, a mere continuation of Marcelo?s seven-year term. Hence, her term expired at midnight of Oct. 9, 2009. While Ms Arroyo had three months within which to fill up the vacancy, she did not comply with the constitutional mandate. That is the problem.

6. Can it be properly said that Gutierrez enjoys a continuing appointment beyond the three-month period? The answer is ?No.? After the expiration of the constitutional term, the only way the incumbent can continue to validly serve is to be re-appointed to the office. However, this cannot happen. The Constitution expressly provides: ?The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven years without reappointment??

7. Under the law, a substantial distinction is made between ?term? and ?tenure.? The first is fixed by law; the second is not. Tenure refers to the actual time an officer holds office. It may be less than the term or up to the expiration of the term. In other words, tenure depends, more or less, on the will of the officer. Thus, while term is attached to the office, tenure is attached to the officer.

8. The Constitution fixes the term of office of the Ombudsman to a period of seven successive years. Therefore, when Gutierrez succeeded Marcelo, her tenure was limited by Marcelo?s constitutional term.

9. Consequently, after midnight of Oct. 9, 2009, Ombudsman Gutierrez completely lost jurisdiction to perform the duties of the office. From that precise moment, any performance of duty on her part is void ab initio since the act would have been performed without jurisdiction.

10. Dura lex sed lex. The law may be harsh (to some), but that is the law.

?ALAN F. PAGUIA,

alanpaguia@yahoo.com



Copyright 2014 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk.
Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate.
Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer
Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets,
Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94

Share

RELATED STORIES:

OTHER STORIES:


  ^ Back to top

© Copyright 2001-2014 INQUIRER.net, An INQUIRER Company

The INQUIRER Network: HOME | NEWS | SPORTS | SHOWBIZ & STYLE | TECHNOLOGY | BUSINESS | OPINION | GLOBAL NATION | Site Map
Services: Advertise | Buy Content | Wireless | Newsletter | Low Graphics | Search / Archive | Article Index | Contact us
The INQUIRER Company: About the Inquirer | User Agreement | Link Policy | Privacy Policy

Advertisement
Inquirer Mobile
Jobmarket Online
Inquirer VDO
BizLinq