GONZALES III v.

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT REYES

TOPIC: Ombudsman
DOCTRINE:

FACTS:
1. Both Deputy Ombudsman Gonzaless III and Special
Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit challenge the
constitutionality of Section 8[2] of RA 6770.
GONZALES PETITION
HRC found Ombudsman and Gonzales guilty for
their gross negligence and grave misconduct in
handling the case of Manila Police District Senior
Inspector Rolando Mendoza and four others.
Ombudsman and Gonzales failure to promptly
resolve Mendozas MR, in relation to the complaint
filed against the latter, without justification and
despite repeated pleas which precipitated the
desperate resort to hostage-taking [ITO YUNG
HOSTAGE TAKING SA MAY TAPAT NG MANILA HOTEL]
HRC recommended the referral of its findings to the
OP. Gonzales was formally charged before the OP
for gross neglect of duty and/or inefficiency in the
performance of official duty and for misconduct in
office. He was found guilty and was dismissed from
service.
GONZALES CONTENTION IN HIS PETITION: OP has
no administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over a
deputy ombudsman. It is the Ombudsman who
exercises administrative disciplinary jurisdiction
over the Deputy Ombudsman.
SULITS PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman charged Major General
Carlos Garcia and several others before the
Sandiganbayan
with
plunder
and
money
laundering.

Office of the Ombudsman through Sulit and her

prosecutorial staff entered into a plea bargaining
agreement with Garcia. SB approved the
Agreement.
Apparent one-sidedness of the Agreement drew
public outrages and prompted Committee on Justice
of the House of Representatives to conduct an
investigation. Sulit and her deputies and assistants
were found to commit culpable violations of the
Constitution and betrayal of public trust, which are
grounds for removal under Section 8[2] of RA 6770.
OP
initiated
an
administrative
disciplinary
proceeding against sulit. Sulit filed her written
explanation, questioning OPs jurisdiction.

ISSUE: WON the Office of the President has

administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over the Deputy
Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor.
HELD:
INDEPENDENCE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Independence enjoyed by the Office of the
Ombudsman
and
by
the
Constitutional
Commissions share certain characteristics
o Created by the Constitution
o Enjoy fiscal autonomy
Framers of the Constitution intended that these
independent bodies be insulated from political
pressure to the extent that the absence of
independence would result in the impairment of
their core functions.
BRILLIANTES
v.
YORAC

Constitutional
Commissions which have been characterized as
independent are not under the control of the

president, even if they discharge functions that are

executive in nature.
The kind of independence enjoyed by the
Ombudsman cannot be inferior but is similar in
degree and kind to the independence similarly
guaranteed
by
the
Constitution
to
the
Constitutional Commissions.

SECTION 8[2] OF RA 6770 VESTING DISCIPLINARY

AUTHORITY IN THE PRESIDENT OVER THE DEPUTY
OMBUDSMAN VIOLATES THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN AND IS THUS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Subjecting the Deputy Ombudsman to discipline
and removal by the President, whose own alter
egos and officials in the executive department are
subject of the Ombudsmans disciplinary authority,
cannot but seriously place at risk the independence
of the Office of the Ombudsman.
o Such will create an absurd situation wherein
the OB is given the duty to adjudicate on the
integrity and competence of the very
persons who can remove or suspend its
members.
As to the mutual-protection argument for crafting
sec. 8[2], the independence granted to the
Constitutional Commissions bars any undue

interference from either the Executive or Congress,

and is in full accord with constitutional intent.
While the Constitution itself vested the Congress
with the power to determine the manner and cause
of removal of all non-impeachable officials, this
power must be interpreted consistent with the core
constitutional principle of independence of the
Office of the Ombudsman.

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
Under the Constitution, there is every reason to
treat the special prosecutor to be at par with the
Ombudsmans deputies, at least insofar as an
extraneous disciplinary authority is concerned, and
must also enjoy the same grant of independence
under the Constitution.
o Sec.7 Art XI expressly provides that the
then existing tanodbayan, to be known as
the office of the Special prosecutor, shall
continue to function and exercise its powers
as now or hereafter may be provided by law,
except those conferred in the Office of the
Ombudsman created under the Constitution.
DISPOSITIVE: Sec. 8[2] of RA 6770 Unconstitutional.