GONZALES v. OP

GONZALES III v. Office of the Pres.
GR No. 196231 Jan. 28, 2014 Brion, J.

Article XI - Section 2
Petitioners Respondents
Emilio Gonzales III Office of the Pres. of the Phil., et al.
Recit Ready Summary

 In the case at bar, Senior Inspector Mendoza and four others were charged w/ robbery,
grave threat, robbery extortion, and physical injury. Petitioner Deputy Ombudsman
Gonzales handled the records of Mendoza’s case and found him guilty of grave
misconduct, and thereby imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. Subsequently, he
forwarded Mendoza’s case to the Office of the Ombudsman for review. Pending final action
by the Ombudsman on the case, Mendoza hijacked a tourist bus and held all the
passengers as hostages. In the aftermath, Pres. Aquino directed the DOJ and DILG to
conduct a joint investigation of said incident, whereby the Incident Investigation & Review
Committee (IIRC) was created. The IIRC found the Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman
Gonzales to be liable for gross negligence and grave misconduct in handling the case
against Mendoza, which led to the desperate resort of Mendoza to hostage-taking. The
Office of the Pres. (OP) found Gonzales guilty as charged and dismissed/removed him from
service. The issue in the present case is W/N Sec. 8 (2) of RA 6770 is unconstitutional in so
far as it empowers the President to remove a Deputy Ombudsman. The Court held yes
since it undermines the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman. Moreover, though
the Congress is vested w/ the power to determine the manner and cause for removal of
non-impeachable officers, this does not mean that it can just ignore the basic principles and
precepts established by the Const. In other words, the Congress, in exercising such power,
must align itself consistently to the core constitutional principle of independence of the
Office of the Ombudsman.
Facts of the Case
 Senior Inspector Mendoza and four others were charged w/ robbery, grave threat, robbery
extortion, and physical injury. Petitioner Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales handled the records
of Mendoza’s case. In his draft decision, Gonzales found Mendoza guilty of grave
misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. Subsequently, he forwarded
Mendoza’s case to the Office of the Ombudsman for review.
 Pending final action by the Ombudsman on the case, Mendoza hijacked on Aug. 2010 a
tourist bus and held all the passengers as hostages. This ended tragically w/ the death of
several passengers and Mendoza himself.
 In the aftermath, Pres. Aquino directed the DOJ and DILG to conduct a joint investigation of
said incident; hence, the two depts. created the Incident Investigation & Review Committee
(IIRC). The IIRC found the Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales to be liable for
gross negligence and grave misconduct in handling the case against Mendoza, which
resulted to its unnecessary delay, and hence, precipitated the desperate resort to hostage-
taking of Mendoza.
 The Office of the Pres. (OP) found Gonzales guilty as charged and dismissed him from
service. In the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision, the Court reversed and set aside the
decision of the OP, to which OP appealed.
Issues Ruling
1. W/N Sec. 8 (2) of RA 6770 is unconstitutional in so far as it empowers the Yes.
President to remove a Deputy Ombudsman.
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. The SC held that subjecting the Deputy Ombudsman to discipline and removal by the Pres.,
whose own alter egos and officials in the Executive Dept. are subject to the Ombudsman’s
disciplinary authority, can seriously place at risk the independence of the Office of the
Ombudsman. This would result to the 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. The fear of external reprisal from the
very office that he is to check defeats the very purpose of granting independence to the
Office of the Ombudsman, and hence, it would render the said Office ineffective.
2. Under Sec. 2, Art. XI of the Const., the Congress is empowered to determine the modes of
removal from office of all public officers and employees except the Pres., Vice-Pres.,
Members of the SC, Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman,
who are all impeachable officers. The intent behind in providing that “all other public officers
and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment” in
the second sentence of Sec. 2, Art. XI is to prevent the Congress from extending the
stringent rule of removal by impeachment to favored public officers. Impeachment is after all
the most difficult mode of removing a public officer from office. By nature, it is a sui generis
politico-legal process. In the light of the foregoing, in no way can this provision be viewed as
a blanket authority for Congress to provide for any ground of removal it deems fit to non-
impeachable officers. While Congress is vested w/ the power to determine the manner and
cause for removal of non-impeachable officers, this does not mean that it can just ignore
the basic principles and precepts established by the Const. In other words, the Congress, in
exercising such power, must align itself consistently to the core constitutional principle of
independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Disposition
Sec. 8 (2) of RA 6770 is declared unconstitutional for granting disciplinary jurisdiction to the Pres.
over a Deputy Ombudsman in violation of the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Separate Opinions

GONZALES v. OP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GONZALES v. OP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GONZALES v. OP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GONZALES III v. Office of the Pres.

GR No. 196231 Jan. 28, 2014 Brion, J.

Recit Ready Summary

You might also like