De Venecia v Sandiganbayan

Facts: On 12 March 1993, Information 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 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, on 12 August 1997, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution
requiring him to appear before it, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of
court. Petitioner 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 116 adopted on 13 August 1997. On 29 August 1997, the
Sandiganbayan rendered a Resolution declaring Speaker Jose C. de Venecia, Jr. in contempt of
court. Petitioner filed the petition for certiorari.

Issue:
Whether the suspension provided in the Anti-Graft law is a penalty or a precautionary measure;
and
Whether the doctrine of separation of powers exclude the members of Congress from the
mandate of R.A. 3019.

Held:
The instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. No costs.
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 valid Information.

As held in Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, et al., the doctrine of separation of

powers does not exclude the members of Congress from the mandate of RA 3019. The order of
suspension prescribed by Republic Act 3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline
its own ranks under the Constitution.