G.R. No. L-34022 - Martinez y Festin vs. Morfe

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-34022)

Applicable Law

Primary constitutional provision invoked: Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution providing that 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 attendance at sessions of Congress and in going to and returning from the same. Statutory provisions relied upon by petitioners: Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code (penalizing certain acts affecting parliamentary immunity and prescribing penalties for public officers or employees who, during sessions, arrest or search any member except in case the member has committed a crime punishable by a penalty higher than prision mayor), and Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6132 (1971 Constitutional Convention Act), which makes laws relative to parliamentary immunity applicable to Convention delegates. Also relevant constitutional transition provision: Article XVI, Section 2 (continuance of pre‑existing laws unless inconsistent with the Constitution).

Central Legal Issue

Whether delegates to the Constitutional Convention enjoy constitutional immunity from arrest during their attendance at sessions and in going to and returning from the same that extends to shield them from criminal prosecution, and whether Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code (enacted before the Constitution and arguably expanding the immunity) can enlarge or supplement the constitutional immunity.

Facts: Manuel Martinez y Festin

An information for falsification of a public document was filed against Festin on June 10, 1971 (alleging false statement of birth year in his certificate of candidacy). He made a special appearance July 9, 1971, and sought to quash the information; the lower court suspended release of the arrest warrant pending the motion. An omnibus motion to quash was denied by order of August 21, 1971. Believing the information and warrant void, Festin did not post bond. He was arrested by the City Sheriff on September 6, 1971 while on his way to attend a plenary session; he was arraigned September 9 and, after posting bail, released on September 11. His petition for certiorari (and initially habeas corpus) was filed thereafter.

Facts: Fernando Bautista, Sr.

Bautista was elected and proclaimed delegate, took his oath June 1, 1971, and served as delegate. Two criminal complaints were filed directly with the Court of First Instance (Benguet) by an unsuccessful candidate, alleging distribution of free food, drinks and cigarettes in violation of the Election Code. After preliminary investigation, the trial judge ordered filing of informations on August 7, 1971. Bautista invoked the privilege of immunity (pursuant to Section 15 of RA 6132, Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution and Article 145 RPC) by motion of August 14, 1971; the judge held issuance of a warrant in abeyance and set hearing for August 23. At that hearing the motion was denied and a warrant of arrest ordered; subsequent motions to quash were denied and an arrest order was issued. A petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed September 15, 1971.

Petitioners’ Claim and Respondents’ Position

Petitioners asserted that as Convention delegates they were entitled to the parliamentary immunities of senators and representatives (per RA 6132 and Article VI, Section 15), including immunity from arrest while attending sessions and in going to and returning from the same, and that Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code supports or supplements that immunity. Respondents, through the Solicitor General, contended that the constitutional privilege is an exemption from civil arrest and does not shield members from criminal prosecution; consequently any statutory attempt (Article 145) to expand the constitutional immunity is unconstitutional or inoperative.

Court’s Examination of Constitutional Text and Convention History

The Court analyzed Article VI, Section 15 in light of its drafting history in the 1934 Constitutional Convention. The amendment adopted language excepting "treason, felony, and breach of the peace," mirroring English and American parliamentary formulations. Delegates who proposed and supported the language intended to retain the classical scope of parliamentary privilege which, by historical and authoritative interpretation (including the U.S. Williamson decision and judicial and scholarly authorities cited), excludes criminal offenses from the arrest immunity and confines the privilege principally to protection against civil arrests and to secure attendance at legislative sessions and freedom of speech in debate. The Convention’s adoption of that language was treated as authoritative evidence that the immunity was not meant to shield members from criminal prosecution.

Court’s Analysis of Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code vis‑à‑vis the Constitution

Article 145 RPC, which became effective January 1, 1932 (before the 1935 Constitution), contains provisions penalizing certain interferences with parliamentary functions and prescribes penalties for public officers who arrest or search members during sessions except when the member has committed a crime punishable by more than prision mayor. The Court held that any purported expansion of immunity by Article 145 that conflicts with the clear constitutional command must yield. Under the transitional clause (Article XVI, Section 2) all pre‑existing laws remain operative only insofar as they are consistent with the Constitution; laws inconsistent with the Constitution become inoperative on inauguration of the Commonwealth. The Court therefore declared the portion of Article 145 that would broaden the constitutional immunity inoperative because of its repugnancy to the Constitution’s plain and explicit limitation excluding treason, felony and breach of the peace from

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-34022)

Case Caption and Nature of Action

Consolidated petitions: L-34022 (Manuel Martinez y Festin) and L-34046 & L-34047 (Fernando Bautista, Sr.).
Remedies sought: petitions for certiorari (both petitioners); petition for habeas corpus initially filed by Martinez y Festin but, after release on bail, the petition remained in the nature solely of certiorari.
Relief sought by petitioners: quash warrants of arrest and halt criminal proceedings on the ground of parliamentary immunity enjoyed by delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention.

Parties

Petitioners:
- Manuel Martinez y Festin — delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention; charged with falsification of a public document (alleged false birth year in certificate of candidacy).
- Fernando Bautista, Sr. — duly elected and proclaimed delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention; charged with violations of the Revised Election Code for giving/distributing food, drinks and cigarettes at public meetings.
Respondents:
- Hon. Jesus P. Morfe — Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila (respondent in L-34022).
- City Warden of Manila — custodian in Martinez y Festin matter.
- Hon. Francisco Ma. Chanco — Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet, Branch III (respondent in L-34046 & L-34047).
Representations and amici:
- Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio and assistants (filed memorandum on behalf of respondent Judge Morfe).
- Committee on Legal Affairs of the Constitutional Convention submitted a memorandum on behalf of President Diosdado Macapagal of the Constitutional Convention.
- Counsel appearing for Bautista in hearings included Delegate Juanito R. Remulla; respondent Judges were represented by Assistant Solicitors General Rosalio A. de Leon and Solicitor Vicente V. Mendoza.

Factual Background — Manuel Martinez y Festin (L-34022)

Allegation: Information filed on June 10, 1971 for falsification of a public document (Art. 171, falsification by public officer/employee); charge based on alleged false statement under oath in certificate of candidacy that he was born on June 20, 1945 when he knew he was born June 20, 1946.
Key procedural acts and dates:
- July 9, 1971: Martinez made a special appearance questioning judge’s power to issue arrest warrant and sought quashal of information; lower court ordered suspension of release of warrant pending motion to quash.
- July 22, 1971: Filed omnibus motion (with leave) to quash information/warrant or hold proceedings in abeyance; motion denied.
- August 21, 1971: Respondent Judge denied omnibus motion to quash.
- Petitioner did not post required bond, believing information/warrant null and void.
- September 6, 1971: Arrested by City Sheriff; confined in City Jail under City Warden of Manila custody while on way to attend plenary session of Constitutional Convention; arrest against his will and over protest.
- September 9, 1971: Arraigned; motion for reconsideration denied in open court; petition for certiorari and habeas corpus filed same day.
- September 11, 1971: Released on bail; habeas corpus portion became moot and remaining petition is certiorari.

Factual Background — Fernando Bautista, Sr. (L-34046 & L-34047)

Office and status: Duly elected and proclaimed delegate to 1971 Constitutional Convention; took oath and assumed functions June 1, 1971 and continued to perform duties.
Allegations: Two criminal complaints filed directly with Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet by Moises Maspil alleging violation of Section 51 of the Revised Penal Code (giving/distributing food, drinks and cigarettes at public meetings in Sablan and Tuba, Benguet).
Key procedural acts and dates:
- Respondent Presiding Judge conducted preliminary investigation and on August 7, 1971 ordered filing of corresponding informations.
- August 14, 1971: Before issuance of warrant, Bautista filed motion invoking immunity from arrest and search under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6132 in relation to Section 15, Article VI of Constitution and Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Respondent Judge on August 14, 1971 held issuance of warrant in abeyance and set hearing for August 23, 1971.
- August 23, 1971: Hearing held; petitioner's motion denied and warrant of arrest ordered same day.
- September 11, 1971: Motion to quash arrest order filed and denied; Judge ordered immediate arrest.
- September 15, 1971: Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed with the Supreme Court.

Procedural Posture and Submissions to the Supreme Court

Respondents required to answer by resolutions dated September 10 and September 20, 1971.
Answers and interventions:
- Answer for respondent Judge Morfe filed September 20, 1971; answers in intervention filed by Executive Sheriff of Manila and Chief of Warrant Division same date.
- Answer for respondent Judge Chanco filed September 29, 1971.
Oral and written submissions:
- Martinez petition heard September 14, 1971; Delegate Estanislao A. Fernandez argued immunity claim.
- Memorandum by Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio and assistants filed October 29, 1971 for respondent Judge Morfe.
- Committee on Legal Affairs memorandum for President of Constitutional Convention filed March 8, 1972.
- Bautista petitions heard October 14, 1971; memorandum for respondent Judge filed October 30, 1971; memorandum of petitioner Bautista filed December 1, 1971.
Case deemed submitted for adjudication after filings and hearings.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, by virtue of Section 15 of Article VI of the Constitution and Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6132 (1971 Constitutional Convention Act), enjoy parliamentary immunity from arrest during attendance at sessions and in going to and returning from the same, so as to render void or require quashal of warrants of arrest issued in pending criminal prosecutions.
Whether Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes public officers or employees who arrest or search members of Congress during sessions except where member committed crime punishable by penalty higher than prision mayor, expands the constitutional immunity so as to preclude arrest or render arresting officers criminally liable.
Whether the constitutional immunity (Art. VI, Sec. 15) excludes criminal prosecutions or only arrests on civil process.

Relevant Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Cited

Constitution, Article VI, Section 15: "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