Leaders of the House of Representatives are trying to avoid a collision with the Sandiganbayan on the enforcement of preventive suspension orders imposed by the court on two lawmakers facing trial for graft.

Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez on Tuesday called a caucus of party leaders to discuss the tack the 292-member chamber should take on the suspension of Pangasinan Rep. Amado Espino Jr. and Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Raymund Villafuerte Jr.

ADVERTISEMENT

The consensus, according to lawmakers present at the meeting, was “to protect the image and the integrity of the House, and to avoid a collision with the judiciary.”

But “there was no pressure on [Representatives Espino and Villafuerte] to voluntarily go on leave,” Ako Bicol Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr. told a news briefing at the House.

In separate orders, the antigraft court has directed the House to suspend Espino and Villafuerte preventively for 90 days pending litigation of their cases.

Willing to be suspended

House Minority Leader Danilo Suarez, speaking at the same news briefing, said one of the two lawmakers, whom he did not identify, “volunteered” to serve his suspension in the interest of the House, but the other was unwilling.

Sources said Espino was the one willing to be suspended.

Alvarez said no decision had been reached.

For the time being, the matter has been referred to the rules committee chaired by Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas, the majority leader.

Options

ADVERTISEMENT

Fariñas said the House was considering a number of options, including the possibility of invoking Congress’ right to discipline its own members, as “the historical practice is that the House has never implemented suspension orders” on lawmakers.

“Jurisprudence says that once the information is determined valid, any public officer facing an Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act case should face preventive suspension. That is what the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly,” he said.

But the House, just as repeatedly, has said that “we are the only one that can suspend our members,” Fariñas told reporters.

In the history of the Philippine Congress, only once has a lawmaker been punished for defying a Sandiganbayan order, he said.

In 1997, Fariñas said, Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. was cited in contempt by the Sandiganbayan and ordered to pay a P10,000 fine when he refused to suspend then Agusan del Sur Rep. Ceferino S. Paredes Jr. for graft.

Garbin, however, noted that the only reason the House had not heeded court-issued suspension orders was that most lawmakers would generally volunteer to serve out the suspension on their own.

Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, public officials facing graft cases may be suspended “pendente lite,” or pending litigation, for 90 days and lose their benefits.

But the 1987 Constitution states that “each house [of Congress] 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. A penalty for suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed 60 days.”

Fariñas acknowledged that legislative power pertained to “disorderly behavior” on the part of lawmakers, but stressed that there was a “clash of opinion” on whether the Sandiganbayan had the authority to punish erring members of Congress.

Alleged role

Espino, a former governor of Pangasinan province, was ordered suspended by the Sandiganbayan after being charged with graft for his alleged role in the illegal extraction of magnetite, or black sand, along the coast of Lingayen Gulf where a golf course would be developed.

The court ordered the suspension of Villafuerte, a former governor of Camarines Sur province, after being indicted in connection with the alleged irregular procurement of P20 million worth of petroleum products for the provincial government in 2010.

Read Next

EDITORS' PICK

MOST READ