[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. Tuao, 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:

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.

(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

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.

(2) the Resolution dated August 29, 1997, [3]cralaw also of

the Sandiganbayan, declaring Speaker de Venecia in

The issue before us had long been settled by this Court

in Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan in G.R. No.

Hence, the instant recourse.

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:

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)

"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

Antonio B. Tuao, Cashier, House of Representatives;

Antonio M. Chan, Chief, Property Division, House of
Representatives, 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.

Facts: On 12 March 1993, an Information (docketed as

Criminal Case 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 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 6 June 1997, 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, on 18 August
1997 at 8:00 a.m., 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 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 and ordering him topay a fine of
P10,000.00 within 10 days from notice. 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.

Held: As held in Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan

(GR 118354, 8 August 1995), 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. 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.
Ratio: 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 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.