Malacanang to Ombudsman: Fire prosecutor!

[chua_riwap]

Defiant ang Ombudsman.
Palaban....


http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquire...wont-back-down

Palace won’t back down
‘Ombudsman has no choice but fire prosecutor’


MANILA, Philippines—Malacañang is not backing down.

President Benigno Aquino III’s deputy spokesperson on Saturday said the Office of the Ombudsman, not being a coequal branch of government, had no option but to implement a Palace decision to sack Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzalez III in connection with the August 2010 hostage-taking in Manila.

Speaking over government radio dzRB, Abigail Valte admitted that the decision finding Gonzalez administratively liable for neglect and misconduct amounting to betrayal of public trust could still be appealed before the Office of the President or in court. But she warned that failure to file an appeal within the required period would make the ruling final and executory.

Valte was reacting to the defiance displayed on Friday by Assistant Ombudsman Jose de Jesus, who said the Office of the Ombudsman would not fire Gonzalez for his delayed resolution that pushed former Sr. Insp. Rolando Mendoza to take a busload of Hong Kong tourists hostage.
The hostage-taking resulted in the deaths of eight Hong Kong tourists and Mendoza himself, and in the embarrassment of the Philippines before the international community.

De Jesus, who speaks for the Office of the Ombudsman, had pointedly said the decision signed by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. and five other Palace lawyers with Mr. Aquino’s authority was still subject to appeal. But when asked on Saturday to comment on Valte’s remarks, De Jesus appeared less combative.

“If ... Gonzalez will allow the decision to become final by not questioning it anymore in court, that will be the time for us to act appropriately. We have to take cognizance of the rule of law,” he said in a text message.

‘We never said that’

De Jesus also said the Office of the Ombudsman had not claimed to be what it was not.

“We never said that we are a coequal branch of the government though we are an independent agency of the government and free from any political interference in the performance of our duties and functions. What we said earlier to the media was we cannot implement the decision because it has not yet become final,” he said. De Jesus again cited the earlier decision of the Office of the Ombudsman’s Internal Affairs Board clearing Gonzalez of the charges for which Malacañang found him liable.

He added that Gonzalez or the latter’s lawyer might issue a statement on the matter soon. Reading from a prepared statement at a press conference on Friday, De Jesus said that under the law, it was the Office of the Ombudsman that had disciplinary authority over officials like Gonzalez, and that it had already cleared the latter of culpability.

But Valte, a lawyer, said on Saturday on radio: “The Ombudsman, not being a coequal or separate branch of government or an appellate court, has no choice but to implement the decision of the Office of the President. Theirs is just [to execute the order].”

She said that “while we agree that there are legal remedies available to the former Deputy Ombudsman Gonzalez ... when he doesn’t avail [himself] of those remedies, the decision of the Office of the President becomes executory.” She also downplayed the possibility of a constitutional crisis should the Office of the Ombudsman continue to defy Gonzalez’s ordered dismissal.

Valte said on Friday that the Office of the President had the authority to remove the deputy ombudsman.

“A deputy, or the special prosecutor, may be removed from office by the President for any of the grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman, and after due process,” she said, quoting Section Eight of the Ombudsman Act.

Board’s findings

Months before Mendoza took hostage a busload of Hong Kong tourists, Gonzalez had already acted on his motion appealing his dismissal from the police force. But Gonzalez’s ruling endorsing Mendoza’s dismissal was not released before the hostage-taking on Aug. 23, 2010.

There was also no evidence to back the allegation that Gonzalez, the deputy ombudsman for military and other law enforcement agencies, had demanded P150,000 to decide in favor of Mendoza.

These are among the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman’s Internal Affairs Board, which had investigated the allegations against Gonzalez stemming from the hostage-taking that strained relations between the Philippines and Hong Kong.

The board’s decision was dated Feb. 17, 2011, a month before Malacañang released its own ruling dismissing Gonzalez from public service. The joint resolution was signed by Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert Kallos, Assistant Ombudsman Evelyn Balton, Assistant Ombudsman Rodolfo Elman, Assistant Ombudsman Virginia Santiago and Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro.

It was approved by Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who has been impeached by the House of Representatives and is up for trial at the Senate in May.

No evidence

The Internal Affairs Board also said the allegation that Gonzalez had asked for P150,000 from Mendoza was hearsay and unproven. Gonzalez had denied demanding the amount.

The board said that apart from witnesses’ accounts that they had heard Mendoza accusing Gonzalez of asking for P150,000, there was no evidence shown to back the bribery allegation.

It said Mendoza’s death also contributed to the lack of evidence.

It cited a Supreme Court ruling dismissing a charge of serious misconduct for bribery because the complainant had failed to present substantial evidence and only relied on a narration of accusations.

“The accusation of bribery is hard to prove due to the fact that the accuser is already dead. Moreover, no evidence was gathered to establish that respondent Gonzalez really asked for the bribe money,” the board said.

[CoDer]

Tibay ng mukha ng ambudsman ah, nawaha narin kay merci.

[vito corleone]

hindi alam ng mga tao ni pnoy kung sa anong mga bagay at sitwasyon di dapat daanin sa media. . .sa kanila na lang dapat ito

[niwde11]

tsk tsk, they are co-equal in IQ.

[wowiesy]

hindi alam ng mga tao ni pnoy kung sa anong mga bagay at sitwasyon di dapat daanin sa media. . .sa kanila na lang dapat ito

dagdag na bala to sa impeachment kay gutierrez.. kaya palabasin sa media...

ang mali lang ng malacanang spokesman, sana nagsalita sya ng ganun, nung lapse na yung period na pag file ng MR or TRO sa CA... minsan talaga, di ko alam kung sadyang magagaling ang mga media people natin na makakuha ng information from interviews, o talagang feeling lang ng pinoy ay may kailangan lumabas sa bibig nya pag may natapat na microphone (hmm... kaya ba malakas ang negosyo ng videoke?)..

[chua_riwap]

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquire...ng-of-Gonzalez

Senators back Aquino sacking of Gonzalez
Stay away from case, Ombudsman urged


MANILA, Philippines—Senators Sunday cautioned the Office of the Ombudsman against defying President Benigno Aquino III’s order to dismiss Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzalez III for his inaction on a case of a former police officer, saying the President has the power to “hire and fire.”
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile advised Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez to stay away from the matter and let the “law take its course.”

“The Ombudsman is defying the Office of the President,” Enrile said in a radio interview.

Assistant Ombudsman Jose de Jesus balked at the President’s order, asserting that only the Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to discipline its officials and that it had already cleared Gonzalez of culpability.

Sen. Francis Pangilinan said Malacañang should enforce the order even if it meant “physically” removing Gonzalez from his office.

The Office of the President found Gonzalez administratively liable for neglect and misconduct amounting to betrayal of public trust for his delayed resolution on a case of dismissal against former Senior Insp. Rolando Mendoza.

Regularity presumed

Pangilinan said there should be a “presumption of regularity” in Mr. Aquino’s order, and unless restrained by the courts, this must be respected and enforced.

“Absent any legal order preventing its enforcement, if he [Gonzalez] has to be bodily carried out by our law enforcement authorities, so be it. Unless they have forgotten, we are now under a new administration,” Pangilinan said in a text message.

Malacañang, however, said the order could still be appealed to the Office of the President or in court, otherwise it was final and executory.

Enrile reminded the Office of the Ombudsman that Mr. Aquino’s dismissal of Gonzalez was executory unless a court stopped it.

Supervision of employees

While the Ombudsman is a constitutional body independent of the executive department, Mr. Aquino exercises supervision and control of this office and its employees, the Senate president said.

“They have to study their position … He has the power to hire and fire; the power to appoint and remove except when the Constitution establishes a different norm of removal, in which case the manner of removal must be followed,” Enrile said.

Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., chair of the House committee on justice, also said Gutierrez had no choice but to follow the President’s decision. Under the Ombudsman Act, the President has disciplinary authority over the deputies and the special prosecutor, Tupas said.

Proper course of action

Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas said the proper course of action was for Gonzalez to either file a motion for reconsideration or bring his case to the proper court.

Enrile acknowledged that the Office of the Ombudsman had the right to ask for a temporary restraining order or injunction to stop the dismissal.
“But unless there is an injunction or a TRO (temporary restraining order), the order of the President is executory,” he said.

Impeachment trial

Enrile advised Gutierrez to submit to the President’s order dismissing Gonzalez. “Let the processes of the law take its course,” he said. “If I were her, I won’t join the fray because she’s facing a case,” the Senate president added, referring to an impeding impeachment trial in the Senate of Gutierrez.

The Senate is convening as an impeachment court in May to try Gutierrez, who was impeached for allegedly betraying pubic trust by failing to act on major anomalous deals forged by the Arroyo administration.

As for Gonzalez, Enrile said: “He’s a lawyer. He should know how to protect himself.”

Pangilinan said it was time for the government to put an end to the “wanton disregard of the rule of law so characteristic of the previous administration.”

“We need to exorcise the nation of the ghosts of the past regime wherein the Constitution and the rule of law were upheld only when it served the purpose of the incumbent. Enough is enough,” he said.

Letting case sleep

Enrile said the President was justified in ordering the dismissal of Gonzalez, who reportedly took nine months before acting on Mendoza’s case.

“That’s too long. Why did he let the case sleep that long? What did he do in nine months? Study every word of Mendoza’s case? That’s suspicious. If I were in the President’s shoes, I would also be suspicious. One month, two months, that’s reasonable. But nine months? My God, what’s that?” he said.

Months before the hostage-taking, Gonzalez had already acted on Mendoza’s motion appealing his dismissal from the police force on extortion charges. Gonzalez’s ruling endorsing Mendoza’s dismissal was not released before the former police officer took the tourists hostage.

The President’s deputy spokesperson, Abigail Valte, said Gonzalez was given the chance to respond to the charges against him in connection with last year’s bus hostage-taking.

No show at hearing

Valte said Gonzalez did not even show up at a hearing in February he had requested from the Palace.

She said on government radio dzRB said that after the Office of the President (OP) issued a “show cause” notice to Gonzalez, he responded to the charges recommended by an incident investigation and review committee on Nov. 4 last year.

“He (Gonzalez) asked for a formal hearing, which the OP gave him, but he did not show up,” she said.

In a phone interview, Valte said Gonzalez had also “contest(ed) the jurisdiction of the OP to investigate him but he also asked for a formal hearing.” With reports from Gil C. Cabacungan Jr. and Christine O. Avendaño