Atty.

Butch Jamon - Constitutional Law 1

De Venecia vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 130240|February 5, 2002

Puno, J.

FACTS:

On March 12, 1993, an Information (docketed as Criminal Case No. 18857) was filed
with the Sandiganbayan (First Division) against then Congressman Ceferino S.
Paredes, Jr., of Agusan del Sur for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019
(The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended).
After the accused pleaded not guilty, the prosecution filed a "Motion To Suspend The
Accused Pendente Lite."
In its Resolution dated June 6, 1997, the Sandiganbayan granted the motion and
ordered the Speaker to suspend the accused.But the Speaker did not comply.Thus, on
August 12, 1997, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution requiring him to appear
before it, on August 18, 1997 at 8:00 o'clock in the morning, to show cause why he
should not be held in contempt of court.
Unrelenting, the Speaker filed, through counsel, a motion for reconsideration, invoking
the rule on separation of powers and claiming that he can only act as may be dictated
by the House as a body pursuant to House Resolution No. 116 adopted on August 13,
1997.
On August 29, 1997, the Sandiganbayan rendered the now assailed Resolution
declaring Speaker Jose C. de Venecia, Jr. in contempt of court and ordering him to pay
a fine of P10,000.00 within 10 days from notice.

ISSUE/S (DECISION):

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan may cite in contempt of court the Speaker of the
House of Representatives for refusing to implement the preventive suspension order it
issued in a criminal case against a member of the House. (YES)

RATIO DECIDENDI:

Austero|Case Digests Hail to the Chiefs!

The issue before us had long been settled by this Court in Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan in G.R. No. 118354 (August 8, 1995).We ruled that the suspension
provided for in the Anti-Graft law is mandatory and is of different nature and purpose.It
is imposed by the court, not as a penalty, but as a precautionary measure resorted to
upon the filing of a valid Information.Its purpose is to prevent the accused public officer
from frustrating his prosecution by influencing witnesses or tampering with documentary
evidence and from committing further acts of malfeasance while in office.It is thus an
incident to the criminal proceedings before the court.On the other hand, the suspension
or expulsion contemplated in the Constitution is a House-imposed sanction against its
members.It is, therefore, a penalty for disorderly behavior to enforce discipline,
maintain order in its proceedings, or vindicate its honor and integrity.

Just recently, in Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, et al., this Court en

banc, through Justice Jose C. Vitug, held that the doctrine of separation of powers does
not exclude the members of Congress from the mandate of R.A. 3019, thus:

"The order of suspension prescribed by Republic Act No. 3019

is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline its own ranks
under the Constitution. x x x.
"The suspension contemplated in the above constitutional provision
is a punitive measure that is imposed upon a determination by the Senate
or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, upon an erring
member. x x x.
"The doctrine of separation of powers by itself may not be
deemed to have effectively excluded members of Congress from
Republic Act No. 3019 nor from its sanctions.The maxim simply
recognizes that each of the three co-equal and independent, albeit
coordinate, branches of the government - the Legislative, the Executive
and the Judiciary - has exclusive prerogatives and cognizance within its
own sphere of influence and effectively prevents one branch from
unduly intruding into the internal affairs of either branch."

We note that the term of then Congressman Ceferino Paredes, Jr. expired on June 30,
1988.This rendered moot and academic the instant case.

Austero|Case Digests Hail to the Chiefs!