[G.R. No. 130240.

February 5, 2002]
DE VENECIA, JR., et al., vs. SANDIGANBAAN !1
"#
DIV.$
EN BANC
Ge%#&e'e%(
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of
this Court dated FEB 5 2002.
G.R. No. 130240(Jose de Venecia, Jr., in his capacity as
Speaker of the House of Representatives; Roberto .
!a"areno, in his capacity as Secretary#$eneral of the House
of Representatives; Jose %a. &ntonio '. (ua)o, Cashier,
House of Representatives; &ntonio %. Chan, Chief, roperty
*ivision, House of Representatives, petitioners, vs. (he
Honorable Sandi+anbayan ,-irst *ivision., respondent..
The principal issue in this petitioner for certiorari
[1]
cralaw is
whether of not the Sandiganbaan !a cite in conte!pt of
court the Spea"er of the #ouse of Representati$es for
refusing to i!ple!ent the pre$enti$e suspension order it
issued in a cri!inal case against a !e!ber of the #ouse.
%etitioners see" the annul!ent of&
(1' the (rder dated )ugust 1*+ 1,,- of the Sandiganbaan
(.irst /i$ision'+
[2]
cralaw directing Spea"er 0ose de 1enecia of
the #ouse of Representati$es+ to i!ple!ent the pre$enti$e
suspension of then 2ongress!an 2eferino S. %aredes+ 0r.+ in
connection with 2ri!inal 2ase No. 1**3- entitled 4eople of
the hilippines v. Ceferino S. aredes, Jr. and $re+orio S.
'ran"uela/; and
(2' the Resolution dated )ugust 2,+ 1,,-+
[3]
cralaw also of
the Sandiganbaan+ declaring Spea"er de 1enecia in
conte!pt of court for refusing to i!ple!ent the pre$enti$e
suspension order.
The facts are as follows&
(n 5arch 12+ 1,,3+ an 6nfor!ation (doc"eted as 2ri!inal
2ase No. 1**3-' was 7led with the Sandiganbaan (.irst
/i$ision' against then 2ongress!an 2eferino S. %aredes+ 0r.+
of )gusan del Sur for $iolation of Section 3 (e' of Republic
)ct No. 301, (The )nti8Graft and 2orrupt %ractices )ct+ as
a!ended'.
)fter the accused pleaded not guilt+ the prosecution 7led a
45otion To Suspend The )ccused endente 0ite./
6n its Resolution dated 0une 9+ 1,,-+ the
Sandiganbaan granted the !otion and ordered the Spea"er
to suspend the accused.:ut the Spea"er did not
co!pl.Thus+ on )ugust 12+ 1,,-+ the Sandiganbaan issued
a Resolution re;uiring hi! to appear before it+ on )ugust 1*+
1,,- at *&00 o<cloc" in the !orning+ to show cause wh he
should not be held in conte!pt of court.
=nrelenting+ the Spea"er 7led+ through counsel+ a !otion for
reconsideration+ in$o"ing the rule on separation of powers
and clai!ing that he can onl act as !a be dictated b the
#ouse as a bod pursuant to #ouse Resolution No. 119
adopted on )ugust 13+ 1,,-.
(n )ugust 2,+ 1,,-+ the Sandiganbaan rendered the now
assailed Resolution
[4]
cralaw declaring Spea"er 0ose 2. de
1enecia+ 0r. in conte!pt of court and ordering hi! to pa a
7ne of %10+000.00 within 10 das fro! notice.
#ence+ the instant recourse.
The issue before us had long been settled b this 2ourt
in Ceferino S. aredes, Jr. v. Sandi+anbayan in G.R. No.
1
11*334 ()ugust *+ 1,,3'.>e ruled that the suspension
pro$ided for in the )nti8Graft law is'a%)a#ory and is of
di?erent nature and purpose.6t is i!posed b the
court+ %o# as a *e%a&#y, but as a precautionar !easure
resorted to upon the 7ling of a $alid 6nfor!ation.6ts purpose
is to pre$ent the accused public o@cer fro! frustrating his
prosecution b inAuencing witnesses or ta!pering with
docu!entar e$idence and fro! co!!itting further acts of
!alfeasance while in o@ce.6t is thus an incident to the
cri!inal proceedings before the court.(n the other hand+
the suspension or eBpulsion conte!plated in the
2onstitution is a #ouse8i!posed sanction against its
!e!bers.6t is+ therefore+ a*e%a&#y for )+"or)er&y
be,a-+or #o e%.or/e )+"/+*&+%e, 'a+%#a+% or)er +% +#"
*ro/ee)+%0", or -+%)+/a#e +#" ,o%or a%) +%#e0r+#y.
0ust recentl+ in %iriam *efensor Santia+o v.
Sandi+anbayan, et al., this 2ourt en banc, through 0ustice
0ose 2. 1itug+ held that the doctrine of separation of powers
does not eBclude the !e!bers of 2ongress fro! the
!andate of R.). 301,+ thus&
12,e or)er o. "u"*e%"+o%
*re"/r+be) by Re*ub&+/ A/# No. 3013 +"
)+"#+%/# .ro' #,e *o4er o. Co%0re"" #o
)+"/+*&+%e +#" o4% ra%5" u%)er #,e
Co%"#+#u#+o%. B B B.
4The suspension conte!plated in the
abo$e constitutional pro$ision is a puniti$e
!easure that is i!posed upon a
deter!ination b the Senate or the #ouse of
Representati$es+ as the case !a be+ upon an
erring !e!ber. B B B.
12,e )o/#r+%e o. "e*ara#+o% o.
*o4er" by +#"e&. 'ay %o# be )ee'e) #o
,a-e e6e/#+-e&y e7/&u)e) 'e'ber" o.
Co%0re"" .ro' Re*ub&+/ A/# No. 3013 %or
.ro' +#" "a%/#+o%".The !aBi! si!pl
recogniCes that ea/, o. #,e #,ree /o8e9ua&
a%) +%)e*e%)e%#, a&be+# /oor)+%a#e,
bra%/,e" o. #,e 0o-er%'e%# 8the
Degislati$e+ the EBecuti$e and the 0udiciar 8
has e7/&u"+-e *rero0a#+-e" a%)
/o0%+:a%/e 4+#,+% +#" o4% "*,ere o.
+%;ue%/e a%) e6e/#+-e&y *re-e%#" o%e
bra%/, .ro' u%)u&y +%#ru)+%0 +%#o #,e
+%#er%a& a6a+r" o. e+#,er
bra%/,.1(E!phasis ours'
>e note that the ter! of then 2ongress!an 2eferino
%aredes+ 0r. eBpired on 0une 30+ 1,**.This rendered !oot
and acade!ic the instant case.
<=EREF>RE, for being !oot+ this case is dee!ed
2D(SE/ and TER56N)TE/.(Fuisu!bing+ J.+ no
part.Fuisu!bing and 2arpio+ JJ.+ abroad on o@cial business'
2
De Venecia v Sandiganbayan GR 130240, 5 February
2002
0-G2*G2010
0 2o!!ents

Fa/#"( (n 12 5arch 1,,3+ an 6nfor!ation (doc"eted as
2ri!inal 2ase 1**3-' was 7led with the Sandiganbaan
(.irst /i$ision' against then 2ongress!an 2eferino S.
%aredes+ 0r.+ of )gusan del Sur for $iolation of Section 3 (e' of
Republic )ct 301, (The )nti8Graft and 2orrupt %ractices )ct+
as a!ended'. )fter the accused pleaded not guilt+ the
prosecution 7led a H5otion To Suspend The )ccused
%endente Dite.I 6n its Resolution dated 9 0une 1,,-+ the
Sandiganbaan granted the !otion and ordered the Spea"er
to suspend the accused. :ut the Spea"er did not co!pl.
Thus+ on 12 )ugust 1,,-+ the Sandiganbaan issued a
Resolution re;uiring hi! to appear before it+ on 1* )ugust
1,,- at *&00 a.!.+ to show cause 4,y ,e ",ou&) %o# be
,e&) +% /o%#e'*# o. /our#. =nrelenting+ the Spea"er 7led+
through counsel+ a !otion for reconsideration+ +%-o5+%0
#,e ru&e o% "e*ara#+o% o. *o4er" and clai!ing that he
can onl act as !a be dictated b the #ouse as a bod
pursuant to #ouse Resolution 119 adopted on 13 )ugust
1,,-. (n 2, )ugust 1,,-+ the Sandiganbaan rendered a
Resolution declaring Spea"er 0ose 2. de 1enecia+ 0r. in
conte!pt of court and ordering hi! to*ay a ?%e o.
@10,000.00 4+#,+% 10 )ay" .ro' %o#+/e. 0ose de
1enecia+ 0r.+ in his capacit as Spea"er of the #ouse of
Representati$esJ Roberto %. NaCareno+ in his capacit as
Secretar8General of the #ouse of Representati$esJ 0ose 5a.
)ntonio :. TuaKo+ 2ashier+ #ouse of Representati$esJ
)ntonio 5. 2han+ 2hief+ %ropert /i$ision+ #ouse of
Representati$es+ 7led the petition for certiorari.

I""ue( >hether the suspension pro$ided in the )nti8Graft
law is a penalt or a precautionar !easureJ and
>hether the doctrine of separation of powers eBclude the
!e!bers of 2ongress fro! the !andate of R.). 301,.

=e&)( )s held in 2eferino S. %aredes+ 0r. $. Sandiganbaan
(GR 11*334+ * )ugust 1,,3'+ the suspension pro$ided for in
the )nti8Graft law is !andator and +" o. )+6ere%# %a#ure
a%) *ur*o"e. 6t is i!posed b the court+ not as a penalt+
but as a precautionar !easure resorted to upon the 7ling
of $alid 6nfor!ation.
)s held in 5iria! /efensor Santiago $. Sandiganbaan+ et
al.+ the doctrine of separation of powers does not eBclude
the !e!bers of 2ongress fro! the !andate of R) 301,.
The order of suspension prescribed b Republic )ct 301, is
distinct fro! the power of 2ongress to discipline its own
ran"s under the 2onstitution. The suspension conte!plated
in the abo$e constitutional pro$ision is a puniti$e !easure
that is i!posed upon a deter!ination b the Senate or the
#ouse of Representati$es+ as the case !a be+ upon an
3
erring !e!ber.

Ra#+o( 6ts purpose is to pre$ent the accused public o@cer
fro! frustrating his prosecution b inAuencing witnesses or
ta!pering with docu!entar e$idence and fro! co!!itting
further acts of !alfeasance while in o@ce. 6t is thus an
incident to the cri!inal proceedings before the court. (n the
other hand+ the suspension or eBpulsion conte!plated in the
2onstitution is a #ouse8i!posed sanction against its
!e!bers. 6t is+ therefore+ a penalt for disorderl beha$ior
to enforce discipline+ !aintain order in its proceedings+ or
$indicate its honor and integrit.
The doctrine of separation of powers b itself !a not be
dee!ed to ha$e e?ecti$el eBcluded !e!bers of 2ongress
fro! Republic )ct No. 301, nor fro! its sanctions. The
!aBi! si!pl recogniCes that each of the three co8e;ual
and independent+ albeit coordinate+ branches of the
go$ern!ent L the Degislati$e+ the EBecuti$e and the
0udiciar L has eBclusi$e prerogati$es and cogniCance within
its own sphere of inAuence and e?ecti$el pre$ents one
branch fro! undul intruding into the internal a?airs of
either branch.
4