Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    A.C. No. 7399 August 25, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Alessandra Regala
    1) Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered a speech on the Senate floor where she made inflammatory statements about then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and other Supreme Court justices. 2) Antero Pobre filed a complaint seeking Santiago's disbarment or other disciplinary action for contempt of court. 3) Santiago claimed parliamentary immunity for any speech delivered in Congress. 4) The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, recognizing that under the constitution, legislators cannot be held liable for any speech or debate made in Congress.

    Copyright:

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

    A.C. No. 7399 August 25, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Alessandra Regala
    12 views2 pages
    1) Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered a speech on the Senate floor where she made inflammatory statements about then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and other Supreme Court justices. 2) Antero Pobre filed a complaint seeking Santiago's disbarment or other disciplinary action for contempt of court. 3) Santiago claimed parliamentary immunity for any speech delivered in Congress. 4) The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, recognizing that under the constitution, legislators cannot be held liable for any speech or debate made in Congress.

    Original Title

    A.C. No. 7399 August 25, 2009

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered a speech on the Senate floor where she made inflammatory statements about then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and other Supreme Court justices. 2) Antero Pobre filed a complaint seeking Santiago's disbarment or other disciplinary action for contempt of court. 3) Santiago claimed parliamentary immunity for any speech delivered in Congress. 4) The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, recognizing that under the constitution, legislators cannot be held liable for any speech or debate made in Congress.

    Copyright:

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

    A.C. No. 7399 August 25, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Alessandra Regala
    1) Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered a speech on the Senate floor where she made inflammatory statements about then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and other Supreme Court justices. 2) Antero Pobre filed a complaint seeking Santiago's disbarment or other disciplinary action for contempt of court. 3) Santiago claimed parliamentary immunity for any speech delivered in Congress. 4) The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, recognizing that under the constitution, legislators cannot be held liable for any speech or debate made in Congress.

    Copyright:

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

    Title: Pobre v.

    Defensor- Santiago
    G.R No. / Date: A.C. No. 7399 August 25, 2009
    Ponente: VELASCO, JR., J
    Facts: 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 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 another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x 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.
    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, 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.
    Issue/s: 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.
    Conclusion: Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental
    privilege cherished in every legislative assembly of the democratic world. As old as the
    English Parliament, its purpose "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."
    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.
    This Court is aware of the need and has in fact been in the forefront in upholding the
    institution of parliamentary immunity and promotion of free speech. Neither has the Court
    lost sight of the importance of the legislative and oversight functions of the Congress that
    enable this representative body to look diligently into every affair of government,
    investigate and denounce anomalies, and talk about how the country and its citizens are
    being served.
    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.

    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