LIBANAN VS. SANDIGANBAYAN233 SCRA 163Petitioner: Marcelino LibananRespondents: SANDIGANBAYAN and Agustin B. DocenaPonente: J.

VitugFACTS:Petitioner Libanan is the incumbent vice-governor of Eastern Samar and was a former member of the SangguniangPanlalawigan prior to the 1992 elections.He was charged in conspiring to other members to prevent and exclude Docena (Respondent), a qualifiedreplacement of a deceased member, from exercising his rights and prerogatives as a member of the said body.In effect, the SANDIGANBAYAN issued a resolution suspending their respective public position and office for ninety(90) days.Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging three grounds: [1] Order of Suspension if executed shallaffront the petitioner s right for due process; [2] the suspension would assault his covenant to the people of Samaras their vice-governor; and [3] the reasons sought to be prevented by the suspension no longer exist.Petitioner contends that the order of suspension, being predicated on his acts supposedly committed while still amember of the Sangguniang Bayan, can no longer attach to him now that he is the duly elected and incumbentViceGovernor of Eastern Samar.ISSUES:Whether or not the Order of Suspension given by the SANDIGANBAYAN is valid?HELD:Yes. The Court ruled that the term "office" used in the law could apply to any office which the officer chargedmight currently be holding and not necessarily the particular office under which he was charged.The suspension order cannot amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. Public office is "apublic agency or trust,"and it is not the property envisioned by the Constitutional provisionwhich petitionerinvokes.Hence, SC dismissed the petition. SANDIGANBAYAN s decision is affirmed.MJB

16 p.

6 p. Case Digests - Consti2 Ysabel Padilla 1040 Reads

41 p. REV Jennylou Fajardo 13488 Reads Next More From This User

1 p. Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres vs CA [Digest] Marc Bueno 440 Reads

1 p.