FACTS:

The case involves a special civil action of certiorari and prohibition seeking nullification of two Resolutions issued by the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan. The first resolution ordered the petitioners' preventive suspension for ninety days, while the second resolution denied their motion for reconsideration. The primary issue is whether the Sandiganbayan has the discretion to place public officers, who are accused before it, under preventive suspension. The petitioners, who are executive officers in the National Power Corporation, were charged with infringement of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. After a reinvestigation of their case, the recommendation to withdraw the information against them was turned down by the chief Special Prosecutor and the Ombudsman. The case proceeded in the Sandiganbayan, where the accused were arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty. The People filed a motion to suspend the accused pendente lite, which the petitioners opposed. The Sandiganbayan suspended them for ninety days. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court held that the resolutions were not clearly capricious, oppressive, or erroneous to be invalidated through the writ of certiorari. The Court emphasized the authority of the Sandiganbayan to suspend public officials and employees indicted before it, which was supported by the law and jurisprudence. The constitutionality of the provision on suspension pendent lite had been repeatedly upheld. The purpose of suspension is to prevent the accused from interfering with the prosecution, tampering with evidence, or committing further acts of malfeasance while in office. The power of preventive suspension lies with the court that has taken cognizance of the case filed.

ISSUES:

1. Does the suspension of a public officer charged with a crime listed in the amending law violate the constitutional provision against an ex post facto law?

2. Is the power of preventive suspension vested in the court in which the criminal charge is filed?

3. Does the provision of suspension pendente lite apply to all persons indicated upon a valid information under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?

4. Is the court required to conduct a pre-suspension hearing to determine the validity of the information before imposing preventive suspension?

5. Can preventive suspension exceed the maximum period of ninety (90) days?

6. Can the peculiar circumstances of a case be a valid ground for exception to preventive suspension?

7. Whether the court is duty-bound to place the accused under preventive suspension pending the determination of the validity of the information.

8. Whether the possibility of the accused intimidating witnesses or hampering the prosecution is the only ground for preventive suspension.

9. Whether the suspension of the accused will cause delay in the implementation of vital projects.

10. Whether the court has the discretion to hold in abeyance the suspension of the accused officer pending review before the appellate courts.

RULING:

1. No, the suspension of a public officer charged with a crime listed in the amending law does not violate the constitutional provision against an ex post facto law. Suspension is a preventive measure, not penal in character, which aims to prevent the accused public officer from interfering with the prosecution.

2. Yes, the power of preventive suspension lies in the court in which the criminal charge is filed. Once a case is filed in court, all acts connected with the discharge of court functions, including preventive suspension, are within the competence of the court.

3. Yes, the provision of suspension pendente lite applies to all persons indicated upon a valid information under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, regardless of their position or employment status.

4. Yes, it is mandatory for the court to conduct a pre-suspension hearing to determine the validity of the information before imposing preventive suspension. The purpose of the hearing is to afford the accused the opportunity to challenge the validity or regularity of the criminal proceedings against them.

5. No, preventive suspension may not exceed the maximum period of ninety (90) days in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 807 and Section 52 of the Administrative Code of 1987.

6. No, the peculiar circumstances of a case cannot be a valid ground for exception to preventive suspension. The purpose of preventive suspension is to avoid potential abuse of office and tampering with evidence, regardless of the specific circumstances of the case.

7. The court is duty-bound to place the accused under preventive suspension pending the determination of the validity of the information. The suspension of a public officer is mandatory under Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law after a determination has been made of the validity of the information in a pre-suspension hearing conducted for that purpose.

8. The possibility of the accused intimidating witnesses or hampering the prosecution is not the only ground for preventive suspension. One of the grounds for preventive suspension is to prevent the accused from committing further acts of malfeasance while in office.

9. The potential delay in the implementation of vital projects is not a sufficient basis for reducing the mandatory period of suspension prescribed by law. The vice governor, who has likewise been elected by the people, will act as governor during the suspension period.

10. No, the court does not have the discretion to hold in abeyance the suspension of the accused officer pending review before the appellate courts. Once the information is found to be sufficient in form and substance, the court must issue the order of suspension as a matter of course. The court has a ministerial duty to suspend the accused officer upon a finding of probable cause, to prevent the accused from using his office to intimidate witnesses, frustrate his prosecution, or continue committing malfeasance in office. The suspension is not a penalty and does not prejudice the accused, as he will be entitled to reinstatement and the salaries and benefits he failed to receive during the suspension if acquitted.

PRINCIPLES:

• Preventive suspension is a preventive measure, not penal in character, imposed on a public officer charged with a crime listed in the amending law.

• The power of preventive suspension lies in the court in which the criminal charge is filed. It does not violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

• Suspension pendente lite applies to all persons indicated upon a valid information under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, regardless of their position or employment status.

• A pre-suspension hearing is mandatory to determine the validity of the information before imposing preventive suspension.

• Preventive suspension may not exceed the maximum period of ninety (90) days.

• Peculiar circumstances of a case cannot be a valid ground for exception to preventive suspension.

• The suspension of a public officer is mandatory after the validity of the information has been upheld in a pre-suspension hearing conducted for that purpose.

• The pre-suspension hearing is conducted to determine the validity of the information, from which the court can have a basis to either suspend the accused and proceed with the trial on the merits of the case, or withhold the suspension and dismiss the case, or correct any part of the proceeding which impairs its validity.

• The guidelines for the lower courts in the exercise of the power of suspension under Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law include notifying the accused officer to show cause why he should not be suspended, hearing the parties to determine the validity of the information, and issuing the corresponding suspension order if the information is upheld. The accused should also be given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings against him.

• Preventive suspension is mandatory and not a penalty.

• The court has a ministerial duty to order suspension once the information is found to be sufficient.

• The court does not have the discretion to determine whether or not preventive suspension is required; the presumption is that suspension is necessary to prevent further acts of malfeasance.

• The public interest in protecting the integrity of public office outweighs the private interest of the accused.