Noy stands by decision to sack deputy ombudsman

ISABEL, Leyte, Philippines – President Aquino justified yesterday Malacañang’s decision to dismiss Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III on grounds of mishandling the plea for reinstatement of cashiered police Inspector Rolando Mendoza.

Speaking after the ceremonial switch-on of the household electrification program in Eastern Visayas, Aquino said Mendoza could not appeal to a higher body because his motion for reconsideration before the office of Gonzales had no final adjudication.

“So, maybe it did not help anybody that they did not follow their own rules,” he said. 

Aquino said Mendoza became frustrated when he could not appeal when he was already retiring and facing forfeiture of benefits.

“Of course, we don’t want to repeat (a situation) wherein people will not obtain justice,” he said.

Aquino said Malacañang has powers over deputies of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, although her office is an independent agency.

“But let me just go back, that situation – whether it’s this person, it’s the system, it’s several people, their rule about the number of days to resolve the motion for reconsideration did not happen,” he said. 

Aquino said the Office of the Ombudsman is tasked to enforce justice and the process must be “beyond reproach.”

“We can’t order the Ombudsman to do anything,” he said. 

“The (Office of the) Ombudsman is an independent body. But, the Office of the President has supervisory (powers) on these deputies, if I remember my briefing correctly. It’s (the period to appeal) either five days or 15 days.” Aquino said Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. will study the Supreme Court (SC) decision reinstating Gonzales once he gets a copy.

He had to withhold further comment as he did not want to comment on a decision he had not yet read, he added. The SC has ruled that Malacañang erred in dismissing Gonzales based on findings of gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct in office.

“The findings of neglect of duty or misconduct in office do not amount to a betrayal of public trust,” read the SC decision.