Belmonte: House won't suspend Acharon

MANILA, Philippines - The House of Representatives will not implement the Sandiganbayan’s order to suspend South Cotabato Rep. Pedro Acharon for 90 days in connection with a pending graft case, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said yesterday.

Belmonte said the House can only suspend its members through 2/3 votes, adding the anti-graft court’s preventive suspension order last March 6 was not final and executory.

“We will not suspend Congressman Acharon because the House of Representatives has the sole power to suspend and not the court. We can’t also act for a complaint that did not happen during the term of a member,” the Speaker said.

Acharon is facing trial for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act when he allegedly issued illegal travel orders to General Santos City Councilors Jose Orlando Acharon and Minda Atendido for a trip to Los Angeles in June 2006 when he was still mayor.

Asked if he will send a reply to the anti-graft court, Belmonte said he would make the necessary reply when the order becomes final and executory.

“Even if the order for suspension becomes final, still Congress is the only body who can suspend its members based on its rules. I will make proper communication with the court if it is necessary, but now I don’t think my reply is needed,” he said.

House Majority Leader and Mandaluyong City Rep. Neptali Gonzales II said the Constitution bars the chamber from suspending its members for criminal acts they committed before they became congressmen.

“We cannot enforce the Sandiganbayan order because Congressman Acharon is no longer a mayor but a congressman. Under the Constitution, a member of the House can be suspended through two-thirds votes and by virtue of an offense he or she committed during the incumbency of the term,” Gonzales said.

The Sandiganbayan granted the prosecution’s position that suspension is mandatory when a public official is charged for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or Republic Act 3019.

“Accused’s contentions do hold water. Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 does not state that the public officer concerned must be suspended only in the office where he is alleged to have committed the acts with which he has been charged,” the court pointed out in its six-page order.

Associate Justice and fifth division chairman Roland Jurado penned the ruling that was concurred in by Associate Justices Alexander Gesmundo and Alex Quiroz.