The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the Sandiganbayan’s decision of preventive suspension of then Mayor Fernando Miguel of Koronadal City in 2006 after the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge him and some private individuals for violation of the anti-graft law and for falsification of public document.
The high court dismissed for lack of merit the petition for review filed by Miguel assailing the Jan. 25, 2006 resolution of the Sandiganbayan suspending him while his cases were being heard.
Miguel was ordered suspended from his position as city mayor and from other public positions he held in 2006.
The case involved anomalous consultancy services for the architecture, the engineering design and the construction supervision and management of the proposed Koronadal City public market project.
On Feb. 2, 2006, Miguel moved for reconsideration of his suspension order and demanded a pre-suspension hearing.
The Sandiganbayan denied his motion, prompting him to file this certiorari petition with the high tribunal to challenge the validity of the suspension order against him.
In its ruling, the high court held that the anti-graft court did not err when it ordered the suspension of Miguel.
“While there was no pre-suspension hearing held to determine the validity of the informations that had been filed against petitioners, we believe that the numerous pleadings filed for and against them have achieved the goal of this procedure,” the ruling penned by Associate Justice Arturo Brion stated.
“The right to due process is satisfied nor just by an oral hearing but by the filing and the consideration by the court of the parties’ pleadings, memoranda and other position papers,” it added.
“Suspension under (Republic Act) 3019 being a mere preventive measure whose duration shall in no case exceed ninety days, the adequacy of the opportunity to contest the validity of the information and of the proceedings that preceded its filing vis-à-vis the merits of the defenses of the accused cannot be measured alone by the absence or presence of an actual hearing,” the SC ruled. “An opportunity to be heard on one’s defenses, however unmeritorious it may be, against the suspension mandated by law equally and sufficiently serves both the due process right of the accused and the mandatory nature of the suspension required by law.”
Concurring with the ruling were Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Jose Portugal Perez, Maria Lourdes Sereno and Bienvenido Reyes.