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.