In a 15-page decision “approved by authority of the President,” the Palace sacked Emilio Gonzalez III, blaming him for the hostage-taking drama in which eight Hong Kong nationals and the hostage-taker, former Senior. Insp. Rolando Mendoza, were killed.

The Incident and Investigation Review Committee (IIRC) that initially looked into the hostage incident found Gonzalez to have “committed serious and inexcusable negligence and gross violation of their own rules of procedure by allowing Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration to languish for nine months without any justification.”

The Ombudsman office’s rules require motions for reconsideration in administrative cases such as Mendoza’s to be resolved in five days upon submission.

The Palace also found “substantial evidence” to support the allegation that Gonzalez, deputy ombudsman for the military and other law enforcement agencies, tried to extort P150,000 from Mendoza in connection with robbery and extortion charges that Mendoza was facing.

“In view of the foregoing, this office finds Deputy Ombudsman Emilio A. Gonzalez III guilty of gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct constituting betrayal of public trust, and hereby meted out the penalty of dismissal from service,” Malacañang said.

The decision was signed by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. and five other Palace lawyers.

Shortly after the Palace announcement, the Office of the Ombudsman called a press conference, defended Gonzalez and said it would not yet implement the Palace order because it was “not yet final and executory” and was still subject to appeal in the Supreme Court.

The reaction marked the latest episode in what appeared to be a running battle between Malacañang and the Office of the Ombudsman headed by Merceditas Gutierrez, whose removal from office has been openly supported by President Benigno Aquino III.

Asked if he thought Malacañang was targeting the appointees of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Assistant Ombudsman Jose de Jesus, the agency’s spokesperson, replied: “It’s a good question, isn’t it?”

“The judgment on whether the officials of the Ombudsman are being targeted, we will leave it to you,” De Jesus said.

Gonzalez denies

During the Aug. 23, 2010, hostage bloodbath, Mendoza—a veteran police officer—demanded that the Ombudsman reverse its previous order dismissing him from the service.

He berated an Ombudsman official for demanding P150,000 from him in exchange for a favorable ruling on his appeal for a reconsideration of the dismissal order.

Gonzalez denied he had tried to extort money from Mendoza.

The hostage drama, which began when Mendoza seized a busload of Hong Kong tourists, ended in a bloodbath and strained relations between the Philippines and China.

Substantial evidence

“(Had) respondent Deputy Ombudsman not betrayed the trust of Captain Mendoza, the latter would not have been compelled to resort to hostage-taking to advance his cause,” the Malacañang decision read.

“As correctly pointed out by the IIRC, this Office notes that as long as his motion for reconsideration remained pending and unresolved, Mendoza was also effectively deprived of the right to avail of the ordinary course of appeal or review to challenge the judgment of dismissal before the higher courts,” the Palace said.

It added: “With respect to the charge and findings of the IIRC that respondent may be further held liable for gross misconduct for allegedly demanding from Mendoza the amount of P150,000, there is substantial evidence to support the same in the light of the circumstances surrounding the incident.”

“As the Supreme Court has taught us, only substantial evidence, that is, that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind must accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, is necessary in administrative cases,” it said.

The panel also said Gonzalez encroached on the jurisdiction of the national police’s Internal Affairs Service over Mendoza’s case.

It said Mendoza’s grave misconduct case was resolved in just seven months despite the uncorroborated testimony of his alleged victim.

“(There) is reason to believe that respondent Deputy Ombudsman had undue interest in the case,” the panel said.

President’s authority

Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Abigail Valte said the Office of the President has the authority to remove the Deputy Ombudsman, saying Section Eight of the Ombudsman Act provides for it.

“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,” Valte said, quoting the law.

Higher courts

De Jesus, reading from a press statement, said the Ombudsman’s office had considered “the matter of Gonzalez’ culpability in the hijacking episode as legally final and closed.”

“We will not yet implement the decision of the President of the Philippines because this is not yet final and executory,” De Jesus said.

“What we are saying is that [Malacañang’s decision] is conflicting with the earlier decision of the Office of the Ombudsman—with all due respect to the decision of the Office of the President—exonerating Deputy Ombudsman Gonzalez from the charge.”

De Jesus also said that Malacañang’s order was still subject to appeal before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

Already resolved

De Jesus said that under the law, the Office of the Ombudsman has disciplinary authority over all appointive officials of the government, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment and over members of Congress or the judiciary.

He said Gonzalez had been investigated by the agency’s internal affairs service and that the Office of the Ombudsman believed the issue over Gonzalez’ culpability had already been resolved.

He also noted that Malacañang’s decision stated that Gonzalez was being dismissed by order of the President but that it was not Mr. Aquino who signed the ruling.

He said the agency was leaving it up to Gonzalez to decide on his next move.

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said: “We’ve been actually waiting for that. I’m glad that it came out. That’s one of our recommendations. Maybe it would be a positive point in so far as Hong Kong authorities are concerned, because they are waiting for action on the recommendations of the IIRC as modified by the Palace legal team.”

Norman Bordadora & Leila Salaverria, Philippine Star