By Macon Araneta and Ferdie Fabella

Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez says she has a seven-year full term, contrary to the claim of Senator Francis ?Chiz? Escudero who says her tenure ends in October.

Gutierrez cited the Ombudsman Act as basis for saying that she has a full seven-year tenure which ends in December 2012, since she has been appointed in December 2005.

Assistant Ombudsman Jose de Jesus also came to her defense and rejected Escudero?s claim that she is merely serving the unexpired term of her predecessor, Simeon Marcelo, who resigned in 2005. ?It is clear under the 1987 Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989 that Gutierrez has a seven-year term and she intends to serve that term being her mandate from the people,? De Jesus said.

De Jesus quoted Sec. 11, Article XI of the Constitution which states that ?[T]he Ombudsman and his deputies shall serve for a term of 7 years without reappointment. x x x?

The Ombudsman Act of 1989, De Jesus said, provides that ?The Ombudsman and his/her deputies, including the Special Prosecutor, shall serve for a term of 7 years without reappointment.?

The law also states that in case of vacancy, in the Office of the Ombudsman due to death, resignation, removal or permanent disability of the incumbent ombudsman, the overall deputy ombudsman shall serve as acting ombudsman in a concurrent capacity until a new ombudsman shall have been appointed for a full term.

In case the overall deputy ombudsman cannot assume the role of acting ombudsman, the sPresident may designate any of the deputies, or the special prosecutor, as acting ombudsman.

And since Gutierrez was appointed on Dec. 1, 2005, her term ends on Dec. 1, 2012, De Jesus said.

Unimpressed by that argument, Escudero, a member of the Judicial and Bar Council, challenged Gutierrez to step down in October and redeem herself and the lost glory of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Escudero pointed out that Philippine ?case law? reveals that the appointment of Gutierrez may be viewed and ruled upon as a mere continuation of the original term of then Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo.

?Our case law shows that, as a matter of rule in administrative law, the resignation or the removal of an officer during his/her term and the appointment of a successor do not divide the term or create a new and distinct one,? he emphasized.

Based on American jurisprudence and as cited in the case of Republic v. Imperial, the appointment of an officer due to a permanent vacancy due to resignation, death or incapacity is only for the unexpired portion, Escudero said.