GONZALES III v.

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

FACTS:
1. Consolidated case ni, ang una about kang Gonzales (deputy ombudsman) ang 2 nd kay about kang Sulit
(Special Prosecutor)
2. 1st case -> G.R. No. 19623:
o Office of the President dismissed Emilio A. Gonzales III, Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and
Other Law Enforcement Offices, upon a finding of guilt on the administrative charges of Gross
Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct constituting a Betrayal of Public Trust.
o The petition primarily seeks to declare as unconstitutional Section 8(2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which gives the President the power to
dismiss a Deputy Ombudsman of the Office of the Ombudsman.
o Cause: Hostage Drama involving Rolando Mendoza and Hong Kong nationals in a tourist bus.
Rolando Mendoza demanded his reinstatement. Sometime in 2008, a formal charge for Grave
Misconduct (robbery, grave threats, robbery extortion and physical injuries) was filed against him
and other police officers.
o Office of the Regional Director of the National Police Commission turned over, upon the request
of petitioner Emilio A. Gonzales III, all relevant documents and evidence in relation to said case to
the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for appropriate administrative adjudication
o The administrative case against Mendoza was dismissed upon a finding that the material
allegations made by the complainant had not been substantiated "by any evidence at all to warrant
the indictment of respondents of the offenses charged.
o However, upon the recommendation of petitioner Emilio Gonzales III, a Decision finding P/S Insp.
Rolando Mendoza and his fellow police officers guilty of Grave Misconduct was approved by the
Ombudsman
o They filed a MR . The pleadings mentioned and the records of the case were assigned for review
and recommendation to Graft Investigation and Prosecutor Officer Dennis L. Garcia, who released
a draft Order for appropriate action by his immediate superior, Director Eulogio S. Cecilio, who, in
turn, signed and forwarded said Order to petitioner Gonzalez's office on April 27, 2010. Not more
than ten (10) days after, more particularly on May 6, 2010, petitioner endorsed the Order, together
with the case records, for final approval by Ombudsman Merceditas N. Gutierrez, in whose office
it remained pending for final review and action when P/S Insp. Mendoza hijacked a bus-load of
foreign tourists on that fateful day of August 23, 2010 in a desperate attempt to have himself
reinstated in the police service.
o Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC): found Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales
committed serious and inexcusable negligence and gross violation of their own rules of procedure
by allowing Mendoza's motion for reconsideration to languish for more than nine (9) months
without any justification, in violation of the Ombudsman prescribed rules to resolve motions for
reconsideration in administrative disciplinary cases within five (5) days from submission. The
inaction is gross, considering there is no opposition thereto. The prolonged inaction precipitated
the desperate resort to hostage-taking
o Case was elevated to OP. OP instituted a Formal Charge against petitioner Gonzales for Gross
Neglect of Duty and/or Inefficiency in the Performance of Official Duty under Rule XIV, Section 22
of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292 and other pertinent Civil Service Laws,
rules and regulations, and for Misconduct in Office under Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
o OP Dismissed Gonzales from his office.
3. 2nd case -> G.R. No. 196232,
o Order was issued by the Office of the President - requiring petitioner Wendell Barreras-Sulit
(Special Prosecutor) to submit a written explanation with respect to alleged acts or omissions
constituting serious/grave offenses in relation to the Plea Bargaining Agreement entered into with
Major General Carlos F. Garcia;
o Notice of Preliminary Investigation was also issued by Office of the President (admin case)
o The petition likewise seeks to declare as unconstitutional Section 8(2) of R.A. No. 6770 giving the
President the power to dismiss a Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman.
 o Short background: the Acting Deputy Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman charged
Major General Carlos F. Garcia, his wife Clarita D. Garcia, their sons Ian Carl Garcia, Juan Paulo
Garcia and Timothy Mark Garcia and several unknown persons with Plunder and Money
Laundering before the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE: WON THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT HAS JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY
POWER OVER A DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN AND A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WHO BELONG TO THE CONSTITUTIONALLY-
CREATED OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
HELD: NO!
1. Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 vesting disciplinary authority in the President over the Deputy Ombudsman
violates the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman and is thus unconstitutional.
2. Subjecting the Deputy Ombudsman to discipline and removal by the President, whose own alter egos and
officials in the Executive Department are subject to the Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority, cannot but
seriously place at risk the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman itself.
3. The Office of the Ombudsman, by express constitutional mandate, includes its key officials, all of them
tasked to support the Ombudsman in carrying out her mandate. Unfortunately, intrusion upon the
constitutionally-granted independence is what Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 exactly did.
4. By so doing, the law directly collided not only with the independence that the Constitution guarantees to
the Office of the Ombudsman, but inevitably with the principle of checks and balances that the creation of
an Ombudsman office seeks to revitalize.
5. What is true for the Ombudsman must be equally and necessarily true for her Deputies who act as agents
of the Ombudsman in the performance of their duties. The Ombudsman can hardly be expected to place
her complete trust in her subordinate officials who are not as independent as she is, if only because they
are subject to pressures and controls external to her Office. This need for complete trust is true in an ideal
setting and truer still in a young democracy like the Philippines where graft and corruption is still a major
problem for the government. For these reasons, Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 (providing that the President
may remove a Deputy Ombudsman) should be declared void.
6. The Executive power to remove and discipline key officials of the Office of the Ombudsman, or to exercise
any power over them, would result in an absurd situation wherein the Office of the Ombudsman is given
the duty to adjudicate on the integrity and competence of the very persons who can remove or suspend its
members.
7. Equally relevant is the impression that would be given to the public if the rule were otherwise. A
complainant with a grievance against a high-ranking official of the Executive, who appears to enjoy the
President’s favor, would be discouraged from approaching the Ombudsman with his complaint; the
complainant’s impression (even if misplaced), that the Ombudsman would be susceptible to political
pressure, cannot be avoided. To be sure, such an impression would erode the constitutional intent of
creating an Office of the Ombudsman as champion of the people against corruption and bureaucracy.