Vera Avelino:

E. PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

One final consideration.

The Constitution provides (Article VI, section 15) that "for any speech or
debate" in Congress, Senators and Congressmen "shall not be questioned in
any other place." The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted
this privilege to include the giving of a vote or the. presentation of a
resolution.
"* * * It would be a narrow view of the constitutional provision to limit it to words spoken in debate.
The reason of the rule is as forcible in its application to written reports presented in that body by its
committees, to resolutions offered, which, though in writing, must be reproduced in speech, and to the
act of voting, * * *." (Kilbourn vs. Thompson, 103 U. S., 204; 26 Law. ed., 377, p. 391.)

In the above case, Kilbourn, f or refusing using to answer questions put to

him by the House of Representatives of the United States Congress,
concerning the business of a real estate partnership, was imprisoned for
contempt by resolution of the House. He sued to recover damages from the
sergeant at arms and the congressional members of the committee, who had
caused him to be brought before the House, where he was adjudged to be in
contempt. The Supreme Court of the United States found that the resolution
of the House was void for want of jurisdiction in that body, but the action was
dismissed as to the members of the committee upon the strength of the herein
above-mentioned congressional immunity. The court cited with approval the
following excerpts from an earlier decision of the Supreme Court of
Massachusetts:
'These privileges are thus secured, not with the intention of protecting the members against
prosecutions for their own benefit, but to support the rights of the people, by enabling their
representatives to execute the functions of their office without fear of prosecutions, civil or criminal. I,
therefore, think that the article ought not to be construed strictly, but liberally, that the full design of it
may be answered. * * *" (103 U. S., 203.)

Osmena Pendatun:
Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a f
undamental privilege cherished in every legislative assembly of the
democratic world. As old as the English Parliament, its purpose "is to enable
and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust
with firmness and success" for "it is indispensably necessary that he should
enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the
resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that

liberty may occasion offense." Such immunity has come to this country from
the practices of Parliament as construed and applied by the Congress of the
United States. Its extent and application remain no longer in doubt in so far
as related to the question before us. It guarantees the legislator complete
freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or
civil actions before the courts or any other forum outside of the Congressional
Hall. But it does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative
body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter
disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof. In the United States Congress,
Congressman Fernando Wood of New York was censured for using the
following language on the floor of the House: "A monstrosity, a measure the
most infamous of the many infamous acts of the infamous Congress." (Hinds'
Precedents, Vol. 2, pp. 798799). Two other congressmen were censured for
employing insulting words during debate. (2 Hinds Precedents, 799801). In
one case, a member of Congress was summoned to testify on a statement
made by him in debate, but invoked his parliamentary privilege. The
Committee rejected his plea. (3 Hinds' Precedents 123124.)
For unparliamentary conduct, members of Parliament or of Congress have
been, or could be censured, committed to prison , suspended, even expelled by
the votes of their colleagues
2

From Con Com:

Mr. Padilla. The substance of parliamentary immunity is really the last
sentence.
Mr. Rodrigo. Yes.
Mr. Padilla. And the last sentence is dependent on the attendance to
the deliberations of Congress.