Legal Research GONZALES III VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 196231 January 28, 2014 EMILIO A. GONZALES III, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING THROUGH AND REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., SENIOR DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY JOSE AMOR M. AMORANDO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE - OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, ATTY. RONALDO A. GERON, DIR. ROWENA TURINGAN-SANCHEZ, AND ATTY. CARLITO D. CATAYONG, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G.R. No. 196232 WENDELL BARRERAS-SULIT Petitioner, vs. ATTY. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., IN HIS CAP A CITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ATTY. DENNIS F. ORTIZ, ATTY. CARLO D. SULAY AND ATTY. FROILAN D. MONTALBAN, JR., IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF OFFICE OF MALACANANG LEGAL AFFAIRS,Respondents. D E C I S I O N BRION, J.: We resolve the Office of the President's (OP 's) motion for reconsideration of our September 4, 2012 Decision 1 which ruled on the petitions filed by Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III and Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit. Their petitions challenged the constitutionality of Section 8(2) of Republic Act (RA) No. 6770. 2 In the challenged Decision, the Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 and ruled that the President has disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor. The Court, however, reversed the OP ruling that: (i) found Gonzales guilty of Gross LEANGIE MORA 1
Legal ResearchGONZALES III VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENTRepublic
of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. 196231 January
28, 2014EMILIO . GON!LES III, Petitioner, vs.O""ICE O" T#E
PRESI$ENT O" T#E P#ILIPPINES, CTING T#ROUG# N$ REPRESENTE$ %&
E'ECUTI(E SECRETR& P)UITO N. OC#O, JR., SENIOR $EPUT&
E'ECUTI(E SECRETR& JOSE MOR M. MORN$O, O""ICER*IN*C#RGE *
O""ICE O" T#E $EPUT& E'ECUTI(E SECRETR& "OR LEGL ""IRS,
TT&. RONL$O . GERON, $IR. RO+EN TURINGN*SNC#E!, N$ TT&.
CRLITO $. CT&ONG, Respondents.x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - xG.R. No. 196232+EN$ELL %RRERS*SULIT Petitioner,
vs.TT&. P)UITO N. OC#O, JR., IN #IS CPCIT& S E'ECUTI(E
SECRETR&, O""ICE O" T#E PRESI$ENT, TT&. $ENNIS ". ORTI!,
TT&. CRLO $. SUL& N$ TT&. "ROILN $. MONTL%N, JR., IN
T#EIR CPCITIES S C#IRMN N$ MEM%ERS O" O""ICE O" MLCNNG LEGL
""IRS,Respondents.D E C!" N%RION, J.:#e resolve the "ffice of the
President$s %"P $s& 'otion for reconsideration of our !epte'ber
(, )*+)Decision+,hich ruled on the petitions filed b- Deput-
"'buds'an E'ilio .on/alesand !pecial Prosecutor #endell
Barreras-!ulit. 0heir petitions challen1ed the constitutionalit- of
!ection 2%)& of Republic Act %RA& No. 344*.)n the
challen1ed Decision, the Court upheld the constitutionalit- of
!ection 2%)& of RA No. 344* and ruled that the President has
disciplinar- 5urisdiction over a Deput- "'buds'an and a !pecial
Prosecutor. 0he Court, ho,ever, reversed the "P rulin1 that6
%i& found .on/ales 1uilt- of .ross Ne1lect of Dut- and .rave
Misconduct constitutin1 betra-al of public trust7 and %ii&
i'posed on hi' the penalt- of dis'issal.!ulit, ,ho had not then
been dis'issed and ,ho si'pl- sou1ht to restrain the disciplinar-
proceedin1s a1ainst her, solel- 8uestioned the 5urisdiction of the
"P to sub5ect her to disciplinar- proceedin1s. 0he Court affir'ed
the continuation of the proceedin1s a1ainst her after upholdin1 the
constitutionalit- of !ection 2%)& of RA No. 344*.LEANGIE MORA
1Legal ResearchGONZALES III VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT0he fallo of
our assailed Decision reads6#9ERE:"RE, in ..R. No. +;3)
