Case Summary (A.C. No. 7399)
Petitioner
Antero J. Pobre, who filed a sworn letter-complaint alleging disrespect and contempt by Senator Santiago toward the Supreme Court.
Respondent
Senator/Atty. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who admitted to making the statements but invoked parliamentary immunity under Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution.
Key Dates
• Speech and complaint date: December 22, 2006
• Senator’s comment: April 25, 2007
• Decision date: August 25, 2009
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 11 (speech or debate privilege)
• 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5(5) (Supreme Court’s rule-making power, including Integrated Bar)
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11
• Senate Rules on unparliamentary language (Rule XXXIV, Sections 93, 95, 97)
Facts
Senator Santiago’s speech contained vehement language, including references to feeling “irate,” “homicidal,” “nauseated,” and “spitting on the face” of Chief Justice Panganiban and his “cohorts,” and describing the Supreme Court as a “Court of idiots.” She challenged the Judicial and Bar Council’s failure to notify non-sitting justices, like herself, that they would not qualify for nomination as Chief Justice.
Constitutional and Legal Issue
Whether Senator Santiago’s statements, delivered in the Senate in the exercise of her legislative functions, were actionable despite their offensive nature, and whether she could be subject to disciplinary proceedings as a member of the Bar.
Parliamentary Immunity under Article VI, Section 11
The Court reaffirmed the longstanding doctrine that legislators enjoy absolute privilege for speeches and debates in Congress. Parliamentary immunity exists to protect the uninhibited legislative process and extends to statements made in bona fide discharge of legislative duties. The Senate’s disciplinary mechanisms and the electorate, not the judiciary, are the proper fora to address abuses of that privilege.
Court’s Concern over Language and Conduct
Although the speech was immune from criminal or disciplinary action under the Rules of Court, the Court expressed “deep concern” over the intemperate and insulting language employed by a Bar member. It emphasized that such rhetoric erodes public confidence in the judiciary and crosses the bounds of decency and professional decorum.
Relevant Ethical Canons and Precedents
• Canon 8, Rule 8.01: Prohibits abusive or offensive language in professional dealings.
• Canon 11: Requires lawyers to maintain respect due to courts and judicial officers.
• In Re: Vicente Sotto and subsequent decisions (e.g., Sorreda, Tacordan): Lawyers and public officials remain bound by ethical duties even when acting in official capacities.
Scope of Disciplinary Authority
The Court underscored its constitutional mandate (Art. VIII, Sec.
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 7399)
Factual Background
- Complainant Antero J. Pobre filed a sworn letter/complaint on December 22, 2006, citing excerpts from Senator Santiago’s speech on the Senate floor.
- Quoted language included expressions of personal anger and contempt: “I am not angry. I am irate… I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts… Supreme Court of idiots.”
- Pobre alleged these remarks constituted direct contempt of court and sought disbarment or other disciplinary action against the senator.
Complaint and Relief Sought
- Pobre characterized the statements as displaying “total disrespect” toward Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and Supreme Court members.
- He invoked the Court’s disciplinary authority over lawyers under the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- The relief prayed for was initiation of disbarment proceedings or equivalent sanctions.
Respondent’s Admission and Defense
- Senator Santiago did not deny uttering the words but asserted they were part of a “privilege speech” on the Senate floor.
- She invoked Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution on parliamentary immunity, arguing her speech was in the discharge of her legislative duties.
- The stated purpose of the speech was to expose anomalies in the Judicial Bar Council’s nomination process for Chief Justice and to lay the groundwork for remedial legislation.
Constitutional Basis of Parliamentary Immunity
- Article VI, Section 11 provides that senators and representatives “shall not be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.”
- The provision shields members of Congress from criminal or civil liability for utterances made in the course of legislative functions.
Scope and Purpose of Parliamentary Immunity
- Rooted in English and American legislative tradition, the privilege ensures “the fullest liberty of speech” and protects legislators from external intimidation.
- It exists “for the benefit of the people and the institution” and is not meant to shield personal misconduct.
- Immunity favors uninhibited legislative debate but does not extend to non-legislative, personal insults.