SANTIAGO v.
SANDIGANBAYAN (NAME)
April 18, 2001 | Vitug, J. | Accountabilities of legislators
PETITIONER: Miriam Defensor Santiago
RESPONDENTS: Sandiganbayan, Francis E. Garchitorena, Jose Balajadia,
Minita Chico-Nazario
SUMMARY: Several employees of the CID filed a case against former CID
Commissioner Santiago for violation of anti-graft and corrupt practices act.
Eventually Sandiganbayan issued a preventive suspension order against
Santiago, then a senator already. Santiago assailed the preventive suspension
order. The SC upheld the suspension order and held it valid. The SC said that
under RA 3019, the courts has ministerial duty to order a preventive suspension
pendente lite upon determination of a valid information filed against such
officer
DOCTRINE: A senator may be preventively suspended by virtue of RA 3019
upon finding of a valid information charging such officer of violation of RA
3019 or Title 9, Book II of the RPC
FACTS:
1. Employees of the Comission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) filed
complaints against then CID Commissioner Miriam Santiago for alleged
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. (RA 3019)
2. The investigating panel came up with a resolution to which the Ombudsman
directed the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to file the appropriate
informations against Santiago.
3. The informations alleged that during her time as CID Commissioner, she
criminally approved the applications for legalization for the stay of several
aliens (foreigners) knowing fully well that these aliens were disqualified
from legalization by virtue of an executive order and thus giving them
unwarranted benefits.
4. Pursuant to the informations filed, then Presiding Justice Francis
Garchitorena issued an order for the arrest of Santiago. Santiago thereafter
posted bond. Upon manifestation of the Ombudsman, Sandiganbayan then
set Santiago’s arraignment.
5. A series of motions and manifestations ensued from both sides which then
concluded when the prosecution filed a motion to issue an order of
suspension of Santiago. She accordingly opposed such motion.
However, the Sandiganbayan ordered such suspension of Santiago
from her office as senator.
6. Santiago then proceeded to file a petition for review regarding the act
of Sandiganbayan in ordering her preventive suspension in connection
with the pending criminal cases filed against her. She mainly assailed
the authority of the Sandiganbayan to decree a ninety-day suspension
against her considering that at that time, she was already a senator.
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether the Sandiganbayan has the authority to order a preventive
suspension of a Senator for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act – YES
RULING: WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.
RATIO:
1. The authority of the Sandiganbayan to order preventive suspension of an
incumbent public official charged with violation of the provisions of RA
3019 has both legal and jurisprudential support.
a. Sec 13 of RA 3019 – Suspension and loss of benefits – Any
incumbent public officer against whom any criminal
prosecution under a valid information under this Act of under
Title 7, Book II of the RPC or for any offense involving fraud
upon government or public funds or property xxx shall be
suspended from office.
2. In the case of Segovia v Sandiganbayan, the court reiterated that the validity
of Sec 13 of RA 3019 may no longer be put at issue; that the provision of
suspension pendente lite applies to all persons indicted upon a valid
information under the Act, whether they be appointive or elective, or
permanent or temporary, or pertaining to the career or non-career service.
3. It would then appear that the issuance of an order of suspension upon
determination of the validity of the information would be a mere ministerial
duty of the court. Once the information is found to be sufficient, the court is
bound to issue an order of suspension.
4. The nature of the suspension in RA 3019 is explained in Bayot v
Sandiganbayan wherein the SC held that the suspension in RA 3019 is not a
penalty because it is not imposed because of judicial proceedings.
5. In issuing the preventive suspension, the Sandiganbayan merely adhered to
the clear mandate of the law.
6. RA 3019 also do not state whether the suspension covers only the office
where he is alleged to have committed the acts with which the official is
charged. The use of the word “office” indicates that it applies to any office
which the officer charged may be holding, and not only the particular office
under which he stands accused.
7. The imposition of the preventive suspension is not automatic since the
validity of the information still must be determined in a pre-suspension
hearing. However, there is no absolute rule as to the conduct thereof.
a. It is sufficient already when the accused is given fair trial and
adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal
proceedings against such officer. Such challenge however is only
treated the same manner as a motion to quash from Rule 117.
A resolution of the challenge to the validity of the criminal
proceeding should be limited to an inquiry of whther the facts
alleged in the information, if hypothetically admitted, constitute
the elements of an offense punishable under RA 3019 or the
 provision on bribery of the RPC
8. The law does not require that the guilt of the accused must be established in
a pre-suspension proceeding before trial on the merits ensues. All it secures
to the accused is adequate opportunity to challenge the validity or regularity
of the the proceedings against him.
9. In a motion to quash filed by Santiago in one of the motions related to this
case, Santiago admits hypothetically allegations of fact in the information
a. She was a public officer
b. She approved the application for legalization of the stay of the
aliens
c. Those aliens were disqualified
d. She was cognizant of such fact
e. She acted in evident bad faith and manifest partiality in the
execution of her official functions
10. Thus, the pronouncement of upholding the validity of the information
behooved Sandiganbayan to discharge its mandated duty to issue a
preventive suspension order.
11. RA 3019 did not exclude from its coverage the members of congress,
therefore, the Sandiganbayan did not err in thus decreeing the assailed
preventive order.

OTHER CONCEPTS
 The suspension in RA 3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to
discipline its own ranks as mandated by the Constitution.
 The suspension in the Constitution is punitive and is imposed upon
determination by the Senate or HoR, upon an erring member.
 The doctrine of separation of powers may not be deemed to have effectively
excluded members of congress from RA 3019. The doctrine merely
recognizes each of the 3 equal and independent branches of the government.
 Moreover, the Court has the expanded judicial power to review acts of other
branches of the government if there are any grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. When the acts of the said
governmental branch is an internal affair, the court cannot interfere with
their conduct except only when there exists infringement of any specific
Constitutional proscription.