spot_img
29.3 C
Philippines
Monday, April 29, 2024

JBC extends filing of application for Ombudsman on May 15

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

The Judicial and Bar Council on Friday announced the extension of the deadline for the reception of the application for possible successor of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, whose term will end on July 26, 2018.

In an advisory, the JBC through Supreme Court Clerk of Court and JBC Ex Officio Secretary Edgar O. Aricheta said the application period for the position of the Ombudsman is extended to May 15.

“Application or recommendation [with conforme], together with two complete sets [one original/certified true copy and the one duplicate phocopied on long bond paper] of the documentary requirements must all be received by the JBC not later than 4:30 pm of 15 May 2018,” the JBC said.

The date of actual receipt by the JBC of the applications and complete document requirements shall be deemed as the date of the filing,” the JBC added.

The council said that applications sent through electronic mail or facsimile machine, as well as other documents which are incomplete, out of date, or without a transmittal letter, “shall not be given due course.”

- Advertisement -

The extension for the submission of application came after the Supreme Court earlier this week ruled that Morales appointment as Ombudsman is valid for a full seven-year term.

The ruling came even as the SC resolved to dismiss the petitions filed by former Metro Rail Transit Line 3 general manager Al Vitangcol and lawyer Rey Nathaniel Ifurung seeking the ouster of Morales for lack of merit.

The SC said that Ombudsman Morales is appointed to a full term of seven years without reappointment and not simply the unexpired portion of the predecessor.

“The Court, voting unanimously, dismissed the Petitions in these consolidated cases, ruling that, as provided in Article XI, Sec. 11 of the 1986 Constitution, Sections 7 and 8(3) of Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman is appointed to a full term of seven years without reappointment and not simply the unexpired portion of the predecessor,” SC spokesperson Theodore Te said, in a media briefing.

In his petition, Vitangcol asked the SC to declare that the term of office of Morales had expired on Nov. 30, 2012.

Morales was appointed by former President Benigno Aquino III to a seven-year term on July 25, 2011 following the resignation of then-Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez over allegations of incompetence and inaction on various cases.

Gutierrez resigned on May 6, 2011 from the post to avoid an impeachment trial in the Senate, leaving an unexpired term until Nov. 30, 2012.

Vitangcol argued that the intent of the law was for the successor of Gutierrez to serve the remainder of her term only, not for a fresh term of seven years.

Vitangcol said that the SC should declare Section 8 (3) of Republic Act 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989 as unconstitutional for contravening the legislative intent that in case of vacancy, the new appointee should only serve the unexpired term of his or her predecessor.

Section 8(3) assures a fresh seven-year term for the successor of the incumbent Ombudsman and his deputies.

“Legislative intent is part and parcel of the law. It is the controlling factor in interpreting a statute. In fact, any interpretation that runs counter with the legislative intent is unacceptable and invalid,” Vitangcol’s petition stated.

For his part, Ifurung pleaded the SC to declare as unconstitutional Section 8 (3) of Republic Act (RA) No. 6770, also known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, for being contrary to Section 11 in relation to Sections 8 and 10, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

Aside from Morales, Ifurung also sought the ouster of Morales deputies, namely: Melchor Arthur Carandang (Overall Deputy Ombudsman), Gerard Mosquera (Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon), Paul Elmer Clemente (Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas), Rodolfo Elman (Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao) and Cyril Ramos (Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices).

“The country deserves a new Ombudsman and Deputies Ombudsman, not because respondents are not qualified or that they are doing a disservice, but because we must follow the rule of law,” read the petition filed last June 2017.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles