LIBANAN VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

LIBANAN VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

233 SCRA 163

Petitioner: Marcelino Libanan

Respondents:  SANDIGANBAYAN and Agustin B. Docena

Ponente:  J. Vitug

FACTS:

Petitioner Libanan is the incumbent vice-governor of Eastern Samar and was a former member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan prior to the 1992 elections.

He was charged in conspiring to other members to prevent and exclude Docena (Respondent), a qualified replacement of a deceased member, from exercising his rights and prerogatives as a member of the said body.

In effect, the SANDIGANBAYAN issued a resolution suspending their respective public position and office for ninety (90) days.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging three grounds: [1] Order of Suspension if executed shall affront the petitioner’s right for due process; [2] the suspension would assault his covenant to the people of Samar as their vice-governor; and [3] the reasons sought to be prevented by the suspension no longer exist.

Petitioner contends that the order of suspension, being predicated on his acts supposedly committed while still a member of the Sangguniang Bayan, can no longer attach to him now that he is the duly elected and incumbent Vice-Governor of Eastern Samar.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the Order of Suspension given by the SANDIGANBAYAN is valid?

HELD:

Yes. The Court ruled that the term "office" used in the law could apply to any office which the officer charged might currently be holding and not necessarily the particular office under which he was charged.

The suspension order cannot amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. Public office is "a public agency or trust,"and it is not the property envisioned by the Constitutional provision which petitioner invokes.

Hence, SC dismissed the petition. SANDIGANBAYAN’s decision is affirmed.