2001 Bar: Governor Padro Mario of Tarlac was charged with indirect bribery before the Sandiganbayan for accepting a car in exchange of the award of a series of contracts for medical supplies. The Sandiganbayan, after going over the information, found the same to be valid and ordered the suspension of Mario. The latter contested the suspension claiming that under the law (Sec. 13, RA 3019), his suspension is not automatic upon the filing of the information and his suspension under Sec. 13, RA 3019 is in conflict with Sec. 5 of the Decentralization Act of 1967 (RA 5185). The Sandiganbayan overruled Mario‘s contention stating that Mario‘s suspension under the circumstances is mandatory. Is the court‘s ruling correct? Why? (5%)
Yes, the court's ruling is correct; Mario‘s suspension is mandatory, albeit not automatic (Sec. 13, RA 3019, in relation to Sec. 5, RA 5185). It is mandatory after the determination of the validity of the information in a pre-suspension hearing. The purpose of suspension is to prevent the accused public officer from frustrating or hampering his prosecution by intimidating or influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence or from committing further acts of malfeasance while in office (
Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan).
