ISSUE: Whether or not a Deputy Ombudsman may be subjected to the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the President (concurrently with that of the Ombudsman) is a justiciable not a political question.
FACTS: Rolando Mendoza (Mendoza) was dismissed in the PNP on account of the extortion incident, which led him to hijack a tourist bus that resulted his death and several others on board. Said incident is on account of Mendoza’s plea to the Office of the Ombudsman to reconsider his case. President Benigno Aquino III created an Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC) to conduct an investigation relative to the incident of hostage-taking. Subsequently, IIRC charged and dismissed Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III (Gonzales), who handled Mendoza’s case. Gonzales argues that the Office of the President has no administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman.
RULING: The issue of whether a Deputy Ombudsman may be subjected to the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the President (concurrently with that of the Ombudsman) is a justiciable not a political question. A justiciable question is one which is inherently susceptible of being decided on grounds recognized by law, as where the court finds that there are constitutionally-imposed limits on the exercise of the powers conferred on a political branch of the government. Here, in resolving the petitions, the Court does not inquire into the wisdom of the Congress’ choice to grant concurrent disciplinary authority to the President, but as to whether the statutory grant violates the Constitution.