Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor’s General, claim that the petitioner Contrary to the position of the petitioner, Sec. 11, Art. XI by itself is clear and can
failed to appreciate the verbal legis approach to constitutional construction. stand on its own. This can only mean that it was the intent of the framers that the
Respondents allege that the deliberations of the framers of the Constitution reveal their appointment to the positions of the Ombudsman and the deputies, whether it be for
intent to grant the Ombudsman and his deputies the same rank and salary as the Chair the expired or unexpired term of the predecessor, shall always be for a full term of
and members of the Constitutional Commissions but not by the staggered term. seven years. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. Basic is the rule in
statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not
ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 8(3) of R.A. No. 6770 is constitutional? distinguish.
1
From Latin "for one's self," acting on one's own behalf, generally used to identify a
person who is acting as his/her own attorney in a lawsuit.
On the similarity between the Ombudsman and the deputies on one hand, and the
chairman and the members of the constitutional commission on the other pursuant to
Sec 10, Art. XI, it is only with reference to “salary” and “rank” that the Ombudsman
and his deputies should be similar to the chairman and the members of the
constitutional commission. Thus, rules on term are not included contrary to what
Petitioner claims.
The Court rules that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that Sec. 8(3) of R.A.
No. 6770 transgresses the provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
__________________
FEU.LAWREV