DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS

De Venecia vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130240, Feb. 05, 2002

FACTS: An Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan (First Division) against then Congressman
Paredes, Jr., for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 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."The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and ordered the Speaker to suspend
the accused. But the Speaker did not comply. Thus, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution requiring
him to appear before it, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.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 De Venecia, Jr. in contempt of court and ordering him to pay a
fine of P10,000.00 within 10 days from notice.

SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

The principal issue in this petition for certiorari is whether or not the Sandiganbayan may cite in
contempt of court the Speaker of the House of Representatives (De Venecia) for refusing to
implement the preventive suspension order it issued in a criminal case against a member of the
House (Congressman Ceferino Paredes Jr.).The court rules that the suspension provided for in the
Anti-Graft Law is mandatory; it is imposed by the court not as a penalty, but as a precautionary
measure to prevent the accused public officer from influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence
and committing more acts of malfeasance.But since the term of Congressman Paredes has already
expired, this instant case was rendered MOOT and ACADEMIC.

FACTS:


March 12, 1993:

An Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan 1st Division against Congressman Ceferino Paredes
Jr., Agusan Del Sur: For violation of Section 3(e) RA 3019 or The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

After Congressman Paredes pleaded not guilty, the prosecution filed a “Motion to Suspend the
Accused Pendente Lite”. (Pendente Lite means “pending the litigation; so suspend Paredes while
waiting for litigation to take place)

June 6, 1997:Sandiganbayan granted the motion and ordered Speaker De Venecia to suspend
Paredes. However, Speaker did not comply. August 12, 1997: The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution
requiring De Venecia to appear before them to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of
court (there was due process). Speaker De Venecia filed a motion for reconsideration: He invoked the
rule on separation of powers, claiming that he can only act as may be dictated by the House as a
body; This is pursuant to House Res. No. 116

August 29, 1997: Sandiganbayan declared Speaker De Venecia in contempt of court and ordered him
to pay a fine of Php 10,000 within 10 days from notice.

ISSUE:1. W/N Speaker Devenecia was correct in invoking the Separation of Powers principle, claiming
that he can only act as may be dictated by the House as a body

HELD:1. NO. It was ruled in Santiago v. Sandiganbayan that the doctrine of separation of powers does
not exclude members of the Congress from the mandate of RA 3019:

The order of suspension in RA 3019 is different from the power of Congress to discipline its own
members. SUPENSION: RA 3019 v. HOUSE-IMPOSED SUSPENSION
RA 3019: It was ruled in Ceferino Paredes v.Sandiganbayan that the suspension provided for in RA
3019 is NOT A PENALTY.

It is a precautionary measure to prevent accused from committing more acts of malfeasance

House-imposed: A suspension contemplated in the Constitution, on the other hand, is a House-

imposed sanction against its members; it is A PENALTY for disorderly behavior to enforce discipline,
maintain order, or vindicate its honor and integrity.

The doctrine of separation of powers by itself may not be deemed to have effectively excluded
members of Congress from RA 3019 nor from its sanctions.

The maxim only meant that the three branches of government has EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVES and
Cognizance WITHIN ITS OWN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE.


The separation of powers principle only prevents one branch from unduly intruding into the
internal affairs of another branch.

DICTA:
The court notes, however, that the term of Paredes has already expired on June 30, 1998. This
rendered moot and academic the instant case.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, for being MOOT, this case is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.