PAREDES, JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN

GR No. 108251 January 31, 1996

FACTS:

On 23 Jan 1990, Gelacio, the then vice mayor of San Francisco, Agusan del Sur filed a

case against Paredes (who was then the governor of the same province), Atty. Sansaet

(counsel of Paredes), and Honrada (the clerk of court). The three allegedly conspired to

falsify a copy of a Notice of Arraignment and of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes.

Gelacio claimed that, in fact, no arraignment has ever been issued against him in a

criminal proceeding against him. Gelacio was able to produce a certification from the

judge handling the case himself that the criminal case against him never reached the

arraignment stage because the prosecution was dismissed. Atty. Sansaet on his part

maintained that there was indeed a Notice of Arraignment but he later retracted his

testimonies. Paredes claimed that Sansaet only changed his side because of political

realignment. Subsequently, the Office of the Ombudsman recommended that Paredes

et al be charged with Falsification of Public Documents. Paredes appealed but was

eventually denied by the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not Paredes, now a member of Congress, be suspended by order of the

Sandiganbayan.

DISCUSSION:

 The Supreme Court affirmed the order of suspension of Congressman Paredes by the

Sandiganbayan, despite his protestations on the encroachment by the court on the

prerogatives of congress.  The SC ruled:

“x x x.  Petitioner’s invocation of Section 16 (3), Article VI of the Constitution – which

deals with the power of each House of Congress inter alia to ‘punish its Members for

disorderly behavior,’ and ‘suspend or expel a Member’ by a vote of two-thirds of all its

Members subject to the qualification that the penalty of suspension, when imposed,

should not exceed sixty days – is unavailing, as it appears to be quite distinct from the

suspension spoken of in Section 13 of RA 3019, which is not a penalty but a

preliminary, preventive measure, prescinding from the fact that the latter is not being

imposed on petitioner for misbehavior as a Member of the House of Representatives.”

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED.