MANILA, Philippines - Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzalez III yesterday vowed to fight Malacañang’s dismissal order, reiterating that he is innocent of the accusations against him.
“I will avail (myself) of all legal remedies because I believe that my conscience is clear and I’m not guilty of the accusations leveled against me,” Gonzalez said in a statement issued four days after the issuance of the dismissal order.
He denied that there was a delay in the resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed by dismissed Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza which supposedly drove him to take a busload of tourists hostage last year that left eight tourists dead.
“We acted on the case of Mendoza and we will prove this in court,” he said.
Gonzalez, who has been cleared of any liability by the Internal Affairs Board (IAB) of the Office of the Ombudsman, again denied having asked money from Mendoza in exchange for a favorable decision.
“I have been asking them for the longest time to reveal who they talked to regarding the alleged P150,000 payment in exchange for a favorable decision. But they could not name names,” he said.
He said he was even told of how he was subjected to a lifestyle check to look into possible ill-gotten or unexplained wealth but probers found nothing that could be used against him.
Gonzalez explained that he did fail to appear before a hearing in Malacañang on Feb. 8, but only because he learned that a judgment had already been rendered by those investigating him for alleged neglect of duty.
He said a news article by one Raymond Burgos came out on Feb. 4 saying that he had been slapped with a one-year suspension which prompted him to file an “Objection to Proceedings” questioning his attendance at a hearing when the case against him had been decided.
Mendoza himself was killed during the Aug. 23, 2010 hostage-taking incident but only after he had killed eight Hong Kong nationals.
He claimed that his motion for reconsideration of an Office of the Ombudsman ruling dismissing him from the service for grave misconduct was being overly delayed and that he was being asked to pay P150,000.
Gonzalez, days later, broke his silence and vehemently denied the accusation and even swore that he is not the kind of person who will make money out of a case.
Only himself to blame
Malacañang, meantime, reiterated yesterday that the administrative sanction President Aquino imposed on Gonzalez was not in the bag and he was accorded enough time to give his response.
“I think it’s Deputy Ombudsman Gonzalez who prejudged the process. There was ample time for him to answer, to give his response but he did not do it,” Carandang said.
The spokesman was referring to the show cause order the Office of the President issued to Gonzalez in November 2010, where he sought a formal hearing but snubbed it when the proceedings had been set.
Aquino declared Monday that only a temporary restraining order can stop him from firing Gonzalez.
He told reporters in a chance interview at the Rizal Ceremonial Hall that Gonzalez has every right to file a motion for reconsideration and question the administrative sanction, but the fact remains he falls under his jurisdiction, being a non-impeachable official.
Muddling the issue
Three senators, on the other hand, criticized yesterday Gonzalez for his continuous refusal to abide by Malacañang’s decision to remove him from his post for alleged neglect of duty and gross misconduct.
Senators Francis Pangilinan, Gregorio Honasan and majority leader Vicente Sotto III called on Gonzalez to step down rather than muddle the issue by bringing the case to court.
Honasan and Sotto said if they were in the shoes of Gonzalez, they would no longer force the issue and just resign because this already has an impact on public interest.
Sotto added he wants to know why Gonzalez is “fighting an appointing authority.”
Honasan also said he does not discount the possibility that Gonzalez’s case will be “complicating further an already complex political process” which is the upcoming impeachment case against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.
“This might be taken up in the impeachment. It will muddle what should constitute a body of evidence related to the possible betrayal of public trust against the Ombudsman,” Honasan said.
Asked about the timing of the Palace’s decision to oust Gonzalez, Honasan said it is the call of the Palace.
“That’s their judgment call. Malacañang will have to take responsibility, if the impeachment becomes chaotic in the eyes of the public. But I don’t think they decided on this overnight,” said Honasan. – With Delon Porcalla, Christina Mendez