Political Law; Ombudsman; Constitutional grounds

Gonzales vs. Office of the President

G.R. No. 196231 January 28, 2014; EN BANC; BRION, J. Ponente

DOCTRINE: The removal of Ombudsman must not fall short of

constitutional standards.

FACTS: A formal charge for for robbery, grave threat, robbery extortion and
physical injury was before PNP-NCR against anila Police District Senior
Inspector Rolando Mendoza and four others (Mendoza, et al.). Private
complainant, Christian Kalaw, befor the office of the City Prosecutor, filed a
similar charge. While said cases were still pending, the oOffice of the
Regional Director of the National Peace Commission (NPC) turned over, upon
the request of petitioner, all relevant documents and evidence in relation to
the said case to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for appropriate
administrative adjudication. Subsequently, a case for Grave Misconduct was
lodged against P/S Insp. Rolando Mendoza and his fellow police officerds in
the Office of the Ombudsman.

Meanwhile, the case before the Office of the Prosecutor was dismissed.
Similarly, the Internal Affairs Service of the PNP issued a Resolution
recommending the dismissal of the administrative caseagainst the same
police officers for failure of the complainant to appear in three (3)
consecutive hearings despite due notice. However, a Decision finding P/S
Insp. Rolando Mendoza and his fellow police officersguilty of Grave
Misconduct was approved by the Ombudsman. Mendoza and his fellow
colleagues filed for a motion for reconsideration which was forwarded to
Ombudsman for approval, and such remained pending for final review and
action when P/S Insp. Mendoza hijacked a bus-load of foreign tourists in
desperate attempt to have him reinstated I the police service. The hostage-
taking incident ended in the tragic murder of eight Hong Kong Chinese
nationals, the injury of seven others and the death of Mendoza.

A public outcry against the blundering of government officials

prompted for the creation of the Incident Investigation and review
Committee (IIRC), which was tasked to determine accountability for the
incident. The IIRC found Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales committed serious
and inexcusable negligence and of gross violation of their own rules of
procedure allowing Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration languish for more
than nine (9) months without any justification. Gonzales was dismissed
from service, hence the petition.

ISSUE:
1. Does the Office of the President have jurisdiction to exercise
administrative disciplinary power over a Deputy Ombudsman who belong to
the constitutionally-created Office of the Ombudsman and the Special
Prosecutor?
2. Was the dismissal of Gonzales as deputy ombudsman by the office of the
president correct?
Political Law; Ombudsman; Constitutional grounds

RULING:
1. Yes. The ombudsman’s administrative disciplinary power over a deputy
ombudsman and special prosecutor is not exclusive. Section 8 of ra 6770
(the ombudsman act of 1989) grants the president the power to remove the
deputy ombudsman and the special prosecutor from office after due process.

2. No. His removal must be for any of the grounds provided in the removal of
the ombudsman. The alleged ground of betrayal of public trust was not
present in his case. Petitioner Gonzales may not be removed from office
where the questioned acts, falling short of constitutional standards, do not
constitute betrayal of public trust.

Congress laid down two restrictions on the President’s exercise of such

power of removal over a Deputy Ombudsman, namely: (1) that the removal
of the Deputy Ombudsman must be for any of the grounds provided for the
removal of the Ombudsman and (2) that there must be observance of due
process.