DE VENECIA v.

SB
Organization and
Discipline
G.R. No. Ponente Date
130240 N/A; Resolution of EN BANC February 5, 2002
Petitioners Respondents
Jose de Venecia, Jr., in his capacity as The Honorable Sandiganbayan (First
Speaker of the House of Representatives; Division)
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

DOCTRINE:

I. Facts of the case

● 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 Rep. Paredes Jr. pleaded not guilty, to the crime as charged, the prosecution
filed a "Motion To Suspend The Accused Pendente Lite."

● In a Resolution dated June 6, 1997, the Sandiganbayan granted the motion and ordered
the Speaker to suspend Rep. Paredes Jr. 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.

II. Issue/s
Whether or not Speaker De Venecia 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?

III. Ratio/Legal Basis

● The Court En Banc in the case of Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, et al.,
through the ponencia of 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.

● It ought to be noted that 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

● In the case of Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan in G.R. No. 118354 (August 8,
1995). The Court 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.

● The doctrine of separation of powers simply put it prevents one branch from unduly
intruding into the internal affairs of either branch."

IV. Disposition

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