Practice question
An executive office investigates a Deputy Ombudsman and proposes dismissal under Section 8(2) of RA 6770. Its memorandum relies on the September 4, 2012 Gonzales III ruling, argues that presidential appointment necessarily carries disciplinary power, and dismisses constitutional independence as merely budgetary. Which assessment follows the January 28, 2014 main decision?
- The memorandum is correct because the 2012 jurisdictional holding remained unchanged
- The memorandum is correct whenever notice and hearing are supplied
- The memorandum is correct because independence protects only the Ombudsman personally
- The memorandum ignores the 2014 reversal invalidating presidential disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman; due process alone cannot cure lack of authority
- The memorandum is incorrect only because Deputy Ombudsmen cannot be investigated by anyone
Legal references
- Gonzales III v. Office of the President, G.R. Nos. 196231 and 196232, January 28, 2014, main decision on reconsideration, Deputy Ombudsman disciplinary independence: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_196231_2014.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.