JBC urged to practice judicial courtesy

MANILA, Philippines - Dismissed Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzalez III has asked the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to defer the selection of his replacement pending the resolution of his appeal before the Supreme Court (SC).

He urged the JBC to practice judicial courtesy and wait for the high court’s decision on his petition questioning the order of the Palace last March 31 to dismiss him from government service for mishandling the case of deceased police officer Rolando Mendoza, who hijacked last year a busload of Hong Kong tourists, resulting in the deaths of eight of them and the hostage taker himself.

Gonzalez made his appeal in a two-page letter sent yesterday through his lawyer Poncevic Ceballos.

“His (Gonzalez’s) dismissal is currently the subject of a petition for certiorari... where he has vigorously challenged his dismissal for being an unconstitutional act of the Office of the President (OP),” Ceballos argued.

“It is highly probable that an anomalous situation shall arise where President Aquino shall have appointed his client’s replacement and later on the High Court orders Gonzalez’s reinstatement to the post,” he added.

Gonzalez appealed his dismissal after the JBC advertised on Sept. 9 in a newspaper an opening for nomination for Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Office (MOLEO), the position he held. Ceballos said the JBC should have not have declared the position vacant.

“It might be a more prudent course of action for the JBC to withdraw such announcement or to hold in abeyance the processing and deliberations of the applicants for such post as it is possible that he would be reinstated... if the Honorable Supreme Court rules that his dismissal by President Aquino is unconstitutional,” he said.

It can be recalled that Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. requested the JBC to facilitate the process for the selection of nominees for the position vacated by the dismissal of Gonzalez.

Gonzalez was ordered dismissed by the Palace after he was found guilty of “gross neglect of duty and gross misconduct” in handling the dismissal complaint against Mendoza.

He was also accused of extorting P150,000 from the police officer in exchange for the dismissal of the case against him. Gonzalez had denied these charges.

In his petition with the SC last April, Gonzalez alleged that Malacañang abused its discretion and violated his constitutional right to due process in ordering his dismissal. He argued that the Office of the President has no power to subject him to administrative investigation and order his dismissal from government service because such authority “is lodged exclusively with the Ombudsman” under Article XI Section 13 of the Constitution and Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989.

Gonzalez said the Palace also abused its discretion in finding him liable for the delay in the disposition of Mendoza’s appeal and for not suspending the policeman’s dismissal during the hostage crisis and concluding that there was substantial evidence that he demanded a bribe from the hostage taker.

The SC, in a resolution last July 27, junked his petition for a temporary restraining order on his dismissal for lack of possible irreparable damage on his part.

Still, the high court would rule on the merits of his case and could declare his dismissal as illegal.