Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17144 October 28, 1960
SERGIO OSME!, "R., petitioner,
vs.
S!LIP!#! $. PEN#!TUN, LEON %. GUINTO, "R., &ICENTE L. PER!LT!, '!USTINO TO(I!,
LOREN%O G. TE&ES, "OPSE ". RO), '!USTINO #UGENIO, !NTONIO ). #E PIO, (EN"!MIN T. LIGOT,
PE#RO G. TRONO, 'ELIPE !(RIGO, 'ELIPE S. !(ELE#!, TECL! S!N !N#RES %IG!, !NGEL (.
'ERN!#E%, *+, EUGENIO S. (!LT!O, -+ t.e-r c*/*c-t0 *1 2e2ber1 o3 t.e S/ec-*4 Co22-ttee
cre*te, b0 5o61e Re1o46t-o+ No. 79, respondents.
Antonio Y. de Pio in his own behalf.
F. S. Abeleda, A. b. Fernandez. E. S. Baltao and Tecla San Andres Ziga in their own behalf.
C. T. Villareal and . !. Bagatsing as a"ici c#riae.
(ENG%ON, J.:
On July !, "#$, Con%ress&an 'er%io Os&e(a, Jr., sub&itted to this Court a veri)ed petition for *declaratory
relief, certiorari and prohibition +ith preli&inary in,unction* a%ainst Con%ress&an 'alapida -. Pendatun and
fourteen other con%ress&en in their capacity as &e&bers of the 'pecial Co&&ittee created by .ouse
Resolution No. /". .e as0ed for annul&ent of such Resolution on the %round of infrin%en&ent of his
parlia&entary i&&unity1 he also as0ed, principally, that said &e&bers of the special co&&ittee be en,oined
fro& proceedin% in accordance +ith it, particularly the portion authori2in% the& to re3uire hi& to substantiate
his char%es a%ainst the President +ith the ad&onition that if he failed to do so, he &ust sho+ cause +hy the
.ouse should not punish hi&.
4he petition attached a copy of .ouse Resolution No. /", the pertinent portions of +hich reads as follo+s5
6.EREA', on the 78rd day of June, "#$ , the .onorable 'er%io Os&e(a, Jr., Me&ber of the
.ouse of Representatives fro& the 'econd 9istrict of the province of Cebu, too0 the :oor of
this cha&ber on the one hour privile%e to deliver a speech, entitled ;A Messa%e to <arcia1
6.EREA', in the course of said speech, the Con%ress&an fro& the 'econd 9istrict of Cebu
stated the follo+in%5.
=== === ===
4he people, Mr. President, have been hearin% of u%ly reports that under your unpopular
ad&inistration the free thin%s they used to %et fro& the %overn&ent are no+ for sale at
pre&iu& prices. 4hey say that even pardons are for sale, and that re%ardless of the %ravity or
seriousness of a cri&inal case, the culprit can al+ays be bailed out forever fro& ,ail as lon% as
he can co&e across +ith a handso&e dole. > a& afraid, such an ano&alous situation +ould
re:ect badly on the 0ind of ,ustice that your ad&inistration is dispensin%. . . . .
6.EREA', the char%es of the %entle&an fro& the 'econd 9istrict of Cebu, if &ade &aliciously
or rec0lessly and +ithout basis in truth and in fact, +ould constitute a serious assault upon the
di%nity and presti%e of the O?ice of 8@ 8 the President, +hich is the one visible sy&bol of the
soverei%nty of the Ailipino people, and +ould e=pose said o?ice to conte&pt and
disrepute1 . . . .
esol$ed b% the &o#se of e'resentati$e, that a special co&&ittee of )fteen Me&bers to be
appointed by the 'pea0er be, and the sa&e hereby is, created to investi%ate the truth of the
char%es a%ainst the President of the Philippines &ade by .onorable 'er%io Os&e(a, Jr., in his
privile%e speech of June 778, "#$, and for such purpose it is authori2ed to su&&on .onorable
'er%io Os&e(a, ,r., to appear before it to substantiate his char%es, as +ell as to issue s#b'oena
Page 1 of 10
andBor s#b'oena d#ces tec#" to re3uire the attendance of +itnesses andBor the production of
pertinent papers before it, and if .onorable 'er%io Os&e(a, Jr., fails to do so to re3uire hi& to
sho+ cause +hy he should not be punished by the .ouse. 4he special co&&ittee shall sub&it
to the .ouse a report of its )ndin%s and reco&&endations before the ad,ourn&ent of the
present special session of the Con%ress of the Philippines.
>n support of his re3uest, Con%ress&an Os&e(a alle%ed1 )rst, the Resolution violated his constitutional
absolute parlia&entary i&&unity for speeches delivered in the .ouse1 second, his +ords constituted no
actionable conduct1 and third, after his alle%edly ob,ectionable speech and +ords, the .ouse too0 up other
business, and Rule CD>>, sec. @ of the Rules of .ouse provides that if other business has intervened after the
&e&ber had uttered obno=ious +ords in debate, he shall not be held to ans+er therefor nor be sub,ect to
censure by the .ouse.
Althou%h so&e &e&bers of the court e=pressed doubts of petitioner;s cause of action and the Court;s
,urisdiction, the &a,ority decided to hear the &atter further, and re3uired respondents to ans+er, +ithout
issuin% any preli&inary in,unction. Evidently a+are of such circu&stance +ith its i&plications, and pressed for
ti&e in vie+ of the i&&inent ad,ourn&ent of the le%islative session, the special co&&ittee continued to
perfor& its tal0, and after %ivin% Con%ress&an Os&e(a a chance to defend hi&self, sub&itted its reports on
July E, "#$, )ndin% said con%ress&an %uilty of serious disorderly behaviour1 and actin% on such report, the
.ouse approved on the sa&e dayFbefore closin% its sessionF.ouse Resolution No. @/, declarin% hi& %uilty
as reco&&ended, and suspendin% hi& fro& o?ice for )fteen &onths.
4hereafter, on July ", "#$, the respondents G+ith the e=ception of Con%ress&en 9e Pio, Abeleda, 'an Andres
Hi%a, Aernande2 and BalataoI

)led their ans+er, challen%ed the ,urisdiction of this Court to entertain the
petition, defended the po+er of Con%ress to discipline its &e&bers +ith suspension, upheld a .ouse
Resolution No. @/ and then invited attention to the fact that Con%ress havin% ended its session on July E,
"#$, the Co&&itteeF+hose &e&bers are the sole respondentsFhad thereby ceased to e=ist.
4here is no 3uestion that Con%ress&an Os&e(a, in a privile%e speech delivered before the .ouse, &ade the
serious i&putations of bribery a%ainst the President +hich are 3uoted in Resolution No. /" and that he refused
to produce before the .ouse Co&&ittee created for the purpose, evidence to substantiate such i&putations.
4here is also no 3uestion that for havin% &ade the i&putations and for failin% to produce evidence in support
thereof, he +as, by resolution of the .ouse, suspended fro& o?ice for a period of )fteen &onths for serious
disorderly behaviour.
Resolution No. @/ states in part5
6.EREA', the 'pecial Co&&ittee created under and by virtue of Resolution No. /", adopted
on July E, "#$, found Representative 'er%io Os&e(a, Jr., %uilty of serious disorderly behaviour
for &a0in% +ithout basis in truth and in fact, scurrilous, &alicious, rec0less and irresponsible
char%es a%ainst the President of the Philippines in his privile%e speech of June 78, "#$1 and
6.EREA', the said char%es are so vile in character that they a?ronted and de%raded the
di%nity of the .ouse of Representative5 No+, 4herefore, be it
RE'OJDE9 by the .ouse of Representatives. 4hat Representative 'er%io Os&e(a, Jr., be, as he
hereby is, declared %uilty of serious disorderly behaviour1 and . . .
As previously stated, Os&e(a contended in his petition that5 GI the Constitution %ave hi& co&plete
parlia&entary i&&unity, and so, for +ords spo0en in the .ouse, he ou%ht not to be 3uestioned1 G7$ that his
speech constituted no disorderly behaviour for +hich he could be punished1 and G8I supposin% he could be
3uestioned and discipline therefor, the .ouse had lost the po+er to do so because it had ta0en up other
business before approvin% .ouse Resolution No. /". No+, he ta0es the additional position G!I that the .ouse
has no po+er, under the Constitution, to suspend one of its &e&bers.
'ection /, Article D> of our Constitution provides that *for any speech or debate* in Con%ress, the 'enators or
Me&bers of the .ouse of Representative *shall not be 3uestioned in any other place.* 4his section +as ta0en
or is a copy of sec. #, clause of Art. of the Constitution of the Knited 'tates. >n that country, the provision
has al+ays been understood to &ean that althou%h e=e&pt fro& prosecution or civil actions for their +ords
uttered in Con%ress, the &e&bers of Con%ress &ay, nevertheless, be 3uestioned in Congress itself. Observe
that *they shall not be 3uestioned in any other place* than Con%ress.
Page 2 of 10
Aurther&ore, the Rules of the .ouse +hich petitioner hi&self has invo0ed GRule CD>>, sec. @I, reco%ni2e the
.ouse;s po+er to hold a &e&ber responsible *for +ords spo0en in debate.*
Our Constitution enshrines parlia&entary i&&unity +hich is a funda&ental privile%e cherished in every
le%islative asse&bly of the de&ocratic +orld. As old as the En%lish Parlia&ent, its purpose *is to enable and
encoura%e a representative of the public to dischar%e his public trust +ith )r&ness and success* for *it is
indispensably necessary that he should en,oy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected fro&
the resent&ent of every one, ho+ever po+erful, to +ho& e=ercise of that liberty &ay occasion o?ense.*
7
'uch
i&&unity has co&e to this country fro& the practices of Parlia&entary as construed and applied by the
Con%ress of the Knited 'tates. >ts e=tent and application re&ain no lon%er in doubt in so far as related to the
3uestion before us. >t %uarantees the le%islator co&plete freedo& of e=pression +ithout fear of bein% &ade
responsible in cri&inal or civil actions before the courts or any other foru& o#tside of the Con%ressional .all.
But is does not protect hi& fro& responsibility before the le%islative body itself +henever his +ords and
conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbeco&in% a &e&ber thereof. >n the Knited 'tates
Con%ress, Con%ress&an Aernando 6ood of Ne+ Lor0 +as censured for usin% the follo+in% lan%ua%e on the
:oor of the .ouse5 *A &onstrosity, a &easure the &ost infa&ous of the &any infa&ous acts of the infa&ous
Con%ress.* G.inds; Precedents, Dol. 7,. pp. @"EM@""I. 4+o other con%ress&en +ere censured for e&ployin%
insultin% +ords durin% debate. G7 .inds; Precedents, @""ME$I. >n one case, a &e&ber of Con%ress +as
su&&oned to testify on a state&ent &ade by hi& in debate, but invo0ed his parlia&entary privile%e. 4he
Co&&ittee re,ected his plea. G8 .inds; Precedents 78M7!.I
Aor unparlia&entary conduct, &e&bers of Parlia&ent or of Con%ress have been, or could be censured,
co&&itted to prison
8
, even e=pelled by the votes of their collea%ues. 4he appendi= to this decision a&ply attest
to the consensus of infor&ed opinion re%ardin% the practice and the traditional po+er of le%islative asse&blies
to ta0e disciplinary action a%ainst its &e&bers, incl#ding i"'rison"ent, s#s'ension or e('#lsion. >t &entions
one instance of suspension of a le%islator in a forei%n country.
And to cite a local illustration, the Philippine 'enate, in April "!", suspended a senator for one year.
Needless to add, the Rules of Philippine .ouse of Representatives provide that the parlia&entary practices of
the Con%ress of the Knited 'tates shall apply in a supple&entary &anner to its proceedin%s.
4his brin%s up the third point of petitioner5 the .ouse &ay no lon%er ta0e action a%ainst &e, he ar%ues,
because after &y speech, and before approvin% Resolution No. /", it had ta0en up other business. Respondents
ans+er that Resolution No. /" +as unani&ously approved by the .ouse, that such approval a&ounted to a
suspension of the .ouse Rules, +hich accordin% to standard parlia&entary practice &ay done by unani&ous
consent.
<ranted, counters the petitioner, that the .ouse &ay suspended the operation of its Rules, it &ay not, ho+ever,
a?ect past acts or rene+ its ri%hts to ta0e action +hich had already lapsed.
4he situation &i%ht thus be co&pared to la+s
!
e=tendin% the period of li&itation of actions and &a0in% the&
applicable to actions that had lapsed. 4he 'upre&e Court of the Knited 'tates has upheld such la+s as a%ainst
the contention that they i&paired vested ri%hts in violation of the Aourteenth A&end&ent GCa&pbell $s. .olt,
/ K. '. #7$I. 4he states hold diver%ent vie+s. At any rate, court are sub,ect to revocation &odi)cation or
+aiver at the pleasure of the body adoptin% the&.*
/
And it has been said that *Parlia&entary rules are &erely
procedural, and +ith their observance&, the courts have no concern. 4hey &ay be +aived or disre%arded by
the le%islative body.* Conse3uently, *&ere failure to confor& to parlia&entary usa%e +ill not invalidate the
action Gta0en by a deliberative bodyI +hen the re3uisited nu&ber of &e&bers have a%reed to a particular
&easure.*
#
4he follo+in% is 3uoted fro& a reported decision of the 'upre&e court of 4ennessee5
4he rule here invo0ed is one of parlia&entary procedure, and it is unifor&ly held that it is
+ithin the po+er of all deliberative bodies to abolish, &odify, or +aive their o+n rules of
procedure, adopted for the orderly con duct of business, and as security a%ainst hasty action.
GBennet $s. Ne+ Bedford, $ Mass, !881 .olt $s. 'o&erville, 7@ Mass. !$E, !1 City of
'adalia $s. 'cott, $! Mo. App. /"/, @E '. 6. 7@#1 E= parte Mayor, etc., of Albany, 78 6end. NN.
L.O 7@@, 7E$1 6heeloc0 $s. City of Jo+ell, "# Mass. 77$, 78$. E N. e. "@@, 7! A&. 't. Rep.
/!8, 7 Ann. Cas. $"1 City of Corinth $s. 'harp, $@ Miss. #"#, #/ 'o. EEE1 Mc<ra+ $s.
6hitson, #" >o+a, 8!E, 7E N. 6. #871 4uell $s. Meacha& Contractin% Co. !/ -y. E, E#, !$
Page 3 of 10
'. 6. Ann. Cas. "8B, E$7.I N4a0enfro& the case of Rutherford $s. City of Nashville, @E south
6estern Reporter, p. /E!.O
>t &ay be noted in this connection, that in the case of Con%ress&an 'tanbery of Ohio, +ho insulted the
'pea0er, for +hich Act a resolution of censure +as presented, the .ouse approved the resolution, despite the
ar%u&ent that other business had intervened after the ob,ectionable re&ar0s. G7 .inds; Precedents pp. @""M
E$$.I
On the 3uestion +hether delivery of speeches attac0in% the Chief E=ecutive constitutes disorderly conduct for
+hich Os&e(a &ay be discipline, &any ar%u&ents pro and con have been advanced. 6e believe, ho+ever, that
the .ouse is the ,ud%e of +hat constitutes disorderly behaviour, not only because the Constitution has
conferred ,urisdiction upon it, but also because the &atter depends &ainly on factual circu&stances of +hich
the .ouse 0no+s best but +hich can not be depicted in blac0 and +hite for presentation to, and ad,udication
by the Courts. Aor one thin%, if this Court assu&ed the po+er to deter&ine +hether Os&e(a conduct
constituted disorderly behaviour, it +ould thereby have assu&ed appellate ,urisdiction, +hich the Constitution
never intended to confer upon a coordinate branch of the <overn&ent. 4he theory of separation of po+ers
fastidiously observed by this Court, de&ands in such situation a prudent refusal to interfere. Each depart&ent,
it has been said, had e=clusive co%ni2ance of &atters +ithin its ,urisdiction and is supre&e +ithin its o+n
sphere. GAn%ara $s. Electoral Co&&ission, #8 Phil., 8".I
'EC. 7$$. )#dicial *nterference with +egislat#re. F 4he principle is +ell established that the
courts +ill not assu&e a ,urisdiction in any case a&ount to an interference by the ,udicial
depart&ent +ith the le%islature since each depart&ent is e3ually independent +ithin the
po+er conferred upon it by the Constitution. . . . .
4he %eneral rule has been applied in other cases to cause the courts to refuse to intervene in
+hat are e=clusively le%islative functions. 4hus, +here the stated 'enate is %iven the po+er to
e=a&ple a &e&ber, the court +ill not revie+ its action or revise e$en a "ost arbitrar% or #nfair
decision. G A&. Jur., Const. Ja+, sec. p. "$7.I NE&phasis Ours.O.
4he above state&ent of A&erican la+ &erely abrid%ed the land&ar0 case of Cli,ord $s. French.
@
>n "$/,
several senators +ho had been e=pelled by the 'tate 'enate of California for havin% ta0en a bribe, )led
&anda&us proceedin% to co&pel reinstate&ent, alle%in% the 'enate had %iven the& no hearin%, nor a chance
to &a0e defense, besides falsity of the char%es of bribery. 4he 'upre&e Court of California declined to
interfere , e=plainin% in orthodo= ,uristic lan%ua%e5
-nder o#r for" of go$ern"ent, the .#dicial de'art"ent has no 'ower to re$ise e$en the "ost
arbitrar% and #nfair action of the legislati$e de'art"ent, or of either ho#se thereof, ta/ing in
'#rs#ance of the 'ower co""itted e(cl#si$el% to that de'art"ent b% the Constit#tion. >t has
been held by hi%h authority that, even in the absence of an e=press provision conferrin% the
po+er, every le%islative body in +hich is vested the %eneral le%islative po+er of the state has
the i&plied 'ower to e('el a "e"ber for an% ca#se which it "a% dee" su?icient. >n &iss. $s.
Barlett, 8 <ray !@8, #8 A&. 9ec. @#E, the supre&e court of Mass. says, in substance, that this
po+er is inherent in e$er% legislati$e bod%0 that it is necessar% to the to enable the bod% 1to
'erfor" its high f#nctions, and is necessar% to the safet% of the state01 1That it is a 'ower of
self2'rotection, and that the legislati$e bod% "#st necessaril% be the sole .#dge of the e(igenc%
which "a% .#stif% and re3#ire its e(ercise. 1. . . There is no 'ro$ision a#thorit% co#rts to
control, direct, s#'er$ise, or forbid the e(ercise b% either ho#se of the 'ower to e('el a
"e"ber. These 'owers are f#nctions of the legislati$e de'art"ent and therefore, in the
e(ercise of the 'ower this co""itted to it, the senate is s#'re"e. An atte"'t b% this co#rt to
direct or control the legislat#re, or either ho#se thereof, in the e(ercise of the 'ower, wo#ld be
an atte"'t to e(ercise legislati$e f#nctions, +hich it is e=pressly forbidden to do.
6e have underscored in the above 3uotation those lines +hich in our opinion e&phasi2e the principles
controllin% this liti%ation. Althou%h referrin% to e=pulsion, they &ay as +ell be applied to other disciplinary
action. 4heir %ist as applied to the case at bar5 the .ouse has e=clusive po+er1 the co#rts ha$e no .#risdiction
to interfere.
Our refusal to intervene &i%ht i&press so&e readers as subconscious hesitation due to discovery of
i&per&issible course of action in the le%islative cha&ber. Nothin% of that sort5 +e &erely refuse to disre%ard
the allocation of constitutional functions +hich it is our special duty to &aintain. >ndeed, in the interest of
Page 4 of 10
co&ity, +e feel bound to state that in a conscientious survey of %overnin% principles andBor episodic
illustrations, +e found the .ouse of Representatives of the Knited 'tates ta0in% the position upon at least t+o
occasions, that 'ersonal attac/s #'on the Chief E(ec#ti$e constitute unparlia&entary conduct or breach of
orders.
E
And in several instances, it too0 action a%ainst o?enders, e$en after other b#siness had been
considered.
"
Petitioner;s principal ar%u&ent a%ainst the .ouse;s po+er to suspend is the Ale,andrino precedent. >n "7!,
'enator Ale,andrino +as, by resolution of 'enate, suspended fro& o?ice for 7 &onths because he had
assaulted another &e&ber of the that Body or certain phrases the latter had uttered in the course of a debate.
4he 'enator applied to this Court for reinstate&ent, challen%in% the validity of the resolution. Althou%h this
Court held that in vie+ of the separation of po+ers, it had no ,urisdiction to co&pel the 'enate to reinstate
petitioner, it nevertheless +ent on to say the 'enate had no po+er to adopt the resolution because suspension
for 7 &onths a&ounted to re&oval, and the Jones Ja+ Gunder +hich the 'enate +as then functionin%I %ave
the 'enate no 'ower to re"o$e an a''ointi$e "e"ber, li0e 'enator Ale,andrino. 4he Jones Ja+ speci)cally
provided that *each house &ay punish its &e&bers for disorderly behaviour, and, +ith the concurrence of t+oM
thirds votes, e=pel an electi$e &e&ber Gsec. EI. Note particularly the +ord *elective.*
4he Jones Ja+, it &ist be observed, e&po+ered the <overnor <eneral to appoint *+ithout consent of the
'enate and +ithout restriction as to residence senators . . . +ho +ill, in his opinion, best represent the 4+elfth
9istrict.* Ale,andrino +as one appointive 'enator.
>t is true, the opinion in that case contained an obiter dict#" that *suspension deprives the electoral district of
representation +ithout that district bein% a?orded any &eans by +hich to )ll that vacancy.* But that re&ar0
should be understood to refer particularly to the a''ointi$e senator +ho +as then the a?ected party and +ho
+as by the sa&e Jones Ja+ char%ed +ith the duty to represent the 4+elfth 9istrict and &aybe the vie+ of the
<overn&ent of the Knited 'tates or of the <overnorM<eneral, +ho had appointed hi&.
>t &ust be observed, ho+ever, that at that ti"e the Je%islature had only those po+er +hich +ere %ranted to it
by the Jones Ja+
$
1 +hereas now the Congress has the f#ll legislati$e 'owers and 're'rogati$es of a soverei%n
nation, e=cept as restricted by the Constitution. >n other +ords, in the Ale,andrino case, the Court reached the
conclusion that the Jones Ja+ did not gi$e the Senate the po+er it then e=ercisedFthe po+er of suspension for
one year. 6hereas no+, as +e )nd, the Con%ress has the inherent legislati$e 'rerogati$e of s#s'ension

+hich
the Constitution did not i&pair. >n fact, as already pointed out, the Philippine 'enate suspended a 'enator for
7 &onths in "!".
4he Je%islative po+er of the Philippine Con%ress is plenary, sub,ect only to such li&itations are
found in the Republic;s Constitution. 'o that any po+er dee&ed to be le%islative by usa%e or
tradition, is necessarily possessed by the Philippine Con%ress, unless the Constitution provides
other+ise. GDera $s. Avelino, @@ Phil., "7, 77 .I
>n any event, petitioner;s ar%u&ent as to the deprivation of the district;s representation can not be &ore
+ei%htly in the &atter of suspension than in the case of i&prison&ent of a le%islator1 yet deliberative bodies
have the po+er in proper cases, to co&&it one of their &e&bers to ,ail.
7
No+ co&e 3uestions of procedure and ,urisdiction. the petition intended to prevent the 'pecial Co&&ittee
fro& actin% tin pursuance of .ouse Resolution No. /". Because no preli&inary in,unction had been issued, the
Co&&ittee perfor&ed its tas0, reported to the .ouse, and the latter approved the suspension order. 4he .ouse
had closed it session, and the Co&&ittee has ceased to e=ist as such. >t +ould see&, therefore, the case should
be dis&issed for havin% beco&e &oot or acade&ic.
8
Of course, there is nothin% to prevent petitioner fro&
)lin% ne+ pleadin%s to include all &e&bers of the .ouse as respondents, as0 for reinstate&ent and thereby to
present a ,usticiable cause. Most probable outco&e of such refor&ed suit, ho+ever, +ill be a pronounce&ent of
lac0 of ,urisdiction, as in Vera $s. A$elino
!
and Ale.andrino $s. 4e#aon.
/
At any rate, havin% perceived suitable solutions to the i&portant 3uestions of political la+, the Court thou%ht it
proper to e=press at this ti&e its conclusions on such issues as +ere dee&ed relevant and decisive.
ACCOR9>N<JL, the petition has to be, and is hereby dis&issed. 'o ordered.
Paras, C. )., Ba#tista Angelo, Conce'cion, Barrera, 5#tierrez !a$id, Paredes, and !izon, ))., concur.
Page 5 of 10
Se/*r*te O/-+-o+1
RE)ES, ". (. L., J., dissentin%5
> concur +ith the &a,ority that the petition )led by Con%ress&an Os&e(a, Jr. does not &a0e out a case either
for declaratory ,ud%&ent or certiorari, since this Court has no ori%inal ,urisdiction over declaratory ,ud%&ent
proceedin%s, and certiorari is available only a%ainst bodies e=ercisin% ,udicial or 3uasiM,udicial po+ers. 4he
respondent co&&ittee, bein% &erely fact )ndin%, +as not properly sub,ect to certiorari.
> sub&it, ho+ever, that Con%ress&an Os&e(a +as entitled to invo0e the Court;s ,urisdiction on his petition for
a +rit of prohibition a%ainst the co&&ittee, in so far as .ouse Resolution No. /" Gand its se3uel, Resolution
No. @/I constituted an unla+ful atte&pt to divest hi& of an i&&unity fro& censure or punish&ent, an
i&&unity vested under the very Rules of the .ouse of Representatives.
.ouse Rule CD>>, on 9ecoru& and 9ebates, in its section D, provides as follo+s5
>f it is re3uested that a Me&ber be called to order for +ords spo0en in debate, the Me&ber
&a0in% such re3uest shall indicate the +ords e=cepted to, and they shall be ta0en do+n in
+ritin% by the 'ecretary and read aloud to the .ouse1 but the Me&ber +ho uttered the& shall
not be held to ans+er, nor be sub,ect to the censure of the .ouse therefor, if further debate or
other business has intervened.
No+, it is not disputed that after Con%ress&an Os&e(a had delivered his speech and before the .ouse
adopted, )fteen days later, the resolution GNo. /"I creatin% the respondent Co&&ittee and e&po+erin% it to
investi%ate and reco&&end proper action in the case, the .ouse had acted on other &atters and debated
the&. 4hat bein% the case, the Con%ress&an, even before the resolution +as adopted, had ceased to be
ans+erable for the +ords uttered by hi& in his privile%e speech. By the e=press +ordin% of the Rules, he +as
no lon%er sub,ect to censure or disciplinary action by the .ouse. .ence, the resolution, in so far as it atte&pts
to divest hi& of the i&&unity so ac3uired and sub,ect hi& to discipline and punish&ent, +hen he +as
previously not so sub,ect, violates the constitutional inhibition a%ainst e( 'ost facto le%islation, and Resolution
Nos. /" and @/ are le%ally obno=ious and invalid on that score. 4he rule is +ell established that a la+ +hich
deprives an accused person of any substantial ri%ht or i&&unity possessed by hi& before its passa%e is e( 'ost
facto as to prior o?enses GCor. Jur. vol. #MA, section !!, p. /81 People $s. Mc 9onnell, Aed. 'upp. $/1
People $s. 4al0lin%ton, !@ Pac. 7d 8#E1 K. '. $s. <ar)n0el, #" A. 'upp. E!"I.
4he fore%oin% also ans+er the contention that since the i&&unity +as but an e?ect of section @ of .ouse Rule
CD>>, the .ouse could, at any ti&e, re&ove it by a&endin% those Rules, and Resolutions Nos. /" and @/
e?ected such an a&end&ent by i&plication. the ri%ht of the .ouse to a&end its Rules does not carry +ith it
the ri%ht to retroactive divest the petitioner of an i&&unity he had already ac3uired. 4he Bill of Ri%hts is
a%ainst it.
>t is contended that as the liability for his speech attached +hen the Con%ress&an delivered it, the subse3uent
action of the .ouse only a?ected the procedure for dealin% +ith that liability. But +hatever liability
Con%ress&an 'er%io Os&e(a, Jr. then incurred +as e=tin%uished +hen the .ouse thereafter considered other
business1 and this e=tinction is a substantive ri%ht that can not be subse3uently torn a+ay to his disadvanta%e.
On an analo%ous issue, this Court, in Peo'le $s. Parel, !! Phil., !8@ has ruled5
>n re%ards to the point that the sub,ect of prescription of penalties and of penal actions
pertains to re&edial and not substantive la+, it is to be observed that in the 'panish le%al
syste&, provisions for li&itation or prescription of actions are invariably classi)ed as
substantive and not as re&edial la+1 +e thus )nd the provisions for the prescription of cri&inal
actions in the Penal Code and not in the ;Jey de En,uicia&iento Cri&inal.; 4his is in reality a
&ore lo%ical la+. >n cri&inal cases prescription is not, strictly spea0in%, a &atter of procedure1
it bars or cuts o? the ri%ht to punish the cri&e and conse3uently, %oes directly to the substance
of the action. . . . GE&phasis supplied.I.
> see no substantial di?erence, fro& the standpoint of the constitutional prohibition a%ainst e( 'ost facto la+s,
that the ob,ectionable &easures happen to be .ouse Resolutions and not statutes. >n so far as the position of
Page 6 of 10
petitioner Os&e(a is concerned, the essential point is that he is bein% sub,ected to a punish&ent to +hich he
+as for&erly not a&enable. And +hile he +as only &eted out a suspension of privile%es that suspension is as
&uch a penalty as i&prison&ent or a )ne, +hich the .ouse could have in:icted upon hi& had it been so
&inded. 'uch punitive action is violative of the spirit, if not of the letter, of the constitutional provision a%ainst
e( 'ost facto le%islation. Nor is it &aterial that the punish&ent +as in:icted in the e=ercise of disciplinary
po+er. *4he e( 'ost facto e?ect of a la+,* the Aederal 'upre&e Court has ruled, *can not be evaded by %ivin%
civil for& to that +hich is essentially cri&inal* GBur%ess $s. 'al&on, "@ J. Ed. NK. '.O $!, $#1 Cu&&in%s
$s. M>ssouri, E J. Ed. 7@#I.
4he plain purpose of the i&&unity provided by the .ouse rules is to protect the freedo& of action of its
&e&bers and to relieve the& fro& the fear of disciplinary action ta0en upon second thou%ht, as a result of
political convenience, vindictiveness, or pressures. it is unrealistic to overloo0 that, +ithout the i&&unity so
provided, no &e&ber of Con%ress can re&ain free fro& the hauntin% fear that his &ost innocuous e=pressions
&ay at any ti&e after+ards place hi& in ,eopardy of punish&ent +henever a &a,ority, ho+ever transient,
should feel that the shiftin% sands of political e=pediency so de&and. A rule desi%ned to assure that &e&bers
of the .ouse of the .ouse &ay freely act as their conscience and sense of duty should dictate co&ple&ents the
parlia&entary i&&unity fro& outside pressure enshrined in our Constitution, and is certainly deservin% of
liberal interpretation and application.
4he various precedents, cited in the &a,ority opinion, as instances of disciplinary ta0en not+ithstandin%
intervenin% business, are not truly applicable. Of the )ve instances cited by 9esch0ler Gin his edition of
Je?erson;s ManualI, the case of Con%ress&an 6atson of <eor%ia involved also 'rinted dispara%in% re&ar0s by
the respondent G>>> .inds; Precedents, sec. 7#8@I, so that the debate i&&unity rule a?orded no defense1 that of
Con%ress&en 6eaver and 'par0s +as one of censure for actual disorderly conduct G>> .inds, sec. #/@I1 +hile
the cases of Con%ress&en 'tanbery of Ohio, Ale= Jon% of Ohio, and of Jovell Rousseau of -entuc0y G>> .inds,
sec. 7!E, 7/7 and #//I +ere decided under Rule #7 of the K. s. .ouse of Representatives as it stood before
the EE$ a&end&ents, and +as di?erently +orded. 4hus, in the Rousseau case, the rulin% of 'pea0er Colfa=
+as to the follo+in% e?ect G>> .inds; Precedents, pa%e 8I5
4his si=tyMsecond rule is divided in the &iddle a se&icolon, and the Chair as0s the attention of
the %entle&an fro& >o+a GMr. 6ilsonI top the lan%ua%e of that rule, as it settles the +hole
3uestion5
#7. >f a Me&ber be called to order for +ords spo0en in debate, the person callin% hi& to be
order shall repeat the +ords e=cerpted to F
4hat is, the *callin% to order* is *e=ceptin%* to +ords spo0en in debate *and they shall be ta0en
done in +ritin% at the Cler0;s table1 and no Me&ber shall be held to ans+er, or be sub,ect to
the censure of the .ouse, for +ords spo0en, or other business has intervened, after the +ords
spo0en, and before e=ception to the& shall have been ta0en.
4he )rst part of this rule declares that *callin% to order* is *e=ceptin% to +ords spo0en in
debate.* the second part of the rule declares that a Me&ber shall not be held sub,ect to
censure for +ords spo0en in debate if other business has intervened after the +ords have been
spo0en and before *e=ception* to the& has been ta0en. E=ception to the +ords of the
%entle&an fro& >o+a GMr. <rinnellI +as ta0en by the %entle&an fro& >llinois GMr. .ardin%I, the
%entle&an fro& Massachusetts GMr. Ban0sI, the %entle&an fro& -entuc0y GMr. RosseauI, and
also by the 'pea0er of the .ouse, as the records of the Con%ressional <lobe +ill sho+. 4he
distinction is obvious bet+een the t+o parts of the rule. >n the )rst part it spea0s of a Me&ber
e=ceptin% to lan%ua%e of another and havin% the +ords ta0en do+n. >n the last part of the rule
it says he shall not be censured thereafter unless e=ception to his +ords +ere ta0en1 but it
o&its to add as an condition that +ords &ust also have been ta0en do+n. 4he substantial point,
indeed the only point, re3uired in the latter part of the rule is, that e=ception to the
ob,ectionable +ords &ust have ta0en.
4he di?erence bet+een the Rules as invo0ed in these cases and the Rules of our .ouse of Representatives is
easily apparent. As Rule #7 of the Knited 'tates .ouse of Representatives stood before EE$, all that +as
re3uired to preserve the disciplinary po+er of the .ose +as that e(ce'tion sho#ld ha$e been ta/en to the
re&ar0s on the :oor before further debate or other business intervened. Knder the rules of the Philippines
.ouse of Representatives, ho+ever, the i&&unity beco&es absolute if other debate or business has ta0en
place before the &otion for censure is &ade, +hether or not e=ceptions or point of order have been &ade to
the re&ar0s co&plained of at the ti&e they +ere uttered.
Page 7 of 10
6hile it is clear that the parlia&entary i&&unity established in Article D>, section / of our Constitution does
not bar the &e&bers bein% 3uestioned and disciplined by Con%ress itself fro re&ar0s &ade on the :oor, that
disciplinary po+er does not, as > have noted, include the ri%ht to retroactively a&end the rules so as to divest a
&e&ber of an i&&unity already %ained. And if Courts can shield an ordinary citi2en fro& the e?ects of e( 'ost
facto le%islation, > see no reason +hy a &e&ber of Con%ress should be deprived of the sa&e protection. 'urely
&e&bership in the Je%islature does not &ean forfeiture of the liberties en,oyed by the individual citi2en.
4he Constitution e&po+ers each house to deter&ine its rules of proceedin%s. *f "a% not b% its
r#les ignore constit#tional restraint or $iolate f#nda"ental rights and there should be a
reasonable relation bet+een the &ode or &ethod of proceedin% established by the rule and the
result +hich is sou%ht to be attained. But +ithin these li&itation all &atters of &ethod are open
to the deter&ination of the .ouse, and it is no i&peach&ent of the rule to say that so&e other
+ay +ould be better, &ore accurate or even &ore ,ust. GK. '. $s. Ballin, Joseph P Co., 8# Ja+
Ed., 87!M87/.I
Court +ill not interfere +ith the action of the state senate in reconsideration its vote on a
resolution sub&ittin% an a&end&ent to the Constitution, where its action was in co"'liance
with its own r#les, and there was no constit#tional 'ro$ision to the contrar%. GCra+ford $s.
<ilchrist, #! Ala. !, /" 'o. "#8I GE&phasis supplied.I.
Ainally, that this Court possesses no po+er to direct or co&pel the Je%islature to act in any speci)ed &anner,
should not deter it fro& reco%ni2in% and declarin% the unconstitutionality and nullify of the 3uestioned
resolutions and of all action that has been disbanded after the case +as )led, the basic issues re&ain so
i&portant as to re3uire ad,udication by this Court.
L!(R!#OR, J., dissentin%5
> fully concur in the above dissent Mr. Justice J. B. J. Reyes, Reyes, and > venture to add5
6ithin a constitutional %overn&ent and in a re%i&e +hich purports to be one of la+, +here la+ is supre&e,
even the Con%ress in the e=ercise of the po+er conferred upon it to discipline its &e&bers, &ust follo+ the
rules and re%ulation that it had itself pro&ul%ated for its %uidance and for that of its &e&bers. 4he rules in
force at the ti&e Con%ress&an Os&e(a delivered the speech declared by the .ouse to constitutes a disorderly
conduct provides5
. . . but the Me&ber +ho uttered the& shall not be held to ans+er, nor be sub,ect to the
censure of the .ouse therefor, if further debate or other business has intervened. GRule CD>>,
'ec. @, Rules, .ouse of Representatives.I
Con%ress&an Os&e(a delivered the speech in 3uestion on June 78, "#$. >t +as only on July E, or / days after
June 78, $#$ +hen the .ouse created the co&&ittee that +ould investi%ated hi&. Aor fully / days the .ouse
too0 up other &atters. All that +as done, +hile the speech +as bein% delivered, +as to have certains portions
thereof deleted. > hold that pursuant to its o+n Rules the .ouse &ay no lon%er punish Con%ress&an Os&e(a
for the delivered )fteen days before.
4he fact that no action +as pro&ptly ta0en to punish Con%ress&an Os&e(a i&&ediately after its delivery,
e=cept to have so&e part of the speech deleted, sho+ that the &e&bers of the .ouse did not consider
Os&e(a;s speech a disorderly conduct. 4he idea to punish Con%ress&an Os&e(a, +hich ca&e / days after,
+as, therefore, an afterthou%ht. >t is, therefore, clear that Con%ress&an Os&e(a is bein% &ade to ans+er for
an act, after the ti&e durin% +hich he could be punished therefor had lapsed.
4he &a,ority opinion holds that the .ouse can a&end its rules any ti&e. 6e do not dispute this principle, but
+e hold that the .ouse &ay not do so in utter disre%ard of the funda&ental principle of la+ that an
a&end&ent ta0es place only after its approval, or, as in this case, to the e=tent of punishin% an o?ense after
the ti&e to punishin% an had elapsed. 'ince the rule, that a &e&ber can be punished only before other
proceedin%s have intervened, +as in force at the ti&e Con%ress&an Os&e(a delivered his speech, the .ouse
&ay not i%nore said rule. >t is said in the &a,ority opinion that the rule li&itin% the period for i&position of a
penalty for a speech to the day it +as &ade, is &erely one of procedure. 6ith due respect to the &a,ority, +e
Page 8 of 10
do not thin0 that it is &erely a rule of procedure1 +e believe it actually is a li&itation of the ti&e in +hich the
.ouse &ay ta0e punitive action a%ainst an o?endin% &e&ber1 it is alienation Gin reference to ti&eI on the
liability to punish&ent. As Mr. Justice J.B.J., Reyes points out, the rule is substantive, not &erely a procedural
principle, and &ay not be i%nored +hen invo0ed.
>f this <overn&ent of la+s and not of &en, then the .ouse should observe its o+n rule and not violate it by
punishin% a &e&ber after the period for indict&ent and punish&ent had already passed. Not because the
sub,ect of the Philippic is no less than the Chief Ma%istrate of the nation should the rule of the .ouse be
i%nored by itself. >t is true that our <overn&ent is based on the principle of separation of po+ers bet+een the
three branches thereof. > also a%ree to the corollary proposition that this Court should not interfere +ith the
le%islature in the &anner it perfor&s its functions1 but > also hold that the Court cannot abandon its duty to
pronounce +hat the la+ is +hen any of its Gthe .ouseI &e&bers, or any hu&ble citi2en, invo0es the la+.
Con%ress&an Os&e(a had invo0ed the protection of a rule of the .ouse. > believe it is our bounden duty to
state +hat the rule bein% invo0ed by hi& is, to point out the fact that the rule is bein% violated in &etin% out
punish&ent for his speech1 +e should not shir0 our responsibility to declare his ri%hts under the rule si&ply on
the board e=cuse of separation of po+ers. Even the le%islature &ay not i%nore the rule it has pro&ul%ated for
the %overn&ent of the conduct of its &e&bers, and the fact that a coordinate branches of the <overn&ent is
involved, should not deter us fro& perfor&in% our duty. 6e &ay not possess the po+er to enforce our opinion if
the .ouse chooses to disre%ard the sa&e. >n such case the &e&bers thereof stand before the bar of public
opinion to ans+er for their act in i%norin% +hat they the&selves have approved as their nor& of conduct.
Jet it be clearly understood that the +riter of this dissent personally believe that vitreous attac0s a%ainst the
Chief E=ecutive, or any o?icial or citi2en for that &atter, should be conde&ned. But +here the Rules,
pro&ul%ated by the .ouse itself, )= the period durin% +hich punish&ent &ay be &eted out, said Rules should
be enforced re%ardless of +ho &ay be pre,udicated thereby. Only in that +ay &ay the super&acy of the la+ be
&aintained.
'oot+ote1

4hese, e=cept Con%ress&an Abeleda, share the vie+s of petitioner.

7
4enney $s. Brandhove, 8! K. '. 8#@.
8
-ilbourn $s. 4ho&pson, $8 K. '. E"1 .iss. $s. Barlett P <ray. !#E, #8 A&. 9ec. @#E, @@$.
!
Rules of the .ouse not the force of la+, but they are &erely in the nature of byMla+s
prescribed for the orderly and convenient conduct of their o+n proceedin%s. G#@ Corpus Juris
'ecundu&, p. E@$I
/
Corpus Juris 'ecu&du&, p. E@$.
#
'outh <eor%ia Po+er $s. Bau&an, #" <a. #!"1 / s. +. //.
@
!# Cal. #$!1 #" J. R. A. //#.
E
Canno;s Precedents G"8#I par. 7!"@I 6illia& 6illet, Jr. of Ne+ Lor0I1 par. 7!"E GJouis v. Mc
Aadden of PensylvaniaI.
"
Constitution, Je?erson;s Manual and the .ouse of Representative by Jouis 9eschler G"//I p.
8E7.
$
the Jones Ja+ placed *in the hands of the people of the Philippines as lar%e a control of their
do&estic a?airs as can be %iven the&, +ithout in the &eanti&e i&pairin% the ri%hts of
soverei%nty by the people of the Knited 'tates.* GPrea&bleI
Page 9 of 10

Apart fro& the vie+ that po+er to re&ove includes the po+er to suspend asan incident.
GBurnap $s. K. s. 7/7, K. '. /7, #! J. Ed. #"8, #"/.I 4his vie+ is distin%uishable fro& .ebron
$s. Reyes, $! Phil., @/.G'ee <re%ory $s. Mayor, 7 N. E. 7$I But +e need not e=plain this
no+. Enou%h to rely on con%ressional inherent po+er.
7
'ee appendi= par. D>>, Cushin%.
8
4his, apart fro& doubts on GaI our ,urisdiction to entertain ori%inal petitions for declaratory
,ud%&ents, and GbI availability of certiorari or prohibition a%ainst respondents +ho are not
e=ercisin% ,udicial or &inisterial functions GRule #@, sec. and 7I.
!
'ee s#'ra.
/
Phil., E8.
Page 10 of 10