Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Emilio Gonzales III V Office of The President G R No 196231 CD

    Uploaded by

    Mila Perez
    Emilio Gonzales III v. Office of the President involved a case where a Deputy Ombudsman, Emilio Gonzales III, was dismissed by the Office of the President for gross negligence and grave misconduct in his handling of a case as head of the Field Investigation Office. Gonzales argued that only the Ombudsman had jurisdiction over disciplinary action against a Deputy Ombudsman. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 was unconstitutional in granting the President administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman, as it violated the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Emilio Gonzales III V Office of The President G R No 196231 CD

    Uploaded by

    Mila Perez
    28 views1 page
    Emilio Gonzales III v. Office of the President involved a case where a Deputy Ombudsman, Emilio Gonzales III, was dismissed by the Office of the President for gross negligence and grave misconduct in his handling of a case as head of the Field Investigation Office. Gonzales argued that only the Ombudsman had jurisdiction over disciplinary action against a Deputy Ombudsman. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 was unconstitutional in granting the President administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman, as it violated the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Emilio_Gonzales_III_v_Office_of_the_President_G_R_No_196231_CD

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Emilio Gonzales III v. Office of the President involved a case where a Deputy Ombudsman, Emilio Gonzales III, was dismissed by the Office of the President for gross negligence and grave misconduct in his handling of a case as head of the Field Investigation Office. Gonzales argued that only the Ombudsman had jurisdiction over disciplinary action against a Deputy Ombudsman. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 was unconstitutional in granting the President administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman, as it violated the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    28 views1 page

    Emilio Gonzales III V Office of The President G R No 196231 CD

    Uploaded by

    Mila Perez
    Emilio Gonzales III v. Office of the President involved a case where a Deputy Ombudsman, Emilio Gonzales III, was dismissed by the Office of the President for gross negligence and grave misconduct in his handling of a case as head of the Field Investigation Office. Gonzales argued that only the Ombudsman had jurisdiction over disciplinary action against a Deputy Ombudsman. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 was unconstitutional in granting the President administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman, as it violated the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Emilio Gonzales III v. Office of the President G.R No.

    196231

    FACTS

    On May 26, 2008, Christian Kalaw filed separate charges with the Philippine National Police
    Internal Affairs Service (PNP-IAS) and with the Manila City Prosecutor’s Office against Manila
    Police District Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza and four others (Mendoza, et al.) for robbery,
    grave threat, robbery extortion and physical injury.

    In the aftermath, President Benigno C. Aquino III directed the Department of Justice and the
    Department of Interior and Local Government to conduct a joint thorough investigation of the
    incident. The two departments issued Joint Department Order No. 01-2010, creating an
    Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC).

    In its September 16, 2010 First Report, the IIRC found the Ombudsman and Gonzales
    accountable for their "gross negligence and grave misconduct in handling the case against
    Mendoza."The IIRC stated that the Ombudsman and Gonzales’ failure to promptly resolve
    Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration, "without justification and despite repeated pleas" xxx
    "precipitated the desperate resort to hostage-taking."The IIRC recommended the referral of its
    findings to the OP for further determination of possible administrative offenses and for the
    initiation of the proper administrative proceedings.

    On March 31, 2011, the OP found Gonzales guilty as charged and dismissed him from the
    service. According to the OP, "the inordinate and unjustified delay in the resolution of
    [Mendoza’s] Motion for Reconsideration [‘that spanned for nine (9) long months’] xxx
    amounted to gross neglect of duty" and "constituted a flagrant disregard of the Office of the
    Ombudsman’s own Rules of Procedure."

    Gonzales posited in his petition that the OP has no administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over a
    Deputy Ombudsman. Under Section 21 of RA No. 6770, it is the Ombudsman who exercises
    administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over the Deputy Ombudsman.

    ISSUE

    Whether Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 giving the President administrative disciplinary jurisdiction
    over a Deputy Ombudsman constitutional?

    RULING

    No, the Court declared Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 unconstitutional by granting disciplinary
    jurisdiction to the President over a Deputy Ombudsman, in violation of the independence of the
    Office of the Ombudsman.

    You might also like