Case Summary (G.R. No. L-1651)
Petitioner and Respondent Designation
Plaintiffs (appellants) sought recovery of money damages for alleged libel. Defendant (appellee) moved to dismiss on grounds that the communication was not libelous and, alternatively, was a privileged communication as a legislative “speech or debate.”
Key Dates
Date of publication alleged in complaint: November 14, 1958.
Decision date of the appealed order: August 3, 1966.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Provision
The decision applies the constitutional privilege for legislators as set out in Article VI, Section 15 (quoted in the decision), providing that Senators and Members of the House shall not be questioned elsewhere for any “speech or debate therein,” and are privileged from arrest in certain circumstances. The Court also relied on prior authorities (cited in the opinion) delineating the scope of “speech or debate therein.”
Facts — Nature and Content of the Publication
The communication was an open letter to the President alleging the existence of three operational plans by certain AFP officers and civilian strategists to effect a political build-up, a coup d’état, or a modified campaign to rally military support. The letter named several officers (including the three plaintiffs among others) as purportedly under the control of unnamed “planners” and described operational techniques and recommended administrative and personnel actions.
Issue Presented
(1) Whether the published open letter was a privileged communication protected by the constitutional “speech or debate” clause; and (2) if not privileged, whether the publication was libelous as to the plaintiffs.
Ruling on Privilege (First Issue)
The Court held that the publication was not a privileged communication under the “speech or debate therein” protection. The letter was an open communication to the President, published in newspapers while Congress was presumably not in session, and its publication was not an act performed in the performance of the defendant’s official legislative duties. Therefore the absolute privilege accorded to speeches or debates in Congress did not attach.
Definition and Scope of “Speech or Debate” Adopted by the Court
The Court characterized “speech or debate therein” as utterances made in the performance of official congressional functions — speeches, statements, votes in the halls of Congress while in session, bills introduced, and other acts performed officially either in Congress or outside its premises in the discharge of congressional duties. The open letter did not fall within this description.
Ruling on Libel (Second Issue)
The Court concluded that the letter was not libelous with respect to the plaintiffs. Although the letter suggested the plaintiffs were “under the control” of the planners and “probably belong to the Vargas-Arellano clique,” it also explicitly stated it was “of course possible” that the named officers were unwitting tools who might have “absolutely no knowledge” of the alleged plans. The Court found this qual
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-1651)
Citation and Court
- Reported in 124 Phil. 296; G.R. No. L-15905; decision dated August 03, 1966.
- Decision authored by Justice Concepcion.
Procedural Posture
- An ordinary civil action was originally instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for recovery of several sums of money by way of damages for the publication of an allegedly libelous letter.
- Defendant Bartolome Cabangbang, upon being summoned, moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the letter was not libelous and that it was a privileged communication.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
- Plaintiffs appealed the order of dismissal to the Supreme Court.
- The issues presented on appeal were identified by the Court as: (1) whether the publication in question is a privileged communication; and if not, (2) whether it is libelous.
Parties
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Nicanor T. Jimenez, Carlos J. Albert, and Jose L. Lukban.
- Defendant-Appellee: Bartolome Cabangbang.
- At the time of publication, defendant was a Member of the House of Representatives and Chairman of its Committee on National Defense.
Relevant Constitutional Provision Quoted
- Article VI, Section 15 (as cited in the decision): "The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of the Congress, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other place."
Court’s Definition and Scope of "Speech or Debate Therein"
- The phrase "speech or debate therein" refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions, including:
- Speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress while the same is in session.
- Bills introduced in Congress, whether the same is in session or not.
- Other acts performed by Congressmen, either in Congress or outside the premises housing its offices, in the official discharge of their duties as members of Congress and of Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform their functions as such, at the time of performance of the acts in question.
- Authorities cited for this exposition include: Vera vs. Avelino; Tenray vs. Brandhove; Coffin vs. Coffin. [1]
Facts — Nature and Publication of the Communication
- The communication in question was an open letter to the President of the Philippines, dated November 14, 1958.
- The letter was caused by defendant to be published in several newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines on or about that date.
- The complaint alleged the letter was libelous and was published with knowledge of falsity and with intent to impeach plaintiffs’ reputation and expose them to public hatred, contempt, dishonor and ridicule.
- The Court notes Congress was "presumably not in session" on the date the letter was dated and published.
Contents of the Letter — Introductory Passages and Purpose
- The letter began, as addressed to the President, with the following quoted paragraphs:
- "In the light of the recent developments which however unfortunate had nevertheless involved the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the unfair attacks against the duly elected members of Congress of engaging in intriguing and rumormongering, allow me, Your Excellency, to address this open letter to focus public attention to certain vital information which, under the present circumstances, I feel it my solemn duty to our people to expose."
- "It has come to my attention that there have been allegedly three operational plans under serious study by some ambitious AFP officers, with the aid of some civilian political strategists."
- The letter then described the "allegedly three (3) operational plans" and related matters in detail.
Contents of the Letter — Plan No. I (Political Build-up)
- Plan No. I was described as "an insidious plan for a massive political build-up" of then Secretary of National Defense, Jesus Vargas, with the objective that he be "prepared to become a candidate for President in 1961."
- The letter states the planners had adopted the sales-talk that Secretary Vargas is "'Communists' Public Enemy No. 1 in the Philippines."
- It alleged that the P4,000,000.00 "intelligence and psychological warfare funds" of the Department of National Defense and the "Peace and Amelioration Fund" were "available to adequately finance a political campaign."
- The letter reported that the "Planners" have under their control the following persons:
- (1) Col. Nicanor Jimenez of NICA,
- (2) Lt. Col. Jose Lukban of NB I,
- (3) Capt. Carlos Albe