De Venecia v. Sandiganbayan - 1st Division (2002) | G.R. No.

130240 | February 5, 2002

Nature of Case: Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc

Petitioner(s): 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
Respondent(s): Sandiganbayan (1st Division)

SUMMARY: This is a minute resolution given out by the Supreme Court to resolve herein petitioner’s
wish to annul (1) the Order of the Sandiganbayan, directing House Speaker Jose de Venecia to
suspend Congressman Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. for the alleged violation of the law on anti-graft and
corrupt practices act, as amended, as well as (2) the resolution made by the Sandiganbayan, holding
de Venecia in contempt for not implementing said order.
DOCTRINE (INVOKED): Separation of Powers in holding a member of the House of Representatives
liable for a crime

FACTS:
 12 March 1993 - Sandiganbayan (First Division) received information accusing 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).
 6 June 1997 - the Sandiganbayan granted the prosecution’s motion “to suspend the accused
Pendente Lite (while in litigation)” and ordered House Speaker Jose de Venecia to suspend the
accused. He did not implement the order.
 12 August 1997 - the Sandiganbayan required de Venecia to appear before the court on 18
August 1997 at 8:00 a.m., to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. De
Venecia, in a motion for reconsideration, invoked the rule on separation of powers and claimed
that he can only act as may be dictated by the House, pursuant to House Resolution 116.
 29 August 1997 - the Sandiganbayan declared Speaker Jose C. de Venecia, Jr. in contempt of
court and ordered him to pay a fine of P10,000.00 within 10 days from notice.
 Hence, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES + RULING:
1) WON the suspension in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is an actual penalty or a
precautionary measure? NO.
 This has already been resolved in Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan in G.R. No.
118354 (August 8, 1995).
 Suspension in the Anti-Graft Law is mandatory. It is a precautionary measure upon filing
of a valid information to prevent the accused from further influencing witnesses, from
tampering documents, and doing other malfeasances while in office.
 It is distinct from the House-imposed sanction contemplated in the constitution which is
actually “a PENALTY for disorderly behavior to enforce discipline, maintain order in its
proceedings, or vindicate its honor and integrity.”
 2) WON the doctrine of separation of powers exempts member of Congress from the mandate of
RA 3019? NO.
 As already held by the Supreme Court en banc, in Miriam Defensor Santiago v.
Sandiganbayan, et al.
"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.”

FINAL RULING: The case is moot and academic, and therefore closed and terminated since the term of
Congressman Ceferino Paredes, Jr. already expired.