Case Digest

Batac, Louissee Diamond S. HUMSS 12 E CASE DIGEST GONZALLES v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES BARRERAS-SULIT v. ATTY OCHOA, JR G.R No. 196231 and G.R No. 196232, SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 CASES: The two petitions have been consolidated not because they stem from the same factual milieu but because they raise a common thread of issues relating to the President’s exercise of the power to remove from office herein petitions who claim the protective cloak of independence of the constitutionally-created office to which they belong – Office of the Ombudsman. The first case, docketed as G.R. No. 196231, is a Petition for Certiorari (with application for issuance of temporary restraining order or status quo order) which assails on jurisdictional grounds the Decision dated March 31, 2011 rendered by the Office of the President in OP Case No. 10-J460 dismissing petitioner Emilio A. Gonzales III, Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO), upon a finding of guilt on the administrative charges of Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct constituting a Betrayal of Public Trust. The petition primarily seeks to declare as unconstitutional Section 8(2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which gives the President the power to dismiss a Deputy Ombudsman of the Office of the Ombudsman. The second case, docketed as G.R. No. 196232, is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with application for issuance of a temporary restraining order or status quo order) seeking to annul, reverse and set aside (1) the undated Order requiring petitioner Wendell Barreras-Sulit to submit a written explanation with respect to alleged acts or omissions constituting serious/grave offenses in relation to the Plea Bargaining Agreement (PLEBARA) entered into with Major General Carlos F. Garcia; and (2) the April 7, 2011 Notice of Preliminary Investigation,3 both issued by the Office of the President in OP-DC-Case No. 11-B-003, the administrative case initiated against petitioner as a Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman. The petition likewise seeks to declare as unconstitutional Section 8(2) of R.A. No. 6770 giving the President the power to dismiss a Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman. ISSUES: 1.) whether or if not, the Deputy Ombudsman be subjected to the executive disciplinary jurisdiction of the President in a justiciable and isn’t a political question. 2.) whether or if not, the proof that presented before the mandate SANDIGANBAYAN became sturdy enough for his region.

In G.R. No. 196231, petitioner Gonzales raises the following grounds, to wit: 1.) Respondent office of the president, acting through the other individual Respondents, has no constitutional or valid statutory authority to subject petitioner to an administrative investigation and to thereafter order his removal as deputy ombudsman. 2.) Respondent office of the president, acting through the other individual respondents, gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it conducted its investigation and rendered its decision in violation of petitioner's right to due process. 3.) Respondent office of the president, acting through the individual respondents, gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding that petitioner committed delay in the disposition of mendoza's motion for reconsideration. 4.) Respondent office of the president, acting through the individual respondents, gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding that petitioner took undue Interest in mendoza's case. 5.) Respondent office of the president, acting through the individual respondents, gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in faulting petitioner for not releasing the resolution on mendoza's motion for reconsideration or for not suspending mendoza's dismissal from service during the hostage crisis. 6.) Respondent office of the president, acting through the individual respondents, gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding that there was substantial evidence to show that petitioner demanded a bribe from Mendoza. On the other hand, in G.R. No. 196232, petitioner Barreras-Sulit poses for the Court the question: As of this point in time, would taking and continuing to take administrative disciplinary proceeding against petitioner be lawful and justifiable? Re-stated, the primordial question in these two petitions is whether the Office of the President has jurisdiction to exercise administrative disciplinary power over a Deputy Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor who belong to the constitutionally-created Office of the Ombudsman. FACTS: G.R No. 196231 is a petition for Certiorari. The stated petition reigned on jurisdictional grounds dated on March 11, 2011 which become rendered through the office of the President in OP Case No. 10-1-460 brushing off the petitioner Emilio A. Gonzales III, Deputy Ombudsman for the military and other law Enforcement officers upon finding guilt on the administrative costs of Gross Negligence and Grave Misconduct constituting a betrayal of public truth. The petition seeks to declare as unconstitutional section eight (2) of Republic Act (R.A) No. 6720, or also referred to as the Ombudsman Act of 1989. The petition which become filed alleged the subsequent: 1.) In the office of the Regional Director of NPC confide the request of the petitioner Emilio A. Gonzales on July 24, 2008.

2.) The filed complaint was not valid “by any evidence at all to warrant the indictment of the respondents of the offences charged”. 3.) A Grave Misconduct records was formally charged before the PNCR Director Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza and four different individuals at an unknown date in 2008. 4.) Rolando Mendoza and his companions were found guilty and was approved by the Ombudsman with Grave of Misconduct on February 16, 2009. G.R No. 196232 is a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition in attempt to reverse the preceding: 1.) The Administrative case also initiated opposition to the petitioner as a Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman. 2.) The dateless order necessary for the petitioner Wendell Barreras-Sulit to turn over a written explanation with respect to the alleged acts constituting serious and deadly offenses in relation to Plea Bargaining Agreement entered with Major General Carlos F. Garcia. The Petition was filed alleged also to the succeeding that: 1.) The Mandate of SANDIGANBAYAN denied the Major General’s Petition. 2.) Special Prosecutor sought the SANDIGANBAYAN’s approval of the plea to “Bargaining Agreement” 3.) The Prosecutor has a strong verification for serious public offenses against the Major General. 4.) The Acting Deputy Special Prosecutor charged Major General Carlos F. Garcia and his family, including his wife and children with several unknown individuals with Plunder and Money Laundering on April 2005 RULING: Short of claiming themselves immune from the ordinary means of removal, petitioners asseverate that the President has no disciplinary jurisdiction over them considering that the Office of the Ombudsman to which they belong is clothed with constitutional independence and that they, as Deputy Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor therein, necessarily bear the constitutional attributes of said office. The Court is not convinced. It is indeed correct that the authority of the Office of the Ombudsman is to conduct administrative investigation proceeds from its constitutional mandate to be a successful protector of the people against corrupt and incompetent government officials and it is to be subdued under the broad powers to be graphically conferred upon by the 1987 Constitution and R.A No. 6770 Accordingly, the proof that the SANDIGANBAYAN was impregnable enough to the point of approval and judgment towards the petitioner, Special Prosecutor Wendell Barretas-Sulit.