SC affirms ruling barring Palace from disciplining Deputy Ombudsman

The Office of the President may discipline the special prosecutor but not the deputy Ombudsman.

This was reiterated by the Supreme Court during its en banc summer session in Baguio City, as it junked a partial motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General that sought to reverse a January 28 decision of the high court.

"The Court denied the motion for partial reconsideration of the decision dated January 28, 2014 filed on March 13, 2014 by the Office of the Solicitor General," said the SC Public Information Office.

The SC PIO did not immediately cite a reason for the denial, but an explanation is expected to be included in a resolution that will eventually be released to the public.

The OSG's partial reconsideration plea sought to reverse an SC ruling declaring that the President may discipline the special prosecutor but not the deputy Ombudsman.

In the same ruling, the SC also denied the Office of the Solicitor General's motion to reverse the SC's September 4, 2012 decision ordering the reinstatement of dismissed Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III.

But since the issue on the President's authority to discipline the deputy Ombudsman and the special prosecutor was not brought up in its motion for reconsideration, the high court motu proprio (on its own) also decided to clear things up on the matter.

In its September 2012 decision, the SC said findings that Gonzales delayed the resolution of the extortion case of Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza — the dismissed policeman behind the bloody August 23, 2010 hostage-taking incident in Manila — were not sufficient for Malacañang to remove him from office.

Through the September 2012 ruling, the court set aside a Malacañang memorandum removing Gonzales from office for allegedly sitting on the pending case of Mendoza and demanding P150,000 from him.

Mendoza was dismissed from the police force in 2009 for allegedly extorting money from a traffic violator in 2006. His case was under review by the Office of the Ombudsman at the time of the hostage-taking incident.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court acknowledged that while the President's power to remove a deputy Ombudsman is "implied from his power to appoint," it does not "diminish the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman.
 
The court, however, said the President can remove a deputy Ombudsman on two grounds:
 

• that the removal of the Deputy Ombudsman must be for any of the grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman, which is through impeachment, and;
• that there must be observance of due process.

The grounds for impeachment of a public official are culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
 
The Supreme Court said that the findings of Gonzales' neglect of duty or misconduct in office did not amount to betrayal of public trust.
 
On Aug. 23, 2010, Mendoza held hostage a busload of tourists from Hong Kong to protest his dismissal from service and the supposed delay in the resolution of his case.

He was killed after an 11-hour standoff, which also resulted in the deaths of eight of his hostages — an incident that strained the relationship between the Philippines and China.
 
In March 2011, Malacañang dismissed Gonzales from service for gross neglect of duty and misconduct in office in connection with his alleged failure to act on Mendoza's appeal for nine months. Gonzales was then-Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other law Enforcement Offices.
 
While speaking with Gonzales over the phone at the height of the hostage-taking crisis, Mendoza berated him for allegedly demanding P150,000 from him in exchange for the settlement of his case.

Investigators at the time looked into the possibility that the alleged cash demand could have fueled Mendoza's anger, leading him to shoot his hostages.
 
Gonzales had denied the accusation and said he was merely "framed up." He also questioned President Benigno Aquino III’s authority to order his dismissal.
 
Gonzales said the power to exercise administrative discipline over him is "lodged exclusively" with his superior, then-Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who resigned from office in May 2011.

Gonzales also denied sitting on Mendoza's extortion case, saying he should not be blamed for the delay. He noted that it only took him nine days to act on Mendoza's motion for reconsideration appealing his dismissal from service. — KBK, GMA News