Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Belle Lao
    Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago made statements on the Senate floor criticizing then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and calling the Supreme Court "idiots". A complaint was filed against her seeking disbarment or other disciplinary actions. Santiago claimed parliamentary immunity for any speech or debate in Congress. The court dismissed the complaint, finding that parliamentary immunity protected Santiago's statements, even if they constituted disrespect towards the court. While the statements would normally warrant sanctions, constitutional considerations prevented disciplinary action given the circumstances.

    Copyright:

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

    Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Belle Lao
    20 views2 pages
    Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago made statements on the Senate floor criticizing then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and calling the Supreme Court "idiots". A complaint was filed against her seeking disbarment or other disciplinary actions. Santiago claimed parliamentary immunity for any speech or debate in Congress. The court dismissed the complaint, finding that parliamentary immunity protected Santiago's statements, even if they constituted disrespect towards the court. While the statements would normally warrant sanctions, constitutional considerations prevented disciplinary action given the circumstances.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago made statements on the Senate floor criticizing then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and calling the Supreme Court "idiots". A complaint was filed against her seeking disbarment or other disciplinary actions. Santiago claimed parliamentary immunity for any speech or debate in Congress. The court dismissed the complaint, finding that parliamentary immunity protected Santiago's statements, even if they constituted disrespect towards the court. While the statements would normally warrant sanctions, constitutional considerations prevented disciplinary action given the circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    20 views2 pages

    Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Belle Lao
    Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago made statements on the Senate floor criticizing then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and calling the Supreme Court "idiots". A complaint was filed against her seeking disbarment or other disciplinary actions. Santiago claimed parliamentary immunity for any speech or debate in Congress. The court dismissed the complaint, finding that parliamentary immunity protected Santiago's statements, even if they constituted disrespect towards the court. While the statements would normally warrant sanctions, constitutional considerations prevented disciplinary action given the circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ANTERO J. POBRE, Complainant vs. Sen.

    MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
    A.C. No. 7399 August 25, 2009

    Parliamentary freedom of Speech

    In his sworn letter/complaint dated December 22, 2006, with enclosures, Antero J. Pobre invites the
    Court’s attention to the following excerpts of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s speech delivered on
    the Senate floor:
    x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated,
    debased,mdegraded. 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 x.
    To Pobre, the foregoing 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.
    In her comment on the complaint dated April 25, 2007, Senator Santiago, through counsel, does not
    deny making the aforequoted statements. She, however, explained that those statements were covered
    by the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity which 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."

    ISSUE: May Disciplinary action be taken against Senator Mirriam Defensor Santiago concerning her
    aforequoted statement?
    HELD: NO.
    Any claim of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of the statement uttered by the
    member of the Congress does not destroy the privilege. The disciplinary authority of the assembly4and
    the voters, not the courts, can properly discourage or correct such abuses committed in the name of
    Parliamentary immunity. For the above reasons, the plea of Senator Santiago for the dismissal of the
    complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action is well taken. Indeed, her privilege speech is not
    actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court. It is felt, however, that this
    could not be the last word on the matter.
    The Court is not hesitant to impose some form of disciplinary sanctions on Senator/Atty. Santiago for
    what otherwise would have constituted an act of utter disrespect on her part towards the Court and its
    members. The factual and legal circumstances of this case, however, deter the Court from doing so, even
    without any sign of remorse from her. Basic Constitutional consideration dictates this kind of disposition.
    WHEREFORE, the letter-complaint of Antero J. Pobre against Senator/Atty. Miriam Defensor-Santiago is,
    Conformably to Art. VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution, DISMISSED.

    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