G.R. No. 196231 - Gonzales III vs. Office of the President of the Philippines

In May 2008, Christian Kalaw filed criminal and administrative complaints against Police Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza and four co-accused for robbery and related offenses.
Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales directed the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) to turn over its records on Mendoza’s case; Mendoza filed position papers.
While Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s draft decision was pending, Mendoza hijacked a tourist bus on August 23, 2010; the siege ended fatally.
A Joint Department Order created an Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC), which found the Ombudsman and Gonzales grossly negligent in resolving Mendoza’s motion.
On October 15, 2010, the Office of the President (OP) charged Gonzales with Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct; on March 31, 2011 it found him guilty and dismissed him.
Gonzales filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, contending that:

Section 21 of R.A. 6770 vests disciplinary authority over Deputies in the Ombudsman only;
His nine-day review of Mendoza’s motion was reasonable and complied with internal rules.

In February 2010, Special Prosecutor Sulit’s office entered into a plea bargain with Major General Carlos F. Garcia, charged with plunder and money laundering.
The Sandiganbayan approved the agreement, but the plea deal drew public outrage and congressional investigation.
The House Committee on Justice recommended Sulit’s dismissal for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.
On March 24, 2011, Sulit filed a written explanation questioning OP’s jurisdiction; nevertheless, OP set the case for preliminary investigation.
Sulit petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition, challenging OP’s authority to discipline her.

Does Section 8(2) of R.A. 6770 (the Ombudsman Act) unconstitutionally confer disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor upon the President?

Does the OP have administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman and/or a Special Prosecutor?

Did Gonzales’s delay in resolving Mendoza’s motion and alleged “fee” demand constitute Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, or Betrayal of Public Trust?

Should the Supreme Court restrain OP’s disciplinary proceedings against Special Prosecutor Sulit?