Case Digest (A.C. No. 7399)
Facts:
Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court. Complainant Antero J. Pobre filed a sworn letter-complaint dated December 22, 2006, attaching excerpts from a speech delivered on the Senate floor by respondent Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago. The contested excerpts included intemperate language: expressions of being “foaming in the mouth,” “homicidal,” “suicidal,” statements that she would “spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court,” and her calling the tribunal a “Supreme Court of idiots.” Pobre contended these remarks showed total disrespect for the Court and constituted direct contempt warranting disbarment or other disciplinary action.Senator Santiago, in a comment dated April 25, 2007, did not deny making the statements but invoked parliamentary immunity under Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution, asserting the remarks were part of a privilege speech made in the discharge of her legislative duties and intended to expose alleged irregularities by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) as a prelude to remedial legislation. She argued that, being a speech on the Senate floor, it was privileged and not actionable.
The Supreme Court (Third Division) received and considered the complaint and the senator’s comment and proceeded to determine whether the speech was actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court. The Court examined constitutional text and related precedents (including Osmena, Jr. v. Pendatun, Tenney v. Brandhove, and In Re: Vicente Sotto) and relevant professional ethics authorities (Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and prior disciplinary decisions). The Court issued a decision dismissing the complaint on constitutional grounds while expressing str...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s remarks on the Senate floor privileged under Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution so as to render the complainant’s letter-complaint non-actionable?
- If the remarks are privileged, may Senator/Attorney Santiago nonetheless be subjected to disciplinary sanction for violating the Code of Professional Responsib...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)