Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 144 views

    Case Digest - Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Dean Cainila
    Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered a privilege speech before the Senate expressing anger and humiliation over the Judicial and Bar Council's decision not to nominate her for Chief Justice. Her speech included insults directed at then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and claims that the Supreme Court was filled with "idiots." A complaint was filed seeking to disbar or discipline the Senator, but the Court dismissed it, citing parliamentary immunity for any speech or debate in Congress. While heavily criticizing the Senator for her "insulting rhetoric," the Court also affirmed that parliamentary immunity is essential to prevent Congress from becoming a "polite and ineffective forum."

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest - Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Dean Cainila
    144 views1 page
    Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered a privilege speech before the Senate expressing anger and humiliation over the Judicial and Bar Council's decision not to nominate her for Chief Justice. Her speech included insults directed at then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and claims that the Supreme Court was filled with "idiots." A complaint was filed seeking to disbar or discipline the Senator, but the Court dismissed it, citing parliamentary immunity for any speech or debate in Congress. While heavily criticizing the Senator for her "insulting rhetoric," the Court also affirmed that parliamentary immunity is essential to prevent Congress from becoming a "polite and ineffective forum."

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered a privilege speech before the Senate expressing anger and humiliation over the Judicial and Bar Council's decision not to nominate her for Chief Justice. Her speech included insults directed at then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and claims that the Supreme Court was filled with "idiots." A complaint was filed seeking to disbar or discipline the Senator, but the Court dismissed it, citing parliamentary immunity for any speech or debate in Congress. While heavily criticizing the Senator for her "insulting rhetoric," the Court also affirmed that parliamentary immunity is essential to prevent Congress from becoming a "polite and ineffective forum."

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    144 views1 page

    Case Digest - Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Dean Cainila
    Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered a privilege speech before the Senate expressing anger and humiliation over the Judicial and Bar Council's decision not to nominate her for Chief Justice. Her speech included insults directed at then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and claims that the Supreme Court was filled with "idiots." A complaint was filed seeking to disbar or discipline the Senator, but the Court dismissed it, citing parliamentary immunity for any speech or debate in Congress. While heavily criticizing the Senator for her "insulting rhetoric," the Court also affirmed that parliamentary immunity is essential to prevent Congress from becoming a "polite and ineffective forum."

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    [CASE DIGEST] Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago (A.C. No.

    7399)
    August 25, 2009 | A.C. No. 7399

    Antero J. Pobre, complainant


    Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, respondent

    FACTS:

    In one of her privilege speeches before the Senate, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered the following
    remarks:

    x x x 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 a different environment than in a Supreme Court of idiots. x x
    x

    Her speech came as a response to the decision of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) declaring that only
    sitting members of the Supreme Court can be nominated for the impending vacancy of the CJ post.
    Consequently, nominees who were not incumbent members of the Court, including Sen. Defensor-
    Santiago, were automatically disqualified.

    Private complainant Antero J. Pobre filed the instant petition before the Court, contending that the lady
    senator's utterances amounted to a total disrespect towards then CJ Panganiban and a direct contempt
    of Court. Accordingly, he wanted disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions to be taken against
    Sen. Defensor-Santiago.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not there is a ground for Sen. Defensor-Santiago to be disbarred or subjected to disciplinary
    action by the Court for her questioned speech.

    HELD:

    No, the Court sided with Sen. Defensor-Santiago's defense that she should be afforded parliamentary
    immunity from suit pursuant to Section 11, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, which section states in part
    that "no [Senator] x x x shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate
    in the Congress or in any committee thereof." Although there was no express admission on the part of
    the lady senator that she did indeed say those words, there was no categorical denial either, which the
    Court ultimately regarded as an implied admission.

    Despite the dismissal of the letter-complaint, the Court heavily chastised the lady senator for indulging
    in "insulting rhetoric and offensive personalities." In fact, her excuse that her questioned speech was a
    prelude to crafting remedial legislation on the JBC struck the Court as being a mere afterthought in light
    of the controversy her utterances had managed to stir.

    Still, the Court held that parliamentary immunity is essential because without it, the parliament or its
    equivalent would "degenerate into a polite and ineffective forum." However, it should be noted that
    "[l]egislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of of their legislative duties, not
    for their private indulgence, but for the public good."

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy