Palace to Ombudsman exec: Appeal case or follow dismissal order

Exercise your legal options, or comply with the dismissal order. These were the options Malacañang presented to Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzalez III, as it disregarded Gonzalez’s “acquittal" by impeached Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. “While we agree there are remedies available to Gonzalez such as filing a motion for reconsideration with the Office of the President (OP) or seeking relief from higher courts, he must comply with the decision of the OP, which is considered executory, if he has no plans of making use of available remedies)," deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said on government-run dzRB radio. She also said the Ombudsman has “no choice" but to implement the OP decision, noting it is not a co-equal or separate branch of the government. “The Ombudsman, not being a co-equal or separate branch of government or an appellate court, has no choice but to implement the decision of the OP. Its job is to execute the order," she said. On Thursday, Malacañang dismissed Gonzalez for the alleged mishandling of the case of Inspector Rolando Mendoza, who held hostage Hong Kong tourists last year. Mendoza was killed along with eight Hong Kong tourists in the 11-hour standoff on Aug. 23 last year. But Ombudsman Gutierrez defied Malacañang, saying Gonzalez had already been acquitted in an internal probe. She said the matter of her deputy’s culpability is “legally final and closed." Gutierrez said an internal investigation by her office has already found Gonzalez not culpable in the deadly August 23, 2010, hostage-taking crisis in Rizal Park (Luneta). “This Office has considered the matter of DO Gonzales’ culpability in the hijacking episode as legally final and closed," she said. In dismissing Gonzalez, the Palace noted it took nine months for him to rule on the motion for reconsideration filed by Mendoza. It said he could have decided on the matter in five days. While speaking with Gonzalez over the phone in the middle of the hostage-taking crisis, hostage-taker Mendoza berated the deputy ombudsman for allegedly demanding P150,000 from him in exchange for the settlement of his case that led to his dismissal from the police service. Investigators at the time looked into the possibility that the alleged P150,000 demand could have fueled Mendoza’s anger. Gonzalez had denied the accusation of the hostage-taker, who he said he never met before, adding he was merely “framed up." No constitutional crisis Valte brushed aside speculations the dismissal order on Gonzalez may cause a constitutional crisis, because the Ombudsman is not a separate and co-equal branch of government. “There is no constitutional crisis. Again, the Office of the Ombudsman is not a separate and co-equal branch of the Executive, nor is it an appellate court that can issue a hold order on the decision of the Office of the President," she said. Under Art. XI, Sec. 5 of the 1987 Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman will be “independent." But Section 9 also says the Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter. “Such appointments shall require no confirmation. All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur," Section 9 said. — LBG, GMA News