Just recently, in Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, et al.

, this
[G.R. No. 130240.February 5, 2002] 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
DE VENECIA, JR., et al., vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (1st DIV.) mandate of R.A. 3019, thus:

EN BANC "The order of suspension prescribed by

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
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)

(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 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 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, a penalty for disorderly behavior to enforce discipline,
maintain order in its proceedings, or vindicate its honor and
integrity.