MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, petitioner,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, JOSE S. BALAJADIA AND MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO, AS PRESIDING JUSTICE AND MEMBERS OF THE FIRST
DIVISION, respondents.

G.R. No. 128055 | April 18, 2001 | Vitug, J.

KEYWORDS: Order of suspension by Sandiganbayan

PROCEDURE

Respondents: Sandiganbayan Who filed it: Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago

Nature of the case: Petition for Certiorari Decision: The petitions were dismissed

FACTS

1. A group of employees of Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) filed before the Sandiganbayan
a complaint against then CID Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago, for alleged legalization of stay of
unqualified aliens in the Philippines, a violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). On May
1991, the Ombudsman directed the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to file the appropriate
informations against Santiago.

2. Challenging the charges against her, Santiago unrelentingly filed several petitions before the Court to enjoin
the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the criminal case, defer her arraignment, dismiss the
informations, and inhibit the Presiding Judge of Sandiganbayan.

3. In July 1995, the prosecution filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to suspend Santiago. Sandiganbayan
then issued an order suspending Santiago from her position as Senator and from any government position
she may be holding, for ninety (90) days and for implementation by Senate President Ernesto Maceda.

4. Santiago assailed the authority of Sandiganbayan to decree a 90-day preventive suspension against her;
hence, the petition for certiorari before the SC.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan is authorized to issue a 90-day preventive suspension order against Sen.
Santiago. YES.

RATIONALE
1. The authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the preventive suspension of an incumbent public official
charged with violation of the provisions of RA No. 3019 has both legal and jurisprudential support. Sec. 13
of the said statute provides that incumbent public officers criminally prosecuted under a valid information
pending in court, shall be suspended from office.

2. In Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that the provision of suspension pendente lite under Sec. 13
of RA No. 3019 applies to all persons indicted upon a valid information, whether appointive or elective,
permanent or temporary, career or non-career service.

/A. Rollon
 3. It is also settled that the use of the word “office” in Section 13 of RA No. 3019 indicates that it applies to
any officer which the officer charged may be holding, and not only the particular office under which he
stands accused.

4. The order of suspension prescribed in RA No. 3019 is different from that of Section 16(3) of Article VI of the
1987 Constitution, the former being preventive (not a penalty), and the latter being punitive and imposed
by Congress upon its members. RA No. 3019 does not exclude from its coverage the members of Congress.

HELD/DISPOSITIVE
The petitions were dismissed.

/A. Rollon