The anti-graft court commended Valencia for his "statesmanship" even as it rebuked Oriental Mindoro second district Rep. Alfonso Umali Jr. for continuing to defy the 90-day suspension order issued against him way back on Jan. 27 last year.
Valencia and Umali were accused of illegally disbursing P2.5 million to engineer Alfredo Atienza in 1994 for the repair of a ship.
Valencia was then the Oriental Mindoro governor, and Umali the provincial administrator. Also indicted were former vice governor Pedrito Reyes and incumbent provincial board member Jose Leynes.
The two lawmakers appealed their suspension but the Sandiganbayan junked their motions for reconsideration on April 1, 2005.
The two then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, which subsequently threw out Valencia’s motion on Aug. 31, 2005 and Umali’s on Nov. 14, 2005.
The House of Representatives, however, refused to carry out the suspension order, saying the matter had to go through deliberations by its ethics committee and the entire chamber in plenary session because the matter would have an impact on the "rights, privileges and immunities, dignity, integrity and reputation" of the House and its members.
De Venecia, through House legal counsel Leonardo Palicte, said it is looking into the possibility of challenging the Sandiganbayan in the Supreme Court, claiming that it has a separate legal personality as an institution to do so.
The Sandiganbayan, however, rejected this argument, saying, "It has been more than a year since the House of Representatives has supposedly referred the matter to the proper committee. Even if it had to follow the appropriate internal procedures for the implementation of the suspension order, a delay of more than a year is no longer reasonable."
"We wish to remind the House of Representatives that its internal rules are not binding upon this court," it added.
The House of Representatives or any of its committees, according to the anti-graft court, "is not empowered to re-determine the validity or propriety of such an order of suspension."
"This court cannot conceive what the supposedly ‘legitimate procedural issues’ raised by the House could be," it added.