View full case

MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

This case involves complaints filed by a group of employees of the Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) against petitioner, then CID Commissioner, for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The investigating panel, after taking over the case from Investigator Gualberto dela Llana, came up with a resolution which it referred for approval to the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman directed the Special Prosecutor to file appropriate informations against petitioner. Three informations were filed against petitioner before the Sandiganbayan. Two other criminal cases were also filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The Sandiganbayan issued an order for the arrest of petitioner and fixed the bail. Petitioner posted a cash bail and was granted provisional liberty. Petitioner moved for the cancellation of the cash bond and prayed for provisional liberty upon recognizance. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with one of the criminal cases. The Sandiganbayan deferred petitioner's arraignment and the consideration of her motion to cancel the cash bond. The Court dismissed petitioner's petition and lifted the temporary restraining order. On the wake of media reports about petitioner's intention to accept a fellowship abroad, the Sandiganbayan issued an order to enjoin petitioner from leaving the country. Petitioner moved to inhibit the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan from the case and filed a motion for bill of particulars. The Court directed the Sandiganbayan to reset petitioner's arraignment. The Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor filed a motion to admit amended informations, which petitioner moved to dismiss. The Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's motion to dismiss the amended informations.

In this case, petitioner Miriam Defensor-Santiago challenged the authority of the Sandiganbayan to order her ninety-day preventive suspension as a Senator of the Republic of the Philippines and to furnish a copy of the suspension order to the Senate for implementation. Earlier, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the criminal cases filed against her but the Sandiganbayan denied the motion and directed her to post bail. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan and ordered the consolidation of thirty-two amended informations into one case. Petitioner filed a motion to "Redetermine probable Cause" with the Sandiganbayan, while the prosecution filed a motion to suspend her. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion to suspend petitioner for ninety days and ordered a copy of the resolution to be furnished to the Senate for implementation. Petitioner then filed a petition assailing the authority of the Sandiganbayan to suspend her.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Sandiganbayan has the authority to order the preventive suspension of an incumbent public official charged with violation of Republic Act No. 3019.

  2. Whether the pre-suspension hearing is necessary to determine the validity of the criminal proceedings against the accused.

  3. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has the authority to issue a preventive suspension order against members of Congress.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the Sandiganbayan has the authority to order the preventive suspension of an incumbent public official charged with violation of Republic Act No. 3019. Section 13 of the statute explicitly states that any incumbent public officer against whom a criminal prosecution under a valid information is pending in court shall be suspended from office. The Court has repeatedly upheld the validity of this provision and has held that it applies to all persons indicted upon a valid information under the Act, regardless of their position or status.

  2. While the pre-suspension hearing is not automatic or self-operative, there is no specific rule as to its conduct. The accused should be given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings and present any grounds for quashing the information. However, a challenge to the validity of the criminal proceedings should be limited to an inquiry whether the facts alleged in the information, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the elements of an offense punishable under the law.

  3. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari, affirming the authority of the Sandiganbayan to issue a preventive suspension order against members of Congress. The Court ruled that Republic Act No. 3019 does not exclude members of Congress from its coverage. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan did not err in issuing the assailed preventive suspension order. The Court also noted that even though the petitioner had already been acquitted in the criminal case, it rendered this decision for future guidance on the issue raised.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the preventive suspension of an incumbent public official charged with a violation of Republic Act No. 3019 is supported by both legal and jurisprudential basis.

  • The suspension pendente lite is not a penalty but a preventive measure and is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. If acquitted, the official is entitled to reinstatement and the salaries and benefits which were not received during suspension.

  • The use of the word "office" in Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 indicates that the suspension applies to any office the accused is holding, not only the particular office under which the accused is charged.

  • The pre-suspension hearing is necessary to give the accused an opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings and present any grounds for quashing the information. However, the resolution of such challenge should be limited to determining whether the facts alleged in the information, hypothetically admitted, constitute an offense punishable under the law.

  • Preventive suspension gives the accused the opportunity to challenge the validity of the proceedings against him.

  • The suspension contemplated by Republic Act No. 3019, regarding preventive suspension, is different from the suspension imposed by Congress as a punitive measure.

  • The doctrine of separation of powers does not exclude members of Congress from sanctions under Republic Act No. 3019.

  • The Constitution empowers the Court not only to settle actual controversies but also to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

  • Grave abuse of discretion implies an arbitrary, despotic, capricious, or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

  • The Court will not substitute its judgment over that of the other two branches of government unless there is an impairment or clear disregard of a specific constitutional provision.

  • If any part of the Constitution is not responsive to contemporary needs, it is the people, not the Court, who must react in accordance with the Charter.