gonzales vs. office of the president

Legal ResearchGONZALES III VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENTRepublic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. 196231 January 28, 2014EMILIO . GON!LES III, Petitioner, vs.O""ICE O" T#E PRESI$ENT O" T#E P#ILIPPINES, CTING T#ROUG# N$ REPRESENTE$ %& E'ECUTI(E SECRETR& P)UITO N. OC#O, JR., SENIOR $EPUT& E'ECUTI(E SECRETR& JOSE MOR M. MORN$O, O""ICER*IN*C#RGE * O""ICE O" T#E $EPUT& E'ECUTI(E SECRETR& "OR LEGL ""IRS, TT&. RONL$O . GERON, $IR. RO+EN TURINGN*SNC#E!, N$ TT&. CRLITO $. CT&ONG, Respondents.x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xG.R. No. 196232+EN$ELL %RRERS*SULIT Petitioner, vs.TT&. P)UITO N. OC#O, JR., IN #IS CPCIT& S E'ECUTI(E SECRETR&, O""ICE O" T#E PRESI$ENT, TT&. $ENNIS ". ORTI!, TT&. CRLO $. SUL& N$ TT&. "ROILN $. MONTL%N, JR., IN T#EIR CPCITIES S C#IRMN N$ MEM%ERS O" O""ICE O" MLCNNG LEGL ""IRS,Respondents.D E C!" N%RION, J.:#e resolve the "ffice of the President$s %"P $s& 'otion for reconsideration of our !epte'ber (, )*+)Decision+,hich ruled on the petitions filed b- Deput- "'buds'an E'ilio .on/alesand !pecial Prosecutor #endell Barreras-!ulit. 0heir petitions challen1ed the constitutionalit- of !ection 2%)& of Republic Act %RA& No. 344*.)n the challen1ed Decision, the Court upheld the constitutionalit- of !ection 2%)& of RA No. 344* and ruled that the President has disciplinar- 5urisdiction over a Deput- "'buds'an and a !pecial Prosecutor. 0he Court, ho,ever, reversed the "P rulin1 that6 %i& found .on/ales 1uilt- of .ross Ne1lect of Dut- and .rave Misconduct constitutin1 betra-al of public trust7 and %ii& i'posed on hi' the penalt- of dis'issal.!ulit, ,ho had not then been dis'issed and ,ho si'pl- sou1ht to restrain the disciplinar- proceedin1s a1ainst her, solel- 8uestioned the 5urisdiction of the "P to sub5ect her to disciplinar- proceedin1s. 0he Court affir'ed the continuation of the proceedin1s a1ainst her after upholdin1 the constitutionalit- of !ection 2%)& of RA No. 344*.LEANGIE MORA 1Legal ResearchGONZALES III VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT0he fallo of our assailed Decision reads6#9ERE:"RE, in ..R. No. +;3)