G.R. No.

128055, April 18, 2001

Power of Sandiganbayan to suspend members of Congress vis-a-vis
Congress' prerogative to discipline its own members: the former is not punitive, the
latter is
FACTS:
A group of employees of the Commission of Immigration and eportation !CI" #led a
complaint for violation of Anti-$raft and Corrupt Practices Act against then CI
Commissioner %iriam efensor-Santiago& It was alleged that petitioner, with evident bad
faith and manifest partiality in the e'ercise of her o(cial functions, approved
the application forlegali)ation of the stay of several dis*uali#ed aliens& +he
Sandiganbayan then issued an order for her suspensione,ective for -. days&
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Sani!an"a#an ha$ a%thorit# to e&ree a '0(a#
pre)enti)e $%$pen$ion a!ain$t a Senator o* the Rep%"li& o* the
+hilippine$
RU,ING:
+he authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the preventive suspension of an incumbent
public o(cial charged with violation of the provisions of /epublic Act 0o& 1.2- has both
legal and 3urisprudential support& '''
It would appear, indeed, to be a ministerial duty of the court to issue an order
of suspension upon determination of the validity of the information #led before it& 4nce
the information is found to be su(cient in form and substance, the court is bound to issue
an order of suspension as a matter of course, and there seems to be 5no ifs and buts
about it&6 7'plaining the nature of the preventive suspension, the Court in the case of
8ayot vs& Sandiganbayan observed:
5' ' ' It is not a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of 3udicial proceedings& In
fact, if ac*uitted, the o(cial concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the
salaries and bene#ts which he failed to receive duringsuspension&6
In issuing the preventive suspension of petitioner, the Sandiganbayan merely adhered to
the clear an une*uivocal mandate of the law, as well as the 3urisprudence in which the
Court has, more than once, upheld Sandiganbayan9s authority to decree
the suspension of public o(cials and employees indicted before it&
Power of Sandiganbayan to ecree Preventive Suspension vis-:-vis
Congress9 Prerogative to iscipline its %embers
+he pronouncement, upholding the validity of the information #led against petitioner,
behooved Sandiganbayan to discharge its mandated duty to forthwith issue the order of
preventive suspension&
+he order of suspension prescribed by /epublic Act 0o& 1.2- is distinct from the power of
Congress to discipline its own ran;s under the Constitution which provides that each-
5' ' ' house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its %embers for
disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its %embers, suspend
or e'pel a %ember& A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not e'ceed si'ty days&6
+he suspension contemplated in the above constitutional provision is a
punitive measure that is imposed upon determination by the Senate or the house of
2
/epresentatives, as the case may be, upon an erring member&
'''
/epublic Act 0o& 1.2- does not e'clude from its coverage the members of Congress and
that, therefore, the Sandiganbayan did not err in thus decreeing the assailed
preventive suspension order&
356 SCRA 636 Political Law The Legislative Department Suspension of a em!er of
Congress "iolations of RA 3#$%
In 4ctober 2-<<, %iriam efensor Santiago, who was the then Commissioner of the
Commission of Immigration and eportation !CI", approved the application for
legali)ation of the stay of about 1= aliens& >er act was said to be illegal and was tainted
with bad faith and it ran counter against /epublic Act 0o& 1.2- !Anti-$raft and Corrupt
Practices Act"& +he legali)ation of such is also a violation of 7'ecutive 4rder 0o& 1=? which
prohibits the legali)ation of dis*uali#ed aliens& +he aliens legali)ed by Santiago were
allegedly ;nown by her to be dis*uali#ed& +wo other criminal cases were #led against
Santiago& Pursuant to this information, @rancis $architorena, a presiding Austice of the
Sandiganbayan, issued a warrant of arrest against Santiago& Santiago petitioned for
provisional liberty since she was 3ust recovering from a car accident which was approved&
In 2--B, a motion was #led with the Sandiganbayan for the suspension of Santiago, who
was already a senator by then& +he Sandiganbayan ordered the Senate President
!%aceda" to suspend Santiago from o(ce for -. days&
ISSUE: Chether or not Sandiganbayan can order suspension of a member of the Senate
without violating the Constitution&
-E,.: Des& it is true that the Constitution provides that each 5E house ma& 'etermine
the rules of its procee'ings( punish its em!ers for 'isor'erl& !ehavior( an'( with the
concurrence of two)thir's of all its em!ers( suspen' or e*pel a em!er+ A penalt&
of suspension( when impose'( shall not e*cee' si*t& 'a&s+6
8ut on the other hand, Section 21 of /A 1.2- provides:
Suspension an' loss of !ene,ts+ an& incum!ent pu!lic o-cer against whom an&
criminal prosecution un'er a vali' information un'er this Act or un'er Title .( /oo0 11 of
the Revise' Penal Co'e or for an& o2ense involving frau' upon government or pu!lic
fun's or propert& whether as a simple or as a comple* o2ense an' in whatever stage of
e*ecution an' mo'e of participation( is pen'ing in court( shall !e suspen'e' from o-ce+
Shoul' he !e convicte' !& ,nal 3u'gment( he shall lose all retirement or gratuit& !ene,ts
un'er an& law( !ut if he is ac4uitte'( he shall !e entitle' to reinstatement an' to the
salaries an' !ene,ts which he faile' to receive 'uring suspension( unless in the
meantime a'ministrative procee'ings have !een ,le' against him+
In here, the order of suspension prescribed by /A& 1.2- is distinct from the power of
Congress to discipline its own ran;s under the Constitution& +he suspension contemplated
in the above constitutional provision is a punitive measure that is imposed upon
determination by the Senate or the Fower >ouse, as the case may be, upon an erring
member& +his is *uite distinct from thesuspension spo;en of in Section 21 of /A 1.2-,
which is not a penalty but a preliminary, preventive measure, prescinding from the fact
that the latter is not being imposed on petitioner for misbehavior as a %ember of the
Senate&
/epublic Act 0o& 1.2- does not e'clude from its coverage the members of Congress and
that, therefore, the Sandiganbayan did not err in thus decreeing the assailed
preventive suspension order&
8ut Santiago committed the said act when she was still the CI commissioner, can she
still be suspended as a senatorG
Section 21 of /epublic Act 0o& 1.2- does not state that the public o(cer concerned must
be suspended only in the o(ce where he is alleged to have committed the acts with
which he has been charged& +hus, it has been held that the use of the word 5o(ce6
=
would indicate that it applies to any o(ce which the o(cer charged may be holding, and
not only the particular o(ce under which he stands accused&
Santiago has not yet been convicted of the alleged crime, can she still be suspendedG
+he law does not re*uire that the guilt of the accused must be established in a pre-
suspensionproceeding before trial on the merits proceeds& 0either does it contemplate a
proceeding to determine !2" the strength of the evidence of culpability against him, !="
the gravity of the o,ense charged, or !1" whether or not his continuance in o(ce could
inHuence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records another
evidence before the court could have a valid basis in decreeing
preventive suspension pending the trial of the case& All it secures to the accused is
ade*uate opportunity to challenge the validity or regularity of the proceedings against
him, such as, that he has not been a,orded the right to due preliminary investigation,
that the acts imputed to him do not constitute a speci#c crime warranting his
mandatory suspension from o(ce under Section 21 of /epublic Act 0o& 1.2-, or that the
information is sub3ect to *uashal on any of the grounds set out in Section 1, /ule 22I, of
the /evised /ules on Criminal procedure&
70 8A0C
/G.R. No. 128055. April 18, 20010
1IRIA1 .EFENS2R SANTIAG2, petitioner, vs. SAN.IGAN3A4AN, FRANCIS E.
GARC-IT2RENA, 52SE S. 3A,A5A.IA AN. 1INITA 6. C-IC2(NA7ARI2, AS
+RESI.ING 5USTICE AN. 1E13ERS 2F T-E FIRST .I6ISI2N, respondents.
. E C I S I 2 N
6ITUG, J.:
+he Court is called upon to review the act of the Sandiganbayan, and how far it can
go, in ordering the preventive suspension of petitioner, %me& Senator %iriam efensor-
Santiago, in connection with pending criminal cases #led against her for alleged violation
of /epublic Act 0o& 1.2-, as amended, otherwise ;nown as the Anti-$raft and Corrupt
Practices Act&
+he instant case arose from complaints #led by a group of employees of the
Commission of Immigration and eportation !CI" against petitioner, then CI
Commissioner, for alleged violation of the Anti-$raft and Corrupt Practices Act& +he
investigating panel, that too; over the case from Investigator $ualberto dela Flana after
having been constituted by the eputy 4mbudsman for Fu)on upon petitioner9s re*uest,
came up with a resolution which it referred, for approval, to the 4(ce of the Special
Prosecutor !4SP" and the 4mbudsman& In his %emorandum, dated =J April 2--2, the
4mbudsman directed the 4SP to #le the appropriate informations against petitioner& 4n
21 %ay 2--2, 4SP submitted to the 4mbudsman the informations for clearanceK
approved, forthwith, three informations were #led on even date&
In Criminal Case 0o& 2JJ-< #led before the Sandiganbayan, petitioner was indicted
thusly:
5+hat on or about 4ctober 2I, 2-<<, or sometime prior or subse*uent thereto, in %anila,
Philippines and within the 3urisdiction of this >onorable Court, accused %I/IA%
7@70S4/-SA0+IA$4, a public o(cer, being then the Commissioner of the Commission
on Immigration and eportation, with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in the
e'ercise of her o(cial functions, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally
approve the application for legali)ation of the stay of the following aliens: Ahamtani Shalini
0arendra, +ing Sio; >un, Ching Suat Fiong +ing, Cu Lui Pein My, Cu Lui Pwe My, >ong
Shao $uan, >ong Niao Duan, Nu Fi Nuan, Oui %ing Nia 4ng, Cu Sui Nin Ouiu, Cu >ong
$uan Oui P 8etty $o, Cu >ong /u Oui P %ary $o Nu Din Din Lua, >ong Shao >ua Nu,
1
>ong Shao Cei Nu, Fu Shing Oing, Fu Shi +ian, Fu Se Chong, Shi Oing Du, Nu Angun P Nu
An Cin, Nu Pinting, Cang Niu Ain, Cai Pian Pian, Cai Cen Nu, Cai %in %in, Cai Ping Ping,
Choi Lin Lwo; P 8ernardo Suare), Den Fiang Au P Aeslyn $an, Cai Dan 0an, Den Fing Chien
P Chrismayne $an, So Chen Dueh-4, Cai Da /ong, who arrived in the Philippines after
Aanuary 2, 2-<? in violation of 7'ecutive 4rder no& 1=? dated April 21, 2-<< which
prohibits the legali)ation of said dis*uali#ed aliens ;nowing fully well that said aliens are
dis*uali#ed, thereby giving unwarranted bene#ts to said aliens whose stay in the
Philippines was unlawfully legali)ed by said accused&6
Q2R
+wo other criminal cases, one for violation of the provisions of Presidential ecree 0o&
?J and the other for libel, were #led with the /egional +rial Court of %anila, doc;eted,
respectively, 0o& -2--?BBB and no& -2--?<-I&
Pursuant to the information #led with the Sandiganbayan, Presiding Austice @rancis 7&
$architorena issued an order for the arrest of petitioner, #'ing the bail at @ifteen
+housand !P2B,...&.." Pesos& Petitioner posted a cash bail without need for physical
appearance as she was then recuperating from in3uries sustained in a vehicular
accident& +he Sandiganbayan granted her provisional liberty until .B Aune 2--2 or until
her physical condition would warrant her physical appearance in court& Mpon
manifestation by the 4mbudsman, however, that petitioner was able to come unaided to
his o(ce on =. %ay 2--2, Sandiganbayan issued an order setting the arraignment on =I
%ay 2--2&
%eanwhile, petitioner moved for the cancellation of her cash bond and prayed that
she be allowed provisional liberty upon a recogni)ance&
4n =? %ay 2--2, petitioner #led, concurrently, a Petition for Certiorari with Prohibition
and Preliminary In3unction before the Court, doc;eted $&/& 0o& --=<---., see;ing to
en3oin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with Criminal Case 0o& 2JJ-< and a motion
before the Sandiganbayan to meanwhile defer her arraignment& +he Court ta;ing
cogni)ance of the petition issued a temporary restraining order&
+he Sandiganbayan, thus, informed, issued an order deferring petitioner9s
arraignment and the consideration of her motion to cancel the cash bond until further
advice from the court&
4n 21 Aanuary 2--=, the Court rendered its decision dismissing the petition and lifting
the temporary restraining order& +he subse*uent motion for reconsideration #led by
petitioner proved unavailing&
4n .J Auly 2--=, in the wa;e of me'ia reports announcing petitioner9s intention to
accept a fellowship from the Aohn @& Lennedy School of $overnment at >arvard Mniversity,
the Sandiganbayan issued an order to en3oin petitioner from leaving the country&
4n 2B 4ctober 2--=, petitioner moved to inhibit Sandiganbayan Presiding Austice
$architorena from the case and to defer her arraignment pending action on her motion to
inhibit& 4n .- 0ovember 2--=, her motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan& +he
following day, she #led anew a Petition forCertiorari and Prohibition with urgent Prayer for
Preliminary In3unction with the Court, doc;eted $&/& 0o& --=<---.& At the same time,
petitioner #led a motion for bill of particulars with the Sandiganbayan asseverating that
the names of the aliens whose applications she purportedly approved and thereby
supposedly e'tended undue advantage were conspicuously omitted in the complaint&
+he Court, in its resolution of 2= 0ovember 2--=, directed the Sandiganbayan to
reset petitioner9s arraignment not later than #ve days from receipt of notice thereof&
4n .I ecember 2--=, the 4SP and the 4mbudsman #led with the Sandiganbayan a
motion to admit thirty-two amended informations& Petitioner moved for the dismissal of
the 1= informations& +he court, in its 22
th
%arch 2--1 resolution, denied her motion to
dismiss the said informations and directed her to post bail on the criminal cases,
doc;eted Criminal Case 0o& 2<1I2-2<?.=, #led against her&
Mnrelenting, petitioner, once again came to this Court via a Petition
for Certiorari( doc;eted $&/& 0o& 2.-=JJ, assailing the .1
rd
%arch 2--1 resolution of the
Sandiganbayan which resolved not to dis*ualify its Presiding Austice, as well as its
2?
th
%arch 2--1 resolution admitting the 1= Amended Informations, and see;ing the
nulli#cation thereof&
?
Initially, the Court issued a temporary restraining order directing Presiding Austice
$architorena to cease and desist from sitting in the case, as well as from enforcing the
22
th
%arch 2--1 resolution ordering petitioner to post bail bonds for the 1= amended
informations, and from proceeding with her arraignment on 2= April 2--1 until the matter
of his dis*uali#cation would have been resolved by the Court&
4n .= ecember 2--1, the Court, in its decision in $&/& 2.-=JJ, directed the 4SP and
4mbudsman to consolidate the 1= amended informations& Conformably therewith, all the
1= informations were consolidated into one information under Criminal Case 0o& 2JJ-<&
Petitioner, then #led with the Sandiganbayan a %otion to 5/edetermine probable
Cause6 and to dismiss or *uash said information& Pending the resolution of this incident,
the prosecution #led on 12 Auly 2--B with the Sandiganbayan a motion to issue an order
suspending petitioner&
4n .1 August 2--B, the Sandiganbayan resolved to allow the testimony of one
/odolfo Pedellaga !Pedellaga"& +he presentation was scheduled on 2B September 2--B&
In the interim, the Sandiganbayan directed petitioner to #le her opposition to the
12
st
Auly 2--B motion for the prosecution within #fteen !2B" days from receipt thereof&
4n 2< August 2--B, petitioner submitted to the Sandiganbayan a motion for
reconsideration of its .1
rd
August 2--B order which would allow the testimony of
Pedellaga& +he incident, later denied by the Sandiganbayan, was elevated to the
Court via a Petition for /eview on Certiorari, entitled 5%iriam efensor-Santiago vs&
Sandiganbayan,6 doc;eted $&/& 0o& 2=1I-=&
4n == August 2--B, petitioner #led her opposition to the motion of the prosecution to
suspend her& 4n =B Aanuary 2--J, the Sandiganbayan resolved:
5C>7/7@4/7, for all the foregoing, the Court hereby grants the motion under
consideration and hereby suspends the accused %iriam efensor-Santiago from her
position as Senator of the /epublic of the Philippines and from any other government
position she may be holding at present or hereafter& >er suspension shall be for ninety
!-." days only and shall ta;e e,ect immediately upon notice&
5Fet a copy of this /esolution be furnished to the >on& 7rnesto %aceda, Senate President,
Senate of the Philippines, 7'ecutive >ouse, +aft Ave&, %anila, through the >on& Secretary
of the Senate, for the implementation of the suspension herein ordered& +he Secretary of
the Senate shall inform this court of the action ta;en thereon within #ve !B" days from
receipt hereof&
5+he said o(cial shall li;ewise inform this Court of the actual date of implementation of
the suspension order as well as the e'piry of the ninetieth day thereof so that the same
may be lifted at the time&6
Q=R
>ence, the instant recourse& +he petition assails the authority of the Sandiganbayan
to decree a ninety-day preventive suspension of %me& %iriam efensor-Santiago, a
Senator of the /epublic of the Philippines, from any government position, and furnishing a
copy thereof to the Senate of the Philippines for the implementation of the suspension
order&
+he authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the preventive suspension of an
incumbent public o(cial charged with violation of the provisions of /epublic Act 0o& 1.2-
has both legal and 3urisprudential support& Section 21 of the statute provides:
5S7C& 21& Suspension an' loss of !ene,ts& S any incumbent public o(cer against whom
any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under +itle I, 8oo; II
of the /evised Penal Code or for any o,ense involving fraud upon government or public
funds or property whether as a simple or as a comple' o,ense and in whatever stage of
e'ecution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from
o(ce& Should he be convicted by #nal 3udgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity
bene#ts under any law, but if he is ac*uitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to
the salaries and bene#ts which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the
meantime administrative proceedings have been #led against him&
B
5In the event that such convicted o(cer, who may have already been separated from the
service, has already received such bene#ts he shall be liable to restitute the same to the
$overnment& !As amen'e' !& /P /lg+ $%5( arch $6( $%56"&6
In the relatively recent case of Segovia vs& Sandiganbayan,
Q1R
the Court reiterated:
5+he validity of Section 21, /&A& 1.2-, as amended --- treating of the
suspension pen'ente lite of an accused public o(cer --- may no longer be put at issue,
having been repeatedly upheld by this Court&
5''' ''' '''
5+he provision of suspension pen'ente lite applies to all persons indicted upon a valid
information under the Act, whether they be appointive or elective o(cialsK or permanent
or temporary employees, or pertaining to the career or non-career service&6
Q?R
It would appear, indeed, to be a ministerial duty of the court to issue an order of
suspension upon determination of the validity of the information #led before it& 4nce the
information is found to be su(cient in form and substance, the court is bound to issue an
order of suspension as a matter of course, and there seems to be 5no ifs an' !uts about
it&6
QBR
7'plaining the nature of the preventive suspension, the Court in the case of 8ayot
vs& Sandiganbayan
QJR
observed:
5' ' ' It is not a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of 3udicial proceedings& In
fact, if ac*uitted, the o(cial concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the
salaries and bene#ts which he failed to receive during suspension&6
QIR
In issuing the preventive suspension of petitioner, the Sandiganbayan merely adhered
to the clear an une*uivocal mandate of the law, as well as the 3urisprudence in which the
Court has, more than once, upheld Sandiganbayan9s authority to decree the suspension
of public o(cials and employees indicted before it&
Section 21 of /epublic Act 0o& 1.2- does not state that the public o(cer concerned
must be suspended only in the o(ce where he is alleged to have committed the acts with
which he has been charged& Th%$, it ha$ "een hel that the %$e o* the 8or
9o:&e; 8o%l ini&ate that it applie$ to an# o:&e 8hi&h the o:&er &har!e
<a# "e holin!, an not onl# the parti&%lar o:&e %ner 8hi&h he $tan$
a&&%$e.
Q<R
7n passan( while the imposition of suspension is not automatic or self-operative as the
validity of the information must be determined in a pre-suspension hearing, there is no
hard and fast rule as to the conduct thereof& It has been said that-
59' ' ' 0o speci#c rules need be laid down for such pre-suspension hearing& Su(ce it to
state that the accused should be given a fair and ade*uate opportunity to challenge the
TAFII+D 4@ +>7 C/I%I0AF P/4C77I0$S against him, e&g& that he has not been a,orded
the right of due preliminary investigationK that the acts for which he stands charged do
not constitute a violation of the provisions of /epublic Act 1.2- or the bribery provisions
of the revised Penal Code which would warrant his mandatory suspension from o(ce
under section 21 of the ActK or he may present a motion to *uash the information on any
of the grounds provided for in /ule 22I of the /ules of Court ' ' '&9
5''' ''' '''
5Fi;ewise, he is accorded the right to challenge the propriety of his prosecution on the
ground that the acts for which he is charged do not constitute a violation of /ep& Act
1.2-, or of the provisions on bribery of the /evised Penal Code, and the right to present a
motion to *uash the information on any other grounds provided in /ule 22I of the /ules
of Court&
5>owever, a challenge to the validity of the criminal proceedings on the ground that the
acts for which the accused is charged do not constitute a violation of the provisions of
/ep& Act 1.2-, or of the provisions on bribery of the revised Penal Code, should be treated
J
only in the same manner as a challenge to the criminal proceeding by way of a motion to
*uash on the ground provided in Paragraph !a", section = of /ule 22I of the /ules of
Court, i&e&, that the facts charged do not constitute an o,ense& In other words, a
resolution of the challenge to the validity of the criminal proceeding, on such ground,
should be limited to an in*uiry whether the facts alleged in the information, if
hypothetically admitted, constitute the elements of an o,ense punishable under /ep& Act
1.2- or the provisions on bribery of the /evised Penal Code&6
Q-R
+he law does not re*uire that the guilt of the accused must be established in a pre-
suspension proceeding before trial on the merits proceeds& 0either does it contemplate a
proceeding to determine !2" the strength of the evidence of culpability against him, !="
the gravity of the o,ense charged, or !1" whether or not his continuance in o(ce could
inHuence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records an other
evidence before the court could have a valid basis in decreeing preventive suspension
pending the trial of the case& All it secures to the accused is ade*uate opportunity to
challenge the validity or regularity of the proceedings against him, such as, that he has
not been a,orded the right to due preliminary investigation, that the acts imputed to him
do not constitute a speci#c crime warranting his mandatory suspension from o(ce under
Section 21 of /epublic Act 0o& 1.2-, or that the information is sub3ect to *uashal on any
of the grounds set out in Section 1, /ule 22I, of the /evised /ules on Criminal procedure&
Q2.R
+he instant petition is not the #rst time that an incident relating to petitioner9s case
before the Sandiganbayan has been brought to this Court& In previous occasions, the
Court has been called upon the resolve several other matters on the sub3ect& +hus: !2" In
Santiago vs& Tas*ue),
Q22R
petitioner sought to en3oin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding
with Criminal case 0o& 2JJ-< for violation of /epublic Act 0o& 1.2-K !=" in Santiago vs&
Tas*ue),
Q2=R
petitioner sought the nulli#cation of the hold departure order issued by the
Sandiganbayan via a 5%otion to /estrain the Sandiganbayan from 7nforcing its >old
eparture 4rder with Prayer for Issuance of a +emporary /estraining 4rder andUor
Preliminary In3unction, with %otion to set Pending Incident for >earingK !1" in Santiago vs&
$architorena,
Q21R
petitioner sought the nulli#cation of the resolution, dated .1 %arch 2--1,
in Criminal Case 0o& 2JJ-< of the Sandiganbayan !@irst ivision" and to declare Presiding
Austice $architorena dis*uali#ed from acting in said criminal case, and the resolution,
dated 2? %arch 2--1, which deemed as 5#led6 the 1= amended informations against herK
and !?" in %iriam efensor Santiago vs& Sandiganbayan,
Q2?R
petitioner assailed the denial
by the Sandiganbayan of her motion for her reconsideration from its .1
rd
August 2--B
order allowing the testimony of Pedellaga& In one of these cases,
Q2BR
the Court declared:
5Ce note that petitioner had previously #led two petitions before us involving Criminal
Case 0o& 2JJ-< !$&/& 0os& --=<----=-.K $&/& 0o& 2.IB-<"& Petitioner has not e'plained
why she failed to raise the issue of the delay in the preliminary investigation and the #ling
of the information against her in those petitions& A piece-meal presentation of issues, li;e
the splitting of causes of action, is self-defeating&
5Petitioner ne't claims that the Amended informations did not charge any o,ense
punishable under Section 1 !e" of /&A& 0o& 1.2- because the o(cial acts complained of
therein were authori)ed under 7'ecutive 4rder 0o& 1=? and that the 8oard of
Commissioners of the 8ureau of Investigation adopted the policy of approving
applications for legali)ation of spouses and unmarried, minor children of 5*uali#ed aliens6
even though they had arrived in the Philippines after ecember 12 2-<1& She concludes
that the Sandiganbayan erred in not granting her motion to *uash the informations !/ollo,
pp& =B-12"&
5In a motion to *uash, the accused admits hypothetically the allegations of fact in the
information !People vs& Supnad, I SC/A J.1 Q2-J1R"& +herefore, petitioner admitted
hypothetically in her motion that:
!2" She was a public o(cerK
!=" She approved the application for legali)ation of the stay of aliens, who arrived
in the Philippines after Aanuary 2, 2-<?K
!1" +hose aliens were dis*uali#edK
I
!?" She was cogni)ant of such factK and
!B" She acted in Vevident bad faith and manifest partiality in the e'ecution of her
o(cial functions&9
5+he foregoing allegations of fact constitute the elements of the o,ense de#ned in
Section 1 !e" of /&A& 0o& 1.2-&6
Q2JR
+he pronouncement, upholding the validity of the information #led against petitioner,
behooved Sandiganbayan to discharge its mandated duty to forthwith issue the order of
preventive suspension&
+he order of suspension prescribed by /epublic Act 0o& 1.2- is distinct from the
power of Congress to discipline its own ran;s under the Constitution which provides that
each-
5' ' ' house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its %embers for
disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its %embers,
suspend or e'pel a %ember& A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not
e'ceed si'ty days&6
Q2IR
+he suspension contemplated in the above constitutional provision is a punitive
measure that is imposed upon determination by the Senate or the house of
/epresentatives, as the case may be, upon an erring member& +hus, in its resolution in
the case of Ceferino Paredes, Ar&, vs& Sandiganbayan, et al&,
Q2<R
the Court a(rmed the order
of suspension of Congressman Paredes by the Sandiganbayan, despite his protestations
on the encroachment by the court on the prerogatives of congress& +he Court ruled:
5' ' '& Petitioner9s invocation of Section 2J !1", Article TI of the Constitution S which
deals with the power of each >ouse of Congress inter alia to Vpunish its %embers for
disorderly behavior,9 and Vsuspend or e'pel a %ember9 by a vote of two-thirds of all its
%embers sub3ect to the *uali#cation that the penalty of suspension, when imposed,
should not e'ceed si'ty days S is unavailing, as it appears to be *uite distinct from the
suspension spo;en of in Section 21 of /A 1.2-, which is not a penalty but a preliminary,
preventive measure, prescinding from the fact that the latter is not being imposed on
petitioner for misbehavior as a %ember of the >ouse of /epresentatives&6
+he doctrine of separation of powers by itself may not be deemed to have e,ectively
e'cluded members of Congress from /epublic Act 0o& 1.2- nor from its sanctions& +he
ma'im simply recogni)es each of the three co-e*ual and independent, albeit coordinate,
branches of the government S the Fegislative, the 7'ecutive and the Audiciary S has
e'clusive prerogatives and cogni)ance within its own sphere of inHuence and e,ectively
prevents one branch from unduly intruding into the internal a,airs of either branch&
Parenthetically, it might be well to elaborate a bit& Section 2, Article TIII, of the 2-<I
Constitution, empowers the Court to act not only in the settlement of 5actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,6 but also in
the determination of 5whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lac; or e'cess of 3urisdiction on the part o* an# "ran&h or
in$tr%<entalit# o* the Go)ern<ent. +he provision allowing the Court to loo; into any
possible grave abuse of discretion committed by any government instrumentality has
evidently been couched in general terms in order to ma;e it malleable to 3udicial
interpretation in the light of any emerging milieu& In its normal concept, the term has
been said to imply an arbitrary, despotic, capricious or whimsical e'ercise of 3udgment
amounting to lac; or e'cess of 3urisdiction& Chen the *uestion, however, pertains to an
a,air internal to either of Congress or the 7'ecutive, the Court subscribes to the
view
Q2-R
that %nle$$ an in*rin!e<ent o* an# $pe&i=& Con$tit%tional pro$&ription
there"# inhere$ the Co%rt $ho%l not ei!n $%"$tit%te it$ o8n >%!<ent o)er
that o* an# o* the other t8o "ran&he$ o* !o)ern<ent. It i$ an i<pair<ent or a
&lear i$re!ar o* a $pe&i=& &on$tit%tional pre&ept or pro)i$ion that &an %n"olt
the $teel oor *or >%i&ial inter)ention. If any part of the Constitution is not, or
ceases to be, responsive to contemporary needs, it is the people, not the Court, who must
promptly react in the manner prescribed by the Charter itself&
<
Rep%"li& A&t No. ?01' oe$ not e@&l%e *ro< it$ &o)era!e the <e<"er$ o*
Con!re$$ an that, there*ore, the Sani!an"a#an i not err in th%$ e&reein!
the a$$aile pre)enti)e $%$pen$ion orer.
Attention might be called to the fact that Criminal Case 0o& 2JJ-< has been decided
by the @irst ivision of the Sandiganbayan on .J ecember 2---, ac*uitting herein
petitioner& +he Court, nevertheless, deems it appropriate to render this decision for future
guidance on the signi#cant issue raised by petitioner&
W-EREF2RE, the instant petition for certiorari is IS%ISS7& 0o costs&
S2 2R.ERE..
-