Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Gonzales III v. Office of the President LEFT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, ATTY.

THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, ATTY. RONALDO


A. GERON, DIR. ROWENA TURINGAN-SANCHEZ, AND ATTY. CARLITO D. CATAYONG,
Class Topic: Political Question Respondents.
1.
G.R. No. 196231 January 28, 2014 2.
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_196231_2014.html

DECISION:
“In the voting held on January 28, 2014, by a vote of 8-7,108 the Court resolved to reverse
ISSUES:
its September 4, 2012 Decision insofar as petitioner Gonzales is concerned (G.R. No.
1. W/N it is constitutional for the OP to have disciplinary jurisdiction over the deputy
196231). We declared Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 unconstitutional by granting disciplinary
ombudsman?
jurisdiction to the President over a Deputy Ombudsman, in violation of the independence
2. W/N Gonzales was guilty of gross negligence
of the Office of the Ombudsman.”
3. W/N special prosecutor should enjoy the same independence as the employees of the office of
the Ombudsman

FACTS:
RATIO DECIDENDI:
The Manila hostage crisis, officially known as the Rizal Park hostage-taking incident,[3] took
1. The kind of independence enjoyed by the Office of the Ombudsman certainly cannot be
place when a disgruntled former Philippine National Police officer named Rolando Mendoza
inferior but is similar in degree and kind to the independence similarly guaranteed by the
hijacked a tourist bus in Rizal Park, Manila, Philippines on August 23, 2010. The bus carried 25
Constitution to the Constitutional Commissions since all these offices fill the political... interstices
people: 20 tourists, a tour guide from Hong Kong, and four local Filipinos. Mendoza claimed that
of a republican democracy that are crucial to its existence and proper functioning.
he had been unfairly dismissed from his job, and demanded a fair hearing to defend himself.
1. Ombudsman and is thus... unconstitutional... we rule that subjecting the Deputy Ombudsman
to discipline and removal by the President, whose own alter egos and officials in the Executive
Negotiations (which were broadcast live on television and the internet) broke down dramatically
Department are subject to the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority, cannot but seriously place at
about ten hours into the stand-off, when the police arrested Mendoza's brother and thus incited
risk the... independence of the Office of the Ombudsman itself. The Office of the Ombudsman,
Mendoza to open fire.[6] The bus driver managed to escape, and declared "Everyone is dead"
by express constitutional mandate, includes its key officials, all of them tasked to support the
before he was whisked away by policemen.[7] Following a 90-minute gun battle, Mendoza and
Ombudsman in carrying out her mandate. Unfortunately, intrusion upon the...
eight of the hostages were killed and several others injured.[8]
constitutionally-granted independence is what Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 exactly did. By so
doing, the law directly collided not only with the independence that the Constitution guarantees
The Philippine and Hong Kong governments conducted separate investigations into the incident.
to the Office of the Ombudsman, but inevitably with the principle of checks and... balances that
Both inquiries concluded that the Philippine officials' poor handling of the situation caused the
the creation of an Ombudsman office seeks to revitalize. xxxx For these reasons, Section
eight hostages' deaths.[9][10] The assault mounted by the Manila Police District (MPD), and the
8(2) of RA No. 6770 (providing that the President may remove a Deputy Ombudsman)
resulting shoot-out, have been widely criticized by pundits as "bungled" and "incompetent",[11]
should be declared void.
and the Hong Kong Government has issued a "black" travel alert for the Philippines as a result of
1. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to declare Section 8(2)
the affair.[12]
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This ruling renders any further ruling on the dismissal of Deputy
P ETI TI ONER : DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN EMILIO GONZALES III
Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III unnecessary, but is without prejudice to the power of the
1. Assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 6770 "The Ombudsman Act of 1989" section
Ombudsman to conduct an administrative investigation, if warranted, into the possible
8(2)
administrative liability of Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III under pertinent Civil Service
2. Clearly, when Mendoza hijacked the tourist bus on August 23, 2010, the records of the case
laws, rules and regulations.
were already pending before Ombudsman Gutierrez.
2. Gonzales cannot be guilty of gross neglect of duty and/or inefficiency since he acted on the
3. ONLINE: On March 31, 2011, Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales was dismissed by President Aquino
case forwarded to him within nine days. In finding Gonzales guilty, the OP[72] relied on Section
for his "inordinate and unjustified delay" in handling Mendoza's appeal.[64] Gonzales was the
8, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7 (or the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
first individual to receive direct sanction from the Philippine government in connection with the
Ombudsman, series of 1990, as amended) in ruling that Gonzales should have acted on
incident. He appealed the decision, claiming that he was "prejudged guilty before the
Mendoza's Motion for Reconsideration within five days: Section 8. Motion for reconsideration or
investigation started".
reinvestigation: Grounds Whenever allowable, a motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation
may only be entertained if filed within ten (10) days from receipt of the decision or order by the
RESP ONDENT : OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING THROUGH
party on the basis of any of... the following grounds: Only one motion for reconsideration or
AND REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., SENIOR
reinvestigation shall be allowed, and the Hearing Officer shall resolve the same within five (5)
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY JOSE AMOR M. AMORANDO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE -
days from the date of submission for resolution. Even if we consider this provision to be
mandatory, the period it requires cannot apply to Gonzales since he is a Deputy Ombudsman
whose obligation is to review the case; he is not simply a Hearing Officer tasked with the initial
resolution of the motion.
3. The Court did not consider the Office of the Special Prosecutor to be constitutionally within
the Office of the Ombudsman and is, hence, not entitled to the independence the latter enjoys
under the Constitution.

SUMMARY BASED ON POLITICAL QUESTION topic: The issue may have been a political
question talking about the wisdom of the President to dismiss Gonzales III, but it comes
justiciable being an action against the Constitutional provision about the independence of the
Ombudsman.

REQUISITES FOR GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION  


 
1. Must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to 
perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. 
2. In the discharge of its quasi-judicial powers (me: legal acts) and not those arising from the 
exercise of its administrative functions. An act must be enjoined by a law or done in contemplation 
of the law (i.e. quasi-judicial) 
3. The governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction. 
 
ALSO;carefully;with exceptions: WHEN there has been a gross misapprehension of facts

Вам также может понравиться