Palace won’t back down
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.
<strong>‘We never said that’</strong>
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.
<strong>Board’s findings</strong>
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.
<strong>No evidence</strong>
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.
