Case Summary (G.R. No. 128055)
Key Individuals and Context
Petitioner: Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, then Commissioner of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID).
Respondents: Sandiganbayan First Division, presided by Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, with members Jose S. Balajadia and Minita V. Chico-Nazario.
Ombudsman and Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) initiated graft prosecutions under Republic Act No. 3019.
Key Dates
October 17, 1988 – Alleged date of unlawful approvals of alien-stay legalizations.
May 13, 1991 – Filing of graft informations in Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case No. 16698).
January 25, 1996 – Sandiganbayan’s resolution imposing a 90-day preventive suspension.
April 18, 2001 – Supreme Court decision dismissing petition for certiorari.
Applicable Law
Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, Section 13 (mandatory suspension pendente lite).
1987 Constitution, Article VIII (judicial power), Article VI (legislative discipline).
Factual Background
As CID Commissioner, petitioner allegedly approved legalization of stay for aliens disqualified under Executive Order No. 324. Complaints by CID employees led to an Ombudsman investigation, OSP filings of graft informations, and indictment before the Sandiganbayan.
Procedural History
Petitioner posted bail, secured temporary restraining orders from the Supreme Court against arraignment, filed multiple certiorari petitions challenging Sandiganbayan orders, and moved to quash informations. In January 1996, the Sandiganbayan granted the prosecution’s motion and imposed a 90-day preventive suspension. Petitioner sought relief by certiorari; relief was denied and temporary restraining orders lifted.
Legal Issue
Whether the Sandiganbayan possessed authority to impose a 90-day preventive suspension on an incumbent Senator under RA 3019, and whether such a suspension encroached upon the Senate’s constitutional disciplinary powers.
Nature of Preventive Suspension under RA 3019
Section 13 mandates suspension pendente lite of any public officer against whom a valid graft information is pending. This suspension is a ministerial duty of the Sandiganbayan once the information’s form and substance are deemed valid. It is not punitive: upon acquittal, the official is entitled to reinstatement with back salaries.
Pre-suspension Hearing Requirements
RA 3019 does not prescribe detailed rules for pre-suspension hearings. The accused must be given a fair opportunity to challenge the validity or regularity of criminal proceedings (e.g., sufficiency of preliminary investigation, whether alleged acts constitute an offense under RA 3019, or grounds to quash under Rule 117, Section 3 of the Rules of Court).
Distinction from Congressional Discipline
The Senate’s power under Article VI, Section 16(3) of the 1987 Constitution to punish or suspend a Member (maximum 60 days) is a punitive, internal measure. RA 3019’s suspension is preventive, non-punitive, and applies to any public official regardless of legislative membership.
Separation of Powers Considerat
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 128055)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Miriam Defensor-Santiago served as Commissioner of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID).
- A group of CID employees filed complaints alleging she approved legalization applications for aliens who arrived after January 1, 1984, in violation of Executive Order No. 324 (April 13, 1988).
- The Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon constituted an investigating panel; its resolution was approved by the Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).
- On May 13, 1991, three informations were filed against petitioner, including Criminal Case No. 16698 for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Procedural History
- Sandiganbayan issued an arrest order, fixed bail at ₱15,000, and granted provisional liberty pending physical appearance.
- Petitioner posted cash bail, moved to cancel it, and sought provisional liberty on recognizance.
- On May 24, 1991, she filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction (G.R. No. 99289-90) to enjoin Sandiganbayan proceedings; the Court issued a temporary restraining order.
- In January 1992, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and lifted the TRO.
- July 6, 1992: Sandiganbayan issued a hold-departure order when media reported petitioner’s planned fellowship abroad.
- Petitioner filed motions to inhibit and a new certiorari petition; arraignment was reset.
- December 7, 1992: OSP and Ombudsman moved to admit 32 amended informations; March 11, 1993: motion to dismiss denied, bail directed.
- Petitioner filed another certiorari petition (G.R. No. 109266); December 2, 1993: Supreme Court ordered consolidation of the 32 informations into one (Criminal Case No. 16698).
- July 31, 1995: Prosecution moved to suspend petitioner; Sandiganbayan allowed testimony o