IV.

SANDIGANBAYAN
Art. XI, Sec. 4.
Section 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise
its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.
Sandigan- constitutionally mandated but a statutory court.(Nunez v. Sandigan)
Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, , 111 SCRA 442 (1982)
- PD 1606 does not deprive petitioner of the equal protection of the law considering that the Decree is based on
a valid classification. The Constitution provides for the creation of a special court, known as Sandiganbayan (SB),
and the rule is settled that the general guarantees of the Bill of Rights, among which are the due process and
equal protection clauses, must give way to specific provisions, such as the provision on the creation of the SB.
- A particular mode of procedure provided in a statute cannot become the vested right of any person.
- The omission of the CA as an intermediate tribunal does not deprive those who are charged in the SB, of a right
that is vital to the protection of their liberty. The innocence of guilt of the accused is passed upon by a 3-judge
division of the SB. Moreover, a unanimous vote is required, otherwise, the Presiding Justice designates 2 other
Justices from among the members of the SB to sit temporarily in a division of 5 until a decision is rendered with
the concurrence of 3 Justices. If convicted, the accused can seek a review in the SC on a question of law or the
substantiality of the evidence.
- The SC, in determining whether to give due course to a petition for review of a decision of the SB, must be
convinced that the constitutional presumption of innocence has been overcome. Thus, it cannot be said that
there is no way of scrutinizing whether the quantum of evidence required for conviction in criminal cases have
been satisfied.
Decree Creating Sandiganbayan is Valid
FACTS:
The constitutionality of the law creating the Sandiganbayan was questioned as being violative of (a) due process
and equal protection (since private persons charged with estafa or malversation are guaranteed the right to
appeal first to the CA and thereafter to the SC, while private persons charged with public officers before the
Sandiganbayan are allowed only one appeal, and that is, to the SC, and (b) no ex post facto rule (since before the
promulgation of PD 1606, the right to appeal to the CA, and then to the SC was already secured by Sec. 17 and
29 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.)

HELD:
(1) The claim that PD 1606 deprices the petitioner of the equal protection of the law is hardly convincing
considering that the Decree is based on a valid classification. The Constitution provides for the creation of a
special court, known as Sandiganbayan, and the rule is settled that the general guarantees of the Bills of Rights,
among which are the due process and equal protection clauses, must give way to specific provisions, such as the
provision on the creation of the Sandiganbayan.
(2) It hardly can be argued that a particular mode of procedure provided in a statute can become the vested
right of any person. An accused has no vested right in a particular modes of procedure as in determining
whether particular statutes by their operation take from an accused any right that was regarded, at the time of
the adoption of the Constitution, as vital for the protection of life and liberty, and which he enjoyed at the time
of the commission of the offense charged against him.
Would the omission of the CA as an intermediate tribunal, deprive those, like the petitioner, who are charged in
the SB, of a right that is vital to the protection of their liberty? Its answer must be in the negative.
The innocence of guilt of the accused is passed upon by a 3-judge division of the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, a
unanimous vote is required, otherwise, the Presiding Judge designates two other Justices from among the
members of the Sandiganbayan to sit temporarily in a division of 5 until a decision is rendered with the
concurrence of 3 Justices. If convicted, the accused can seek a review in the SC on a question of law or the
substantiality of evidence. Petitioner makes much of the facts that there is no review by the SC of facts. What
cannot be too strongly emphasized is the SC, in determining whether to give due course to a petition for review
of a decision of the Sandiganbayan, must be convinced that the constitutional presumption of innocence has
been overcome. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no way of scrutinizing whether the quantum of evidence
required for the conviction in criminal cases have been satisfied.

Equal Protection Creation of the Sandiganbayan
Facts:
Nuez assails the validity of the PD 1486 creating the Sandiganbayan as amended by PD 1606. He was
accused before the Sandiganbayan of estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents
committed in connivance with his other co-accused, all public officials, in several cases. It is the claim of
Nuez that PD1486, as amended, is violative of the due process, equal protection, and ex post
facto clauses of the Constitution. He claims that the Sandiganbayan proceedings violates Nuezs right to
equal protection, because appeal as a matter of right became minimized into a mere matter of discretion;
appeal likewise was shrunk and limited only to questions of law, excluding a review of the facts and trial
evidence; and there is only one chance to appeal conviction, by certiorari to the SC, instead of the traditional
two chances; while all other estafa indictees are entitled to appeal as a matter of right covering both law and
facts and to two appellate courts, i.e., first to the CA and thereafter to the SC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the creation of Sandiganbayan violates equal protection insofar as appeals would be
concerned.

HELD:
The SC ruled against Nuez. The 1973 Constitution had provided for the creation of a special court that
shall have original jurisdiction over cases involving public officials charged with graft and corruption. The
constitution specifically makes mention of the creation of a special court, the Sandiganbayan, precisely in
response to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service. It
follows that those who may thereafter be tried by such court ought to have been aware as far back as
January 17, 1973, when the present Constitution came into force, that a different procedure for the accused
therein, whether a private citizen as petitioner is or a public official, is not necessarily offensive to the equal
protection clause of the Constitution. Further, the classification therein set forth met the standard requiring
that it must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; it must be germane to the
purposes of the law; it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally to each
member of the class. Further still, decisions in the Sandiganbayan are reached by a unanimous decision
from 3 justices a showing that decisions therein are more conceivably carefully reached than other trial
courts.