DIGESTED

Osmena vs.
Pendatun
Facts:
July 14, 1960 Congressman Sergio Osmena Jr. filed a petition before the
SC against Congressman Salipada K. Pendatun and 14 other
congressmen in their capacity as members of the Special Committee
created by House Resolution No. 59.
He asked for the annulment of the resolution on the ground of infringement

of his parliamentary immunity. The pertinent portions of HR 59 are as
follows:
On June 23, 1960 - privilege speech

accused then President Garcia
 “free things - from the government are now for sale at premium
prices.
 pardons are for sale-bailed out as long as he can come across with a
handsome dole.”
The charges of the petitioner, if made recklessly and without basis,
would constitute a serious assault on the dignity and prestige of the
Office of the President which is the one visible symbol of the
sovereignty of the Filipino people.
A special committee of 15 members to be appointed by the Speaker is

created to investigate the truth of the charges against the President, and is
authorized to summon Cong. Osmena to appear before it to substantiate
his charges as well as issue subpoena to require attendance of witnesses
or production of pertinent papers. If Cong. Osmena fails to do so, require
him to show cause why he should not be punished by the House. The
committee shall submit to the House a report of its findings and
recommendations before the adjournment of the special session of
Congress.
Petitioner alleged that:
 The resolution violated his constitutional absolute parliamentary

immunity for speeches delivered.
 His words constituted no actionable conduct.
After his objectionable speech, the House took up other business, and
according to Rule XVII Section 7 of the Rules of the House, if other
business has intervened after a Member had uttered obnoxious words in
debate, he shall not be held to answer therefor.
The House has no power under the Constitution to suspend one of its
members.
The majority of the Court decided to hear the case and required
respondents to answer without issuing any preliminary injunction. The
special committee continued to perform its task, and submitted its report on
July 18, 1960 finding petitioner guilty of serious disorderly behavior. The
House approved on the same day HR 175, declaring petitioner guilty as
recommended, and suspending him from office for 15 months.
On July 19, 1960, respondents filed their answer to the instant petition,
challenged the jurisdiction of the SC to entertain the petition, defended the
power of Congress to discipline its members with suspension, upheld HR
175 and emphasized that since Congress had ended its session on July
18, 1960, the Committee had ceased to exist.
Issue:
WON the Court can prevent Congress from punishing or disciplining one of
its members for his serious allegations against the President in one of his
speeches.
Ruling:
Yes.
Parliamentary Immunity under Section 15, Article VI of the 1987

Constitution guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression
without fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before the
courts or any other forum outside the Congressional Hall. However, it does
not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body itself
whenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or
unbecoming a member thereof. The same provision in our Constitution was
taken from Sec.6 Clause 1 of Article 1 of the US Constitution, and in that
country, is has always been understood to mean that though exempt from
prosecution or civil actions for their words uttered in Congress, members
thereof may nonetheless by questioned in Congress itself.
For unparliamentarily conduct, members of Congress have been censured,
imprisoned, suspended, or even expelled by the votes of their colleagues.
In fact, the Philippine Senate suspended a senator for 1 year in April 1949.
On whether delivery of speeches attacking the Chief Executive constitutes

disorderly conduct, the Court believes that the House is the judge of what
constitutes disorderly behavior, not only because the Constitution has
conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also because the matter depends mainly
on factual circumstances of which the House knows best but which cannot
be depicted in black and white for adjudication by the courts. The theory of
separation of powers fastidiously observed by this Court, demands in such
situation a prudent refusal to interfere. The Court refuses to disregard the
allocation of constitutional functions which is their special duty to maintain.
In Clifford v. French, the SC of California ruled that the judicial department

has no power to revise even the most arbitrary and unfair action of the
legislative department. Every legislative body in which is vested the general
legislative power of the state has the implied power to expel a member for
any cause which it may deem sufficient.
Courts have declared that the rules adopted by deliberative bodies are
subject to revocation, modification, or waiver at the pleasure of the body
adopting them. Parliamentary rules are merely procedural and the courts
have no concern with their observance. They may be waived or
disregarded by the legislative body. Mere failure to conform to
parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action when the requisite
number of members have agreed to a particular measure.
In Alejandrino v. Quezon, the Court rules that the Senate had no power to
suspend its members because it would be tantamount to removal, and the
organic law Jones Law gave the Senate no power to remove an appointive
member. HOWEVER, that remark should be understood to refer
particularly to an appointive senator. At that time, the Legislature only had
those powers which were granted to it by the Jones Law. Now, the
Congress has full legislative powers and prerogatives of a sovereign nation
except as restricted by the Constitution, including legislative prerogative of
suspension.
However, as the House has already closed its session, the Committee has
ceased to exist, and the case should be dismissed for having moot and
academic.
Share this:

DIGESTED

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIGESTED

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIGESTED

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Osmena vs.

He asked for the annulment of the resolution on the ground of infringement

On June 23, 1960 - privilege speech

A special committee of 15 members to be appointed by the Speaker is

Petitioner alleged that:

 The resolution violated his constitutional absolute parliamentary

Parliamentary Immunity under Section 15, Article VI of the 1987

On whether delivery of speeches attacking the Chief Executive constitutes

In Clifford v. French, the SC of California ruled that the judicial department

You might also like

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