[G.R. No. 130240.

February 5, 2002]

DE 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
ismandatory 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,
apenalty 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