GONZALES III V.

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

GR No. 196231 | January 28, 2014
J. Perlas-Bernabe

Motion for reconsideration on the previous case which now grants Gonzales’ petition and declares SEC
8(2) of RA 6770 UNCONSTITUTIONAL with respect to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman only (not to
Office of the Special Prosecutor).

FACTS: The Office of the President, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a motion for
reconsideration on Gonzales III’s reinstatement. The petitioners in the 2012 Gonzales case did not
submit a motion for reconsideration themselves.

ISSUES

1. WN the case is mooted by the absence of motion for recon. on the part of petitioners – NO
a. since the validity of the OP’s decision on the merits for Gonzales’ dismissal is anchored
on the final ruling on the constitutionality of SEC 8(2), the whole case remains alive for
the Court’s consideration
2. WN the validity of SEC 8(2) is a political question – NO
a. The Court does not inquire into the wisdom of the Congress’ choice to grant concurrent
disciplinary authority to the President
b. instead, it is limited to whether such statutory grant violates the core constitutional
principle of independence of the Office of the Ombudsman

3. WN SEC 8(2) violates the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman and is thus
unconstitutional– YES
a. INDEPENDENCE
i. SEC 21 of RA 6770 empowers the Ombudsman to subject all government
officials under its disciplinary authority, with the exception only of impeachable
officials -> in keeping with their mandate as the activist watchman to protect
the people from the inept, abusive, and corrupt in government
ii. Constitution itself insulates the Ombudsman from the pressure of politicians by
expressly clothing it with independence -> independence comes from the
CONSTI ITSELF; does not owe its existence to any act of Congress
iii. Though not a Constitutional Commission, the degree of independence enjoyed
by the OMB is similar in degree and kind to the independence guaranteed to the
ConstiComms; all these offices fill the political interstices of a republican
democracy crucial to its existence and proper functioning
iv. THUS: The grant of authority to the President to remove from office the Deputy
Ombudsman encroaches upon the constitutionally-mandated principle of the
Office’s independence
b. INCLUSION OF DEPUTIES
i. The Court rules that subjecting the Deputy Ombudsman to discipline and
removal by the President, whose own alter egos and officials in the Executive
are subject to the Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority under SEC 21, RA 6770,
places the independence of the Office at risk
 ii. What is true for the Ombudsman must be equally necessary and true for her
Deputies who act as agents of the Ombudsman in the performance of their
duties
iii. Executive power to remove and discipline key officials in the Office of the
Ombudsman would lead to the absurd situation where the Office is given the
duty to adjudicate on the integrity of officials under the Chief Executive who can
remove or suspend them -> this would be political pressure
c. MUTUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENT
i. The opinion the Ombudsman and the Deputy can protect each other ignores the
checks and balances already in place
ii. The Ombudsman is an impeachable officer subject to the impeachment power
of Congress. Should the Ombudsman try to protect his/her Deputies, it can be
questioned in Court on appeal or certiorari. The attempt can also be a ground
for impeachment.
4. WN Gonzales’ questioned acts can be grounds warranting dismissal – NO
a. GROSS NEGLIGENCE
i. When Mendoza hijacked the bus, the records of the case were already pending
before Ombudsman Gutierrez (April 27: Gonzales was forwarded the draft
order; by May 6, Gonzales already endorsed it for Gutierrez’ final approval)
ii. Gonzales cannot be guilty of gross neglect of duty and/or inefficiency since he
acted on the case forwarded to him within 9 days
iii. Gonzales did not violate Sec. 8, Rule 3, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman because the provision refers to the hearing officer who is tasked
with initial resolution of the motion for reconsideration within 5 days
b. FAILURE TO SUPERVISE SUBORDINATES
i. Court cannot conclusively state, as the OP appears to suggest, that Mendoza’s
case should have been prioritized over other similar cases -> Ombudsman is
faced with numerous cases involving many other public officials
ii. Constitutional mandate of speedy disposition of cases before quasi-judicial
bodies like the Ombudsman is a relative concept
iii. Even the Ombudsman herself cannot be faulted for acting on a case within 4
months given the amount of work the Office handles; if Court rules this is
unreasonable and constitutes gross neglect of duty, the Ombudsman’s mandate
would be put to unreasonable constraint
c. UNDUE INTEREST
i. The fact that Gonzales had Mendoza’s case endorsed to his office, even if it
were merely on the request of the alleged victim’s father, lies within his
mandate
ii. The Consti empowers the Ombudsman and her Deputies to act promptly on
complaints filed in any form or manner, as stated in SEC 13, RA 6770
d. THUS: Penalty of dismissal was totally disproportionate to the acts alleged against
Gonzales; in fact, out of all the officers involved in the case, Gonzales took the least
time to do his job (9 days)
e. OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
 i. The former Tanodbayan, replaced by the 1987 Constitution with the Office of
the Ombudsman. Though replaced, the Consti provided the OSP continue to
function and exercise its powers as they already did (SEC 7, ART 11, 1987 Consti)
ii. By constitutional design, the SP is by no means an ordinary subordinate but
one who directly aids the Ombudsman in the exercise of his/her duties
iii. However, the Court did not consider the OSP to be constitutionally within the
Office of the Ombudsman so they upheld that independence only applies to the
latter.
iv. THUS: SEC 8(2) of RA 6770 is valid insofar as Sulit is concerned

RULING: SEC 8(2) UNCONSTITUTIONAL ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN

DISSENT:

1. PERLAS-BERNABE – uphold SEC 8(2), concur in the lack of factual basis to dismiss Gonzales
a. SEC 8(2), RA 6770 both with respect to the OP’s disciplinary authority over the DO and
SP should be upheld in its entirety since it has not been shown that said provision
clearly and unequivocally offends any constitutional principle
b. The Framers’ silence on the meaning of Ombudsman independence should carve out
space for Congress to define, by its plenary legislative power, the parameters of
discipline over these non-impeachable officers including the DO and the SP
2. LEONEN – dismiss the motion for partial reconsideration, concur that SEC 8(2) IS UNCONSTI
a. The exclusive power of the Ombudsman to discipline his/her own ranks is
fundamental to the independence of her office
b. Hagad v. Gozodadole and Ombudsman v. Delijero are not applicable. The first case deals
with local govt officials, who are within the authority of OP to discipline. The second
involved a case against a public school teacher and there was already a law, RA 4670,
providing a different set of administrative proceedings before the DepEd for such cases
c. “As provided by law” clause should only provide standards under which the
Ombudsman may exercise power of removal, not interpreted to mean Congress has
plenary authority to lodge disciplinary authority on any other organ aside from the
Ombudsman -> violative of Ombudsman independence in the Consti
d. By clear constitutional design, the OSP is separate from the Office of the Ombudsman
(SEC 7, ART 11, 1987 Consti) -> only Office of the Ombudsman and his/her Deputies are
endowed with constitutional independence