CASE

Lucero vs.
COMELEC

FACTS
2ND LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT OF
NORTHERN SAMAR
-deprived of representative for more than 2
years because of this issue
WILMAR LUCERO
-lost by 204 votes to Jose Ong Jr
-this tally did not include the results of Precinct
No. 7, 13, 16 of the Municipality of Silvino
Lobos
Abnormalities during the election:
Precinct 7: ballots were not canvassed; thus
INELLIGIBLE
Precinct 16: did not count due to missing
electoral returns
Precinct 13: ballot boxes were snatched; thus
no election was held
COMELEC ordered a counting of precinct 7
and 16; and IF NECESSARY hold a special
election on precinct 13
Lucero contends decision because: precinct 7
ballots were invalid

ISSUE
Whether or not the COMELEC acted
w/ grave abuse of discretion in calling
for a special election in Precinct 13
after almost two (2) years, or more
specifically after one (1) year and ten
(10) months,
following the day of the synchronized
elections

RULING
NO
Under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code there are
TWO REQUISITES FOR SPECIAL ELECTIONS:
1. That there is a failure of election
2. Such failure would affect the results of the
election
Court ordered a recount of all the ballots (precinct 7 and 16)
EXCEPT precinct 13 of the 2nd District of Northern Samar

If the difference in the total no. of the votes b/o the 2

congressmen is LESS THAN the total voters of
precinct 13 -> there would be SPECIAL
ELECTION
-because the results CAN affect the winner of the
elections
COMELEC held: ballots in precinct 7 were INVALID
because the ballots were TAMPERED and a recount will be
UNWARRANTED

Result from the votes of Las Navas ( the votes here

were retabulated and corrected granted w/ Municipal
Cert of Canvass) and precinct 16 when ADDED
result to REDUCTION OF ONGS LEAD by 143

As a result, COMELEC deemed SPECIAL

ELECTION BECAUSE:
1. Was a failure of election in precinct 13 when the
ballots in the precinct were snatched
2. There are 213 registered voters in precinct 13
SC considered:
Section 10 Article 7 of 1987 Consti

No special election in the event of vacancy in the

Offices of the Pres and VP shall be called IF THE
VACANCY occurs w/in 18 months before the date
of the next presidential election
2nd par Article 7 1987 Const:

In case of vacancy in the Senate of HR at least 1 yeat

before the expiration of the term, the Commission
shall call for SPECIAL ELECTION not earlier

CASSANDRA POLINAR
ALS BLOCK 1A

than 60 days-90 days after the occurrence of

vacancy
In vacancy in Senate: special election held
simultaneously w/ next succeeding regular election

PURPOSE OF LAW: avoid expense incurred in special

election when a regular election is less than a year away
THOSE ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE
BECAUSE:
1. The special election in the FORMER fill permanent
vacancies in the P, VP, Congress, occurring after the
election

SE on the latter is due to FAILURE OF

ELECTION
2. SE under Sec. 6 MINIMAL COST b/c it is limited
only to PRECINCTS INVOLVED to the candidates
w/c would affect the failure of election

SE for P, VP nation wide; Rep district wide

3. No rep under the 2nd Leg District of N. Samar in the
HR
Section 11
People vs.
Jalosjos

1st district of Zamboanga

ROMEO JALOSJOS
-convicted in first level court: several counts of
statutory rape and acts of lascioviousness
-while the case was pending appeal he sought:
leave the court to allow him to attend to
Congressional sessions despite having been
CONVICTED of a non-bailable offense

Whether or not membership in the

Congress exempt an accused from
statutes and rules which apply validly
incarcerated persons in general?

NO
Jalosjos contends: As the representative of the district and
having been re-elected: he has the duty to perform the
functions of a Congressman

His functions cannot be defeated by

insuperable procedural restraints from
pending criminal cases
Privileges and rights arising from having been elected may be
enlarged or restricted by law
All officials are subject to the majesty of law

Privileges should be granted by law NOT

INFERRED from the duties of a position

The higher the rank the HIGHER REQT of

obedience

CASSANDRA POLINAR
ALS BLOCK 1A

The IMMUNITY ARREST OF SENATORS AND

CONGRESSMEN are granted in a restrictive sense and cannot
be extended to mean (otherwise as provided by law):
1935 Consti Sec. 15: Sentors and Members of the HR shall in
all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace be
privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of
Congress

the PROVISION only applies to CIVIL ARREST

and NOT to the present case of CRIMINAL
NATURE
Article 8 Sec. 9: Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall, in
all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment,
be privileged from arrest during his attendance at its sessions..

this is also INAAPLICABLE since NO MENTION

OF IMMUNITY for crimes of more than 6 years
(w/c the petitioner is guilty)
Sec. 16(2), Article 6 of the Consti:

not be countenanced b/c he has not given any reason

why he should be exempted from the operation of
SECTION 11. Article 6 of Consti

Congress CANNOT compel absent members if the

reason of absence is LEGITIMATE one
REASON for confining someone: protect society;
administration of justice
COURT: granted him provisional leave to attend hearing
regarding his suspension; when needs to go to dentist; when
register as voter in Dapitan
CLAIM OF CONSTITUENTS not be considered;
1. When they elected Jalojos, they know that there is
limitation on freedom of action (inside the prison)
2. He still has the capacity to discharge duty while
confined

Still maintains an office in Congress thru

the help of hired employees

Receives benefit and salary

performance of legitimate and even

essential duties by public officers has never
been an excuse to free a person validly in

CASSANDRA POLINAR
ALS BLOCK 1A

prison

Trillanes v.
Pimentel

July 27, 2003: 300 heavily armed soldiers led

by junior officer of AFP went to Oakwood
Premier Apts in Makati City
-demanded resignation of GMA and other
national officials
DUE TO THREAT:
GMA declared state of rebellion and called
AFP to resolve
-surrendered and knon as Oakwood incident
-Trillanes IV and others charged w/ COUP
DETAT under ARTICLE 134-A of RPC
After about 4 years after the incident:
-Trillanes remained detention and WON seat
in the Senate w/ 6-year term
-before officially pronounced as Senator, filed
OMNIBUS MOTION:
1. to be allows to go to Senate and attend all
official functions
2. to be allowed to set up a working area in his
detention area and the cost deduced from his
budget
3. to be allowed to receive his staff at
reasonable times of days for meetings
4. to be allowed give interviews and air his
comments, eactions, opinions to media
5. allowed to receive on T and F reporters and
others media

Whether or not Trillanes who has a

criminal charge can be elected into
office?
(Whether or not the jurisprudence in
Jalosjos is applicable?)

PERFORMANCE OF LEGISLATION AS HIGHEST

HIERARCHY OF COURTS:

he is only one and there are 250 HR 14 Senators

(physical absence does not prevent Congress from
functioning properly

HIERARCHY is based on exigency of gov;t

YES.
Court finds NO reasonable classification (election to Congress
or Senate) w/c would distinguish one from the class of
prisoners or delay of justice
Article 3 Section 13 of Consti:
-All persons (except charged w/ reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong) be bailable by sufficient sureties or
be released
-right to bail shall not be impaired
INCARCERATION- confinement or restraint in the power of
locomotion and physical activity
-in the case of Jalosjos: there is still capacity to accomplish his
legislative duties
Trillanes invokes DOCTRINE IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:
a public official cannot be removed for administrative
misconduct committed during prior term since his re-election
to the office operates as a CONDONATION of the officers
previous misconduct to the extent of CUTTING OFF the right
to remove him
Court: unconvinced
-DOCTRINE OF CONDONATION DOES NOT APPLY IN
CRIMINAL CASES
-no prior term or re-election of Trillanes
-his voters know that he could only achieve legislative results
w/in confines of prison (limitation
DIENFRANSHISEMENT OF PEOPLE WHO VOTED HIM
BUT WILL NOT SEE HIM PERFORM HIS DUTY: govern
all under the rule of law

CASSANDRA POLINAR
ALS BLOCK 1A

Jimenez vs.
Cabanbang

Jimenez filed civil action for damages against

CONGRESSMAN Cabangbang (also chairman
of Committee on Nat Defense)
-publication of an allegedly LIBELOUS
LETTER
-as a member of Congress shall have the
privilege from arrest during their attendance at
the session of Congress..

Whether or not the letter was a

privileged communication

PERFORMANCE OF LEGISLATION AS THE HIGHEST

HIERARCHY OF GOVT: (same as Jalosjos)
NO.
Speech or debate contemplated in Sec 11 Article 6 of Consti:
-made in performance of official function
-speeches, statements in Congress
-the publication in this case is NOT that nature
-OPEN letter was done when the Congress was not in session
-Cabangbang published the letter in newspaper
-bot in the performance of his duty THUS it is NOT
PRIVILEGED

Letter is addressed to the President

-narration by Cabanbang of an alleged 3
operational plan to build up Sec. of Defense
Jesus Vargas as presidential candidate
-operational plans by some ambitious AFP
officers
1. Sec. Vargas used the money of the people
under the guise of psychological warfare,
influencing the minds of the people (radio talk),
newspaper
2. there was a plan of coup detat to place Jesus
Vargas as the pres
3. modification of plan no.1 by trying to assuage
the pres and public w/ loyalty parade

it is of course possible
-means that they might be absolutely unaware of alleged
operational plans
Considering that they are officers of AFP and under the Sec of
Nation Defense and the letter in question suggest that the
group described as planners
Include 2 high ranking officers

Jimenez and others

-may not be aware that they are being used as a
tool to meet such an end
LETTER: published in gen circulation
-asks Jimenez to resign from AFP
- such open letter is false and w/ intent to
impeach their reputation

Pobre vs.

BUT Cabanbang said that he was immune from

suit and that he is covered by the privileged
communication rule and the letter is not even
libelous
ANTERO POBRE

Whether or not the speech is covered

NO

CASSANDRA POLINAR
ALS BLOCK 1A

DefensorSantiago

-filed administrative complaint for

disbarment
-sent letter to the SC regarding Senator Miriam
speech delivered on the Senate floor
-speech is a direct contempt and disrespect to
C.L. Panganiban and the member of the court
by calling Supreme Court of Idiots
-pertains to Senators unsuccessful bid for the
position of Chief Justice
I am homicidal. I am suicidal... I spit on the
face of Chief Justice Artemio
Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme
Court, I am no longer interested in the position
[of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by
idiots
-asked for disbarment for the senator

under the constitutional provision on

parliamentary immunity
Whether or not Miriam is
administratively liable for her acts

Speech was not actionable criminally

Legislative is immune from deterrents not for themselves
BUT for the public good.
-HOWEVER court wishes to express deep concern w/ the
language of the Senator used and had crossed the limit
Violated Canon 8 Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of CPR
Canon 8: lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or improper
Canon 11: lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect
due to the courts and judicial officiers
Lawyers in public service are keepers of public faith and are
burdened with the higher degree of social responsibility,
perhaps higher than their brethren in private practice

Miriam:
-such statement was covered by the
parliamentary immunity, it being a part of her
privilege speech during Senate session in
Article 6 Section 11

Disciplinary Authority of the assembly and voters not the

courts: can properly discourage or correct such abuses
committed in the name of immunity
-lawyer holding govt office may not be disciplined as a
member of the Bar for misconduct while in the performance of
duties UNLESS THE MISCONDUCT VIOLATES OATH
AS A LAWYER
-may be disciplined in their private capacity
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
-Article 6 Section 11 of Consti
-Any claim of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and
malafides of the statement uttered by the member of the
Congress does not destroy the privilege

Section 13
Dante Liban
vs. Richard
Gordon

Liban
-Board Directors of QC Red Cross Chapter
-filed to SC against Sen. Gordon as forfeited
his seat in Senate
-by accepting position as Chairman of the
Board of Governors of the Phil National Red
Cross (PNRC) while being a SENATOR
-violated Sec. 13 Article 6 of the Consti
-base in the case of Camporendondo v. NLRC

Whether or not Richard Gordon

violated Artcile 6 Section 13 of the
Consti

NO
PNRC- RP established this as a voluntary organization for
the purpose contemplated in Geneva Red Cross Convention
-member of National Society of the International Red Cross
and Red Crescent Movement (a movement) guided by
Fundamental Principles
-must uphold principles by remaining to be autonomous,
neutral, and independent to State

CASSANDRA POLINAR
ALS BLOCK 1A

w/c PNRC declared as GOCC

Section 11 of Charters of PNRC:
PNRC- shall be finance by contributions obtained
THROUGH SOLICITATION campaigns
-organized by Board of Governors
-conducted by Chapters in respective jurisdiction
PNRC FUNDING NOT FROM THE GOVT
Section 6:
-Board of Governors w/ 30 members (6 appointed by the
Pres; 18 elected by chapter delegates; 6 selected by 24
members already chosen)
PART OF THE BOARD are PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
Gordon- was elected by a private sector-controlled PNRC
-4/5 are private individuals
ALSO: pres cannot reverse or modify decisions or actions of
PNRC board nor the PNRC chairman
Camporendondo missed info:
GOCC must be owned by the govt in cases of stock corp by
51%
-majority of the board are private sector indi THUS not a
GOCC
GORDON CAN LEGALLY HOLD OFFICE AS CHAIRMAN
OF PNRC AND A SENATOR
Section 14
Puyat vs. De
Guzman

Election for 11 Directors of the Intl Pipe

Industries Corp (IPI)
-after voting, board was divided whether there
was actually PROPER COUNTING OF VOTES
Two groups:
Acero: no proper voting; filed a case to SEC
Puyat: there was proper voting
Fernandez- member of the interim Batasang
Pambansa; counsel for Acero in the SEC
Puyat assailed order of the SEC granting

Whether or not Assembyman violating

constitutional prohibition w/c prevents
embers of the Congress from appearing
before any administrative body,
whether directly or indirectly.

NO
Fernandez not appearing as a counsel since he had already
purchased 10 shares of IPI
-merely joining the cause
-he was prohibited to appear as counsel even if 10 shares is
small part of about 161,843 shares
It is a case of indirect appearance as counsel before any
administrative body
-intervention would enable him to appear actively in
proceedings in some other capacity
-if all other assemblymen would want to influence

CASSANDRA POLINAR
ALS BLOCK 1A

Assemblyman Fernandez intervene in the case

-Fernandez as a member of interim BP violated
Section 11, Article 8 of Consti
Fernandez: did not violate Consti
-he has legal interest on Acero group
-he bough 10 shares IPI for 200 pesos
-voted as director of IPI in an election of board
members

administrative bodies, they would do so by acquiring minimal

participation
-Consti prohibits such and may not be rendered ineffective by
indirection
-intervention falls under Sec. 11 Art 8 of the Consti
--1. ruling upholding the "intervention" would make the
constitutional provision ineffective. All an
Assemblyman need do, if he wants to influence an
administrative body is to acquire a minimal
participation in the "interest" of the client and then
"intervene" in the proceedings.
2. That which the Constitution directly prohibits may
not be done by indirection or by a general legislative
act which is intended to accomplish the objects
specifically or impliedly prohibited.
3. The "intervention" was an afterthought to enable him
to appear actively in the proceedings in some other
capacity.
4. To believe the avowed purpose, that is, to enable him
eventually to vote and to be elected as Director in the
event of an unfavorable outcome of the SEC Case
would be pure naivete. He would still appear as
counsel indirectly.

Section 16
Avelino vs.
Cuenco

MEANING OF QUORUM TO DO A BUSINESS AND COMPULSION TO ATTEND

Senator Tanada
Whether or not there was a quorum
YES according to Justices Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon
-was to give privilege speech to formulate
in the second session of the Senate?
-12 constitutes a quorum
charges against Senate President Avelino
-13 would be the number of majority in the Senate BUT
SINCE Senator Confesor was out of the country, there was
Avelino
a change to the no. of majority
-delayed his appearance to the Senate session
and read the last resolution slowly and
Justices said:
carefully
Quorum does not mean all the members
-was conspiracy to delay the Senate session by
-theres a difference b/o majority of all the members of the
requesting roll call and reading of minutes
House and a majority of the House (latter requiring less
(w/c can be skipped b/c it is procedural)
number than first)
Tanada
-repeatedly stood up to claim right to deliver
speech BUT rejected by Avelino
-ignored and threatened that he order arrest

Absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less

one (23) constitutes CONSTITUTIONAL MAJORITY of
the Senate for purpose of QUORUM
-even if 12 did not constitute a quorum: thu could hhave

CASSANDRA POLINAR
ALS BLOCK 1A

of any Senator would speak W/O his

acknowledgment

ordered the arrest of one of the absent members

-if they arrested that one then there is Quorum and SENATOR
CUENCO would have been elected just the same in as much
there would be 11 and 1 against and 1 abstain

Senator David (support of Avelino)- motioned

for adjournment BUT Sen. Cuenco stated
opposition for adjournment and suggested to
have a vote by members

Even if 11 are present it would be 12-11

If they want to change; they could just change the SP again

Avelino- banged gavel and walked out along w/

his supporters
Sen. Arranz- Senate pre pro-tempore took the
chair proceeded the session
-he occupied the chair introduced Res 67:
Declaring the vacant position of Senate pres
and designating Cuenco as Accting Pres of
Senate
Cuenco took the oath and was recognized by
the President
Avelino: ask the court to declare him as
rightful Senate Pred

Datu Michael
Abas Kiba vs.
Senate of the
Phi

Started w/ RA 6734 of the Organic Act of

ARMM
-amended by RA 9054 mandated the holding of
election on 2nd Monday of September
-through RA 9140 Sept. 2001 election was
moved to Nov. 26, 2001
4 years later:
Congress enacted RA 9333 fixing date of
regular elections now be held on 2nd Monday
of August 2005 and permanent for 3 years
House Bill 4146: moved to change to 2nd
Monday of May 2013 (and every 3 years after)
-aimed to synchronize the date of elections to go
along w/ the national elections and became RA
10153

Whether or not RA 10153 requires a

supermajority vote and plebiscite

NO.
RA 9333 is constitutional and RA 10153 is partly
unconstitutional
Sec. 7 RA 9054: only speaks of the FIRST REGULAR
ELECTIONS
-left open the determination of the next election in ARMM
It is only in RA 9333 and 10153 that the determination of
succeeding regular elections were mentioned
-two are stand alone statutes and DO NOT amend RA 9054
-both filled a void provided by RA 9054
Section 16 (2) of Article 6 of the Constitution provides that a
majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business
-this means that the House can amend, repeal and create bills

CASSANDRA POLINAR
ALS BLOCK 1A

and resolutions upon the MAJORITY VOTE of a quorum

-ONLY IN CASES where the Consti prescribes a qualified
SUPERMAJORITY in specific cases the contention could be
cognized
143 present= 72 vote suffices
Senate: 7 for 23 members

Due to constitutional mandate of

synchronization RA 10153 postponed the
regional election in ARMM (from 2nd Monday
of Aug. 2011 to 2nd Monday of May 2013)
RA 9140, RA 9333 and RA 10153 laws that
amended RA 9054 all failed to comply w/ twin
reqt of RA 9054:
1. 2/3 vote of members of HOR and
Senate separately
2. Submission of the voted bill to
ARMM for plebiscite
There was no plebiscite ans HR passed 2/3
requirement; Senate failed by 2 votes to reach
2/3
Arroyo vs. De
Venecia

RA 8240- still in stage of it becoming a law

Senate and HR aim to create compromise b/o
contested parts of RA 8240
Rep. Arroyo moved to adjourn the bicameral
conference due to lack of quorum
Deputy Speaker Mr. Daza heard wrongly the
question of Arroyo and approved the bill
-Mr. Arroyo clarified that he wants to know
what is the question that the chair asked the
distinguished sponsor
-Mr. Albano move to adjourn the meeting
BUT
-bill was still deemed certified as the bill was
signed by the Speaker and the Senate Pres and
certified by respective sec of both houses
-enrolled bill was signed into law
Arroyo moves to declare RA 8240 null and void
-violates the rules of the house accdng to
Article 6 Sec. 16(3)
-the certification of Speaker De Venecia that the
law was properly passed is FALSE

Consti prevail over RA 9054

Rationale: it is difficult to gather all representative every
session and allows the existence of a majority for a quorum

INTERNAL RULES AND DISCIPLINE

Whether or not the law was passed in
violation of the House Rules of
Procedure according to Article 6 Sec.
16(3)

When a member desires to speak, he shall rise and respectfully

address the Chair "Mr. Speaker." Arroyo should have
addressed the chair by this
Whenever a Senator wishes to speak, he shall rise and request
the President or the Presiding Officer to allow him to have
the floor which consent shall be necessary before he may
proceed.
Chair did not hear Rep. Arroyo since his attention was on
the Majority Leader
Points of order or questions of order are legislative devices
used in requiring the House or any of its Members to observe
its own rules and to follow regular or established
parliamentary procedure
Issue: Chair should state a motion and ask for the
individual votes of the members instead of merely asking
whether there was any objection to the motion. As explained
already in the decision in this case
-IT IS ENOUGH to simply ask if there are objections to the
motion for approval of the report.

CASSANDRA POLINAR
ALS BLOCK 1A

Rep. Arroyo could have asked for a reconsideration of the

ruling of the Chair declaring the conference committee
report approved

Osmena vs.
Pendatun

Honorable Sergio Osmena Jr. and members

2nd district of Cebu had PRIVILEGE SPEECH
-entitled A message to Garcia
Osmena- tainted the president w/ allegations of
bribery and corruption in his administration
-he claimed that the free things used to get
from the govt are not for sale at premium
prices
HoR aimed to resolve the matter BECAUSE of
the imputations are of SERIOUS ASSAULT
upon the dignity and prestige of the Office of
the President (he is one visible symbol of
sovereignty of the Filipino people)
-House required Osmena to present evidence
for allegations
Osmena: did not produce said evidence but
claimed:
1. has parliamentary immunity for
speeches
2. words contain no actionable
conduct
HoR issued House Resolution 59 created a
special committee: INVESTIGATE the truth

Whether or not Hon. Osmena Jr.

liable for his conduct despite his
immunity

Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of H. No. 7198 by

the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and
the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress
that it was passed on November 21, 1996 are conclusive of its
due enactment.
rules allegedly violated being merely internal
rules of procedure of the House rather than
constitutional requirements for the enactment of
laws
-bill embodies a conclusive presumption.
NO.
Constitutions enshrines parliamentary immunity w/c is a
FUNDAMENTAL privilege
-purpose: allow reps discharge his duty w/ firmness and
success
-DOES NOT PROTECT him from responsibility whenever
his words and conduct are considered DISORDERLY or
UNBECOMING a member
Osmena cannot deny that his attach on the executive constitute
conduct under the rules of the house:
The House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly
behavior, not only because the Constitution has conferred
jurisdiction upon it, but also because the matter depends
mainly on factual circumstances of which the House knows
best but which can not be depicted in black and white for
presentation to, and adjudication by the Courts.
-house has exclusive cognizance to recognize whether it is
misconduct
-court has no jurisdiction to interfere
This section was taken or is a copy of sec. 6, clause 1 of Art. 1
of the Constitution of the United States. In that country, the
provision has always been understood to mean that
although exempt from prosecution or civil actions for their
words uttered in Congress, the members of Congress may,

CASSANDRA POLINAR
ALS BLOCK 1A

of the charges of Osmena to pres

-another resolution was released declaring
Osmena guilty and suspending him from
Office

Santiago vs.
Sandiganbaya
n

Filed by a group of employees of Commission

of Immigration and Deportation (CID)
against SANTIAGO (commissioner)
Santiago- alleged violation of Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) because she:
1. wilfully, unlawfully, criminally
accepted the application for
legalization of the stay of over 20
aliens arrived in the country in 1984
violation of EO 324 prohibits the
legalization of said disqualified
aliens knowing fully well that the said
aliens are disqualified
2. These aliens stay in the Philippines
was unlawfully legalized by
Santiago

nevertheless, be questioned in Congress itself. Observe that

"they shall not be questioned in any other place" than
Congress.

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan

has the authority to decree 90 days
preventive suspension of Santiago,
from any govt position and
furnishing a copy to the Senate for
implementation

Suspend or expel
penalty
YES
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. Punish
its Members for disorderly behaviour, and w/ concurrence of
2/3 of all its members suspend or expel a Member, penalty
of suspension not exceed 60 days
Authority of Sandiganbayan to order preventive suspension
of public official w/ violations of RA 3019 has legal and
jurisprudential support
RA 3019: does not exclude from its coverage members of the
Congress
the Sandiganbayan did not err in thus decreeing the assailed
preventive suspension order.

Ombudsman: Santiago guilty of unlawfully

legalizing the stay of Chinese aliens

In issuing the preventive suspension of petitioner, the

Sandiganbayan merely adhered to the clear an
unequivocal mandate of the law, as well as the jurisprudence in
which the Court

Santiago: posted bail w/o physical appearance

b/c of vehicular accident
-filed prohibition of the pending criminal
cases(libel and violation of PD 46)

The suspension contemplated in the constitutional provision is

a PUNITIVE MEASURE that is imposed upon determination
by the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may
be, upon an erring member.

Sandiganbayan: knowing her pending cases

issued an order to prevent her from leaving
the country (for Harvard University)

This is DISTINCT FROM THE SUSPENSION provided under

RA 3019, which is a mere PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION.

Court: suspend the accused from her position as

Senator and other govt position she may be
holding
-suspension 90 days only

CASSANDRA POLINAR
ALS BLOCK 1A