Senate to suspend Jinggoy

MANILA, Philippines - After it implemented the suspension of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, the Senate leadership said on Tuesday it will impose the 90-day preventive suspension order on Sen. Jinggoy Estrada.

 

This after the Senate received the suspension order of the Sandiganbayan's 3rd Division, chaired by Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, on Estrada.

 

“As with the case of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, we will implement the order. We have no recourse but to implement it,” said Drilon.

 

“The Senate is left with no recourse but to implement the order immediately in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Santiago v. Sadiganbayan in 2001, where the SC categorically held that the Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act does not exclude from its coverage the members of Congress, hence a Senator may be preventively suspended,” Drilon added.

 

Drilon said that the primary legal basis for the implementation of Enrile’s suspension was the said Supreme Court ruling promulgated in April 2001.

 

In Jan. 25, 1996, the Sandiganbayan ordered the suspension of Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago from her position.

 

Drilon recalled that upon receipt of the resolution, then Senate President Ernest Maceda reported the same to the plenary and such was referred to the Committees on Rules and Ethics and Privileges.

 

Through Committee Report 321, the Committees concluded that the Senate does not have the power or authority to suspend any member, except for disorderly behavior and, only with the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all its members, for a period not exceeding 60 days.

 

The Committee argued that the Sandiganbayan cannot order the Senate to implement the suspension of a Senator without violating the separation of powers and that the Sandiganbayan resolution per se is not sufficient to warrant the suspension of Santiago.

 

However, five years later, the Supreme Court in April 2001 upheld the power of the Sandiganbayan to suspend Santiago, Drilon said.

 

Ciiting the SC ruling, Drilon said that the order of the Sandiganbayan to suspend Enrile and Estrada is distinct from the Constitutional power of Congress to discipline its members.

 

“The order of suspension prescribed by Republic Act No. 3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline its own ranks under the Constitution which provides that each 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,” said Drilon citing the SC ruling.

 

“There is no violation of the separation of powers, and that the Sandiganbayan did not undermine the authority of the Senate to discipline its members because the Constitutional provision deals with suspension as a punitive penalty,” the SC ruling said.

 

“The ruling said that the suspension contemplated in the above 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,” Drilon said.

 

"Preventive Suspension is a remedial measure that operates under closely-controlled conditions and gives a premium to the protection of the service rather than to the interests of the individual office holder,” said Drilon, citing the SC decision.