Emilio A. Gonzales III vs.

Office of the President

G.R. Nos. 196231 196232 !e"tem#er $% 2&12
Perlas'(erna#e% ).
FACTS:
Sometime in 2008, a formal charge for Grave Misconduct was filed efore the !"!#"C$
against $olando Mendo%a and four others& 'hile said cases were still (ending, the )ffice
of the $egional *irector of the "ational !olice Commission +"!C, turned over, u(on the
re-uest of (etitioner .milio A& Gon%ales ///, all relevant documents and evidence in
relation to said case to the )ffice of the *e(ut0 )mudsman for a((ro(riate
administrative ad1udication& )n Feruar0 23, 2004, u(on the recommendation of
(etitioner .milio Gon%ales ///, a *ecision finding $olando Mendo%a and his fellow
(olice officers guilt0 of Grave Misconduct was a((roved 0 the )mudsman& The0 filed
a Motion for $econsideration& )n *ecemer 25, 2004, the (leadings mentioned and the
records of the case were assigned for review and recommendation to Graft /nvestigation
and !rosecutor )fficer *ennis 6& Garcia, who released a draft )rder on A(ril 7, 2020 for
a((ro(riate action 0 his immediate su(erior, *irector .ulogio S& Cecilio, who, in turn,
signed and forwarded said )rder to (etitioner Gon%ale%8s office on A(ril 29, 2020& "ot
more than ten +20, da0s after, more (articularl0 on Ma0 3, 2020, (etitioner endorsed the
)rder, together with the case records, for final a((roval 0 )mudsman Merceditas "&
Gutierre%, in whose office it remained (ending for final review and action when Mendo%a
hi1ac:ed a us#load of foreign tourists on that fateful da0 of August 2;, 2020 in a
des(erate attem(t to have himself reinstated in the (olice service&
/n the aftermath of the hostage#ta:ing incident, a (ulic outcr0 against the lundering of
government officials (rom(ted the creation of the /ncident /nvestigation and $eview
Committee +//$C,& /t was tas:ed to determine accountailit0 for the incident through the
conduct of (ulic hearings and e<ecutive sessions& =owever, (etitioner, as well as the
)mudsman herself, refused to (artici(ate in the //$C (roceedings on the assertion that
the )ffice of the )mudsman is an inde(endent constitutional od0& The //$C eventuall0
identified (etitioner Gon%ales to e among those in whom cul(ailit0 must lie& /t
recommended that its findings with res(ect to (etitioner Gon%ales e referred to the
)ffice of the !resident +)!, for further determination of (ossile administrative offenses
and for the initiation of the (ro(er administrative (roceedings& )n )ctoer 27, 2020, the
)! instituted a Formal Charge against (etitioner&
!etitioners asseverate that the !resident has no disci(linar0 1urisdiction over them
considering that the )ffice of the )mudsman to which the0 elong is clothed with
constitutional inde(endence and that the0, as *e(ut0 )mudsman and S(ecial !rosecutor
therein, necessaril0 ear the constitutional attriutes of said office&
/SS>.:
'hether or not the )ffice of the !resident, acting through individual res(ondents, has
constitutional or valid statutor0 authorit0 to su1ect (etitioner to an administrative
investigation and to thereafter order his removal as *e(ut0 )mudsman&
=.6*:
?es& 'hile the )mudsman8s authorit0 to disci(line administrativel0 is e<tensive and
covers all government officials, whether a((ointive or elective, with the e<ce(tion onl0 of
those officials removale 0 im(eachment, the memers of congress and the 1udiciar0,
such authorit0 is 0 no means e<clusive& !etitioners cannot insist that the0 should e
solel0 and directl0 su1ect to the disci(linar0 authorit0 of the )mudsman& For, while
Section 22 declares the )mudsman8s disci(linar0 authorit0 over all government
officials, Section 8+2,, on the other hand, grants the !resident e<(ress (ower of removal
over a *e(ut0 )mudsman and a S(ecial !rosecutor&
/t is a asic canon of statutor0 construction that in inter(reting a statute, care should e
ta:en that ever0 (art thereof e given effect, on the theor0 that it was enacted as an
integrated measure and not as a hodge#(odge of conflicting (rovisions& A construction
that would render a (rovision ino(erative should e avoided@ instead, a((arentl0
inconsistent (rovisions should e reconciled whenever (ossile as (arts of a coordinated
and harmonious whole&
/nduital0, the manifest intent of Congress in enacting oth (rovisions # Section 8+2,
and Section 22 # in the same )rganic Act was to (rovide for an e<ternal authorit0,
through the (erson of the !resident, that would e<ercise the (ower of administrative
disci(line over the *e(ut0 )mudsman and S(ecial !rosecutor without in the least
diminishing the constitutional and (lenar0 authorit0 of the )mudsman over all
government officials and em(lo0ees& Such legislative design is sim(l0 a measure of
Achec: and alanceA intended to address the lawma:ers8 real and valid concern that the
)mudsman and his *e(ut0 ma0 tr0 to (rotect one another from administrative
liailities&