E VENECIA, JR., et al., vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (1st DIV.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

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 P. Nazareno, in his capacity as Secretary-General of the House of
Representatives; Jose Ma. Antonio B. Tuaño, Cashier, House of Representatives; Antonio M.
Chan, Chief, Property Division, House of Representatives, petitioners, vs. The Honorable
Sandiganbayan (First Division), respondent.)

The principal issue in this petitioner for certiorari [1]cralaw is whether of 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.

Petitioners seek the annulment of:

(1) the Order dated August 18, 1997 of the Sandiganbayan (First Division),[2]cralaw directing
Speaker Jose de Venecia of the House of Representatives, to implement the preventive
suspension of then Congressman Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr., in connection with Criminal Case
No. 18857 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. and Gregorio S.
Branzuela"; and

(2) the Resolution dated August 29, 1997,[3]cralaw also of the Sandiganbayan, declaring
Speaker de Venecia in contempt of court for refusing to implement the preventive suspension
order.

The facts are as follows:

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[4]cralaw 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.

Hence, the instant recourse.

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." (Emphasis ours)

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

WHEREFORE, for being moot, this case is deemed CLOSED and

TERMINATED.(Quisumbing, J., no part.Quisumbing and Carpio, JJ., abroad on official
business)

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court
 (Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:
[1]
cralaw Under rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
[2]
cralaw Penned by Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, and concurred in by Justices
Minita V. Chico-Nazario and Sabino R. de Leon, Jr. (a special member, now a member of the
Supreme Court).
[3]
cralaw Penned by Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, and concurred in by Justices
Minita V. Chico-Nazario and Edilberto G. Sandoval.
[4]
cralaw Annex "B," ibid., pp. 48-67.