Sandiganbayan can suspend lawmakers

As the “pork scam” scandal gets hotter by the day, calls to suspend accused lawmakers are likewise escalating. So far, these seem to fall on deaf ears. Senate President Franklin Drilon is not budging. We have yet to hear of any plan to convene the Ethics Committee.

I personally do not believe that the Senate will suspend members without the court handing down a guilty verdict against accused senators. And to be fair, the plunder complaints against Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, and Bong Revilla are still in the preliminary investigation (PI) stage, technically, these are not yet court cases. The Ombudsman still has to determine if there is probable cause to file the information for plunder in court.

However, the questions of whether lawmakers can be suspended and by whom need answers. Citizens are told that only Congress may suspend its members. Thus, if Congress does not act, no other office can.
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago has repeatedly said that senators accused of plunder or graft should be suspended. She fully knows whereof she speaks.

In May 1991, Defensor-Santiago was accused by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and the Ombudsman for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The case stemmed from complaints filed against her by some employees of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) where she was then Commissioner.

Defensor-Santiago was already a Senator by the time the Sandiganbayan’s First Division acquitted her from all charges in December 1999.

It was a long-drawn legal battle that reached the Supreme Court.

In 1995, the prosecution filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan to issue a suspension order against the senator. This was granted in January 1996 when the Sandiganbayan resolved:

“WHEREFORE for all the foregoing, the Court hereby grants the motion under consideration and hereby suspends the accused Miriam Defensor-Santiago from her position as Senator of the Republic of the Philippines and from any other government position she may be holding at present or hereafter. Her suspension shall be for ninety (90) days only and shall take effect immediately upon notice.”
Defensor-Santiago went to the SC to oppose the suspension order and in April 2001 (or about one and a half years after her acquittal), the High Court made its ruling. G.R. No. 128055 is quite interesting, informative, and relevant in the light of the ongoing “pork scam” scandal.

In this decision, the SC answered important questions we grapple with on the matter of suspending lawmakers.

Can the Sandiganbayan suspend lawmakers?

The SC answered yes. The High Court said, “The authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the PREVENTIVE suspension of an incumbent public official charged with violation of… RA 3019 has both legal and jurisprudential support.” (Emphasis supplied)

The magistrates quoted Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits of the anti-graft law which provides:

“Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a VALID INFORMATION under this Act … or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, SHALL BE SUSPENDED FROM OFFICE…” (Emphases supplied).

A few important things need noting here.
1. Indeed, the Sandiganbayan has the power to suspend accused public officials once the case is already in court. This means that the preliminary investigation is finished and probable cause is established. Since the present plunder complaints against Enrile, Estrada, and Revilla are still undergoing PI with the Ombudsman, they cannot YET be suspended.

2. It is the Sandiganbayan’s RESPONSIBILITY to suspend these senators if probable cause is established. The law’s provision is very clear, the Sandiganbayan cannot exercise any prerogative. It MUST suspend without any need for anyone to request it.

The SC said, “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 filed before it. Once the information is found to be sufficient in form and substance, the court is bound to issue an order of suspension as a matter of course, and there seems to be “no ifs and buts” about it”.

The SC cannot be any clearer about this.

3. The kind of suspension that the Sandiganbayan can order is PREVENTIVE in nature. The SC explained, “xxx. It is not a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. In fact, if acquitted, the official concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension.”

This means that the preventive suspension is neither a guilty verdict nor punitive in character. In succeeding similar cases, the SC further explained that the purposes of preventive suspension are to prevent tampering of evidence and influencing witnesses.

Perhaps, the court thinks that these may be easier done if the accused continues to hold office.
Are lawmakers excluded from Section 13 of the anti-graft law?

This is an important question because of statements that ONLY Congress has the power to suspend its members meaning, senators can only be suspended by the Senate, and representatives, by the House of Representatives.

The SC distinguished preventive suspension that can be ordered by the Sandiganbayan from suspension by Congress. The High Court said, “The order of suspension as prescribed by RA 3019 is DISTINCT from the power of Congress to discipline its own ranks under the Constitution which provides that each —
“xxx. house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member…”

The Justices continued,  “The suspension contemplated in the Constitutional provision is a PUNITIVE measure that is imposed upon determination by the Senate or the House of Representatives upon an erring member.” (Emphases supplied)

Thus, the differences between the two types of suspensions are clear.

Preventive suspension does not establish guilt and such guilty verdict is not necessary before this kind of suspension is ordered. The only conditions are that PI has already established probable cause and the valid information has been filed with the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, the court, SHOULD suspend as a matter of duty.

Suspension by Congress on the other hand, may only be resorted to when wrongdoing by a member is already established, AND only with a 2/3 vote of the concerned House favoring the disciplinary action.
The SC concluded that, “RA 3019 does not exclude from its coverage the members of Congress…”

When the SC decided on Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s petition, it rightfully noted that the senator has already been acquitted. Still, with wisdom, the Justices said, “the Court, nevertheless deems it appropriate to render this decision for future guidance on the significant issue raised by petitioner…”

“Significant” is an understatement. The ongoing “pork scam” investigation is most important to the Filipino people at this juncture. This SC decision must instruct everyone, the public especially, on the matter if suspending lawmakers who maybe parties to plunder and graft and corruption.

Yes, the Sandiganbayan MUST suspend Enrile, Estrada, Revilla, and all other public officials, elected or appointed, accused of plunder or graft, IF probable cause is established.

source:  Manila Standard Column of Elizabeth Angsioco