Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Title: Antero J. Pobre Vs - Sen. Miriam Defensorsantiago: Notes, If Any

    Uploaded by

    Zepht Badilla
    30 views1 page
    Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago made statements on the Senate floor criticizing then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the Supreme Court. Antero Pobre filed a complaint seeking to hold Santiago liable for contempt of court. Santiago claimed parliamentary immunity under the constitutional provision protecting speech and debate in Congress. The Supreme Court held that Santiago's statements were protected by parliamentary immunity and could not be subject to criminal charges or disciplinary action, as the purpose of such immunity is to allow representatives to freely discharge their public duties without fear of legal retaliation for their speeches.

    Original Description:

    CD

    Original Title

    CD

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago made statements on the Senate floor criticizing then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the Supreme Court. Antero Pobre filed a complaint seeking to hold Santiago liable for contempt of court. Santiago claimed parliamentary immunity under the constitutional provision protecting speech and debate in Congress. The Supreme Court held that Santiago's statements were protected by parliamentary immunity and could not be subject to criminal charges or disciplinary action, as the purpose of such immunity is to allow representatives to freely discharge their public duties without fear of legal retaliation for their speeches.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views1 page

    Title: Antero J. Pobre Vs - Sen. Miriam Defensorsantiago: Notes, If Any

    Uploaded by

    Zepht Badilla
    Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago made statements on the Senate floor criticizing then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the Supreme Court. Antero Pobre filed a complaint seeking to hold Santiago liable for contempt of court. Santiago claimed parliamentary immunity under the constitutional provision protecting speech and debate in Congress. The Supreme Court held that Santiago's statements were protected by parliamentary immunity and could not be subject to criminal charges or disciplinary action, as the purpose of such immunity is to allow representatives to freely discharge their public duties without fear of legal retaliation for their speeches.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TITLE: ANTERO J. POBRE vs . SEN.

    MIRIAM DEFENSORSANTIAGO
    A.C. no 7399 DATE: 25 August 2009
    PONENTE: J. VELASCO JR TOPIC: Parliamentary freedom of speech and debate
    SEC 11
    FACTS OF THE CASE:
    Antero J. Pobre invites the Court's attention to Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago's speech
    delivered on the Senate floor. To Pobre, the statements reflected a total disrespect on the part of the
    speaker towards then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the other members of the Court and
    constituted direct contempt of court. Accordingly, Pobre asks that disbarment proceedings or other
    disciplinary actions be taken against the lady senator. Senator Santiago, through counsel, does not deny
    making the statements. She, however, explained that those statements were covered by the constitutional
    provision on parliamentary immunity, being part of a speech she delivered in the discharge of her duty as
    member of Congress or its committee. The purpose of her speech, according to her, was to bring out in
    the open controversial anomalies in governance with a view to future remedial legislation. She averred
    that she wanted to expose what she believed "to be an unjust act of the Judicial and Bar Council [JBC]",
    The immunity Senator Santiago claims is rooted primarily on the provision of Article VI, Section 11
    of the Constitution, which provides: "A Senator or Member of the House of Representative shall, in all
    offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the
    Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any
    speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof".
    STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S:
    Whether or not Sen. Santiago may be charged for her comments on the Judiciary.
    HOLDING
    NO. As American jurisprudence puts it, this legislative privilege is founded upon long experience and arises as a
    means of perpetuating inviolate the functioning process of the legislative department. Without parliamentary
    immunity, parliament, or its equivalent, would degenerate into a polite and ineffective debating forum. Legislators
    are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of their legislative duties, not for their private
    indulgence, but for the public good. The privilege would be of little value if they could be subjected to the cost and
    inconvenience and distractions of a trial upon a conclusion of the pleader, or to the hazard of a judgment against
    them based upon a judge's speculation as to the motives. The parliamentary immunity’s purpose as discussed in
    Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun "is to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust
    with firmness and success" for "it is indispensably necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech and
    that he should be protected from resentment of every one, however, powerful, to whom the exercise of that
    liberty may occasion offense". Therefore, in this case her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a
    disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court.
    notes, if any:
    Excerpt- Sen. Miriam’s speech:
    “. . . I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated,
    debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of
    this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the
    Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I
    would rather be in another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots . . . .”

    You might also like