EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES, GR No.

196231, 2014-01-28

Facts: This involved two separate cases involving Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III and
Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit. Gonzales was accused of delay in acting on a criminal
case pending before his office while Sulit was said to have entered into an apparent one-sided
plea bargaining agreement which drew public outrage. By reason of said cases, Gonzales was
dismissed while Sulit was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the Office of the President
(OP) pursuant to the powers granted by Section 8(2) of Republic Act (RA) No. 6770. Gonzales
challenged the constitutionality of said law granting the OP to discipline the Ombudsman while
Sulit sought to restrain the proceedings questioned the OP jurisdiction.

The Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 and ruled that the
President has disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor. The
Court, however, reversed the OP ruling. In view of the Court's ruling, the OP filed the present
motion for reconsideration through the Office of the Solicitor General.

Issue: Whether the OP has administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman
and a Special Prosecutor.

Ruling: Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 vesting... disciplinary authority in the President... over the
Deputy Ombudsman violates... the independence of the Office 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 to the
Ombudsman's disciplinary authority, cannot but seriously place at risk the... independence of
the Office of the Ombudsman itself. The Office of the Ombudsman, by express constitutional
mandate, includes its key officials, all of them tasked to support the Ombudsman in carrying
out her mandate. Unfortunately, intrusion upon the... 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 to the Office of the Ombudsman, but
inevitably with the principle of checks and balances that the creation of an Ombudsman office
seeks to revitalize

However, by another vote of 8-7, the Court resolved to maintain the validity of Section 8(2) of
RA No. 6770 insofar as Sulit is concerned. 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.