DE VENECIA, JR v.
SANDIGANBAYAN he should not be held in contempt of court (there was due
G.R. 130240
February 5, 2002
SUMMARY OF THE CASE:
The principal issue in this petition for certiorari is whether or not the
Sandiganbayan may cite in contempt of court the Speaker of the House
of Representatives (De Venecia) for refusing to implement the
preventive suspension order it issued in a criminal case against a
member of the House (Congressman Ceferino Paredes Jr.).
The court rules that the suspension provided for in the Anti-Graft Law
is mandatory; it is imposed by the court not as a penalty, but as a
precautionary measure to prevent the accused public officer from
influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence and committing more
acts of malfeasance.
But since the term of Congressman Paredes has already expired, this
instant case was rendered MOOT and ACADEMIC.
FACTS:
 March 12, 1993: An Information was filed with the
Sandiganbayan 1st Division against Congressman Ceferino
Paredes Jr. Agusan Del Sur:
o For violation of Section 3(e) RA 3019 or The Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act
 After Congressman Paredes pleaded not guilty, the prosecution
filed a “Motion to Suspend the Accused Pendente Lite”.
o (Pendente Lite means “pending the litigation; so
suspend muna si Paredes while waiting for litigation to
take place)
 June 6, 1997: Sandiganbayan granted the motion and ordered
Speaker De Venecia to suspend Paredes. However, Speaker
did not comply.
 August 12, 1997: The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution
requiring De Venecia to appear before them to show cause why
process)
 Speaker De Venecia filed a motion for reconsideration:
o He invoked the rule on separation of powers, claiming
that he can only act as may be dictated by the House as
a body;
o This is pursuant to House Res. No. 116
 August 29, 1997: Sandiganbayan declared Speaker De
Venecia in contempt of court and ordered him to pay a fine of
Php 10,000 within 10 days from notice.
ISSUE:
1. W/N Speaker Devenecia 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
HELD:
1. NO. It was ruled in Santiago v. Sandiganbayan that the
doctrine of separation of powers does not exclude
members of the Congress from the mandate of RA 3019:
 The order of suspension in RA 3019 is different from the
power of Congress to discipline its own members.
SUPENSION: RA 3019 v. HOUSE-IMPOSED
SUSPENSION
o RA 3019: It was ruled in Ceferino Paredes v.
Sandiganbayan that the suspension provided for in
RA 3019 is NOT A PENALTY.
o It is a precautionary measure to prevent accused
from committing more acts of malfeasance
o House-imposed: A suspension contemplated in the
Constitution, on the other hand, is a House-imposed
sanction against its members; it is A PENALTY for
disorderly behavior to enforce discipline, maintain
order, 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 RA 3019 nor from its sanctions.

 The maxim only meant that the three branches of

government has EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVES and
COGNIZANCE WITHIN ITS OWN SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE

 The separation of powers principle only prevents one

branch from unduly intruding into the internal affairs of
another branch.

DICTA:

The court notes, however, that the term of Paredes has already expired
on June 30, 1998. This rendered moot and academic the instant case.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, for being MOOT, this case is deemed CLOSED and

TERMINATED.