Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    de Venecia vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Gelay Pereras
    The Sandiganbayan cited Speaker Jose de Venecia in contempt for refusing to comply with its order suspending then-Congressman Ceferino Paredes pending his graft trial. The Supreme Court upheld the contempt citation, finding that (1) the suspension under the Anti-Graft law is mandatory and imposed by courts to prevent interference in trials, not a penalty, and (2) the separation of powers does not exclude Congress from such suspensions, which are distinct from Congress's own disciplinary powers. While the case was rendered moot by Paredes' expired term, the Court reaffirmed its prior ruling that courts can mandate suspensions pending trial under the Anti-Graft law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    de Venecia vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Gelay Pereras
    31 views2 pages
    The Sandiganbayan cited Speaker Jose de Venecia in contempt for refusing to comply with its order suspending then-Congressman Ceferino Paredes pending his graft trial. The Supreme Court upheld the contempt citation, finding that (1) the suspension under the Anti-Graft law is mandatory and imposed by courts to prevent interference in trials, not a penalty, and (2) the separation of powers does not exclude Congress from such suspensions, which are distinct from Congress's own disciplinary powers. While the case was rendered moot by Paredes' expired term, the Court reaffirmed its prior ruling that courts can mandate suspensions pending trial under the Anti-Graft law.

    Original Title

    48. de Venecia vs. Sandiganbayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Sandiganbayan cited Speaker Jose de Venecia in contempt for refusing to comply with its order suspending then-Congressman Ceferino Paredes pending his graft trial. The Supreme Court upheld the contempt citation, finding that (1) the suspension under the Anti-Graft law is mandatory and imposed by courts to prevent interference in trials, not a penalty, and (2) the separation of powers does not exclude Congress from such suspensions, which are distinct from Congress's own disciplinary powers. While the case was rendered moot by Paredes' expired term, the Court reaffirmed its prior ruling that courts can mandate suspensions pending trial under the Anti-Graft law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    31 views2 pages

    de Venecia vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Gelay Pereras
    The Sandiganbayan cited Speaker Jose de Venecia in contempt for refusing to comply with its order suspending then-Congressman Ceferino Paredes pending his graft trial. The Supreme Court upheld the contempt citation, finding that (1) the suspension under the Anti-Graft law is mandatory and imposed by courts to prevent interference in trials, not a penalty, and (2) the separation of powers does not exclude Congress from such suspensions, which are distinct from Congress's own disciplinary powers. While the case was rendered moot by Paredes' expired term, the Court reaffirmed its prior ruling that courts can mandate suspensions pending trial under the Anti-Graft law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Atty.

    Butch Jamon - Constitutional Law 1

    De Venecia vs. Sandiganbayan

    G.R. No. 130240|February 5, 2002

    Puno, J.

    FACTS:

    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
    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.

    ISSUE/S (DECISION):

    Whether or 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. (YES)

    RATIO DECIDENDI:

    Austero|Case Digests Hail to the Chiefs!


    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.

    Just recently, in Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, et al., this 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 mandate of R.A. 3019, thus:

    "The order of suspension prescribed by 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."

    We note that the term of then Congressman Ceferino Paredes, Jr. expired on June 30,
    1988.This rendered moot and academic the instant case.

    Austero|Case Digests Hail to the Chiefs!

    You might also like