OSMENA, JR VS PENDATUN

G. R. No. L-17144, October 28, 1960

Facts:

Congressman Osmena took the floor on one-hour privilege speech before the
House of Representatives entitled ‘A Message to Garcia’ wherein said speech
contained serious imputations of bribery against the President. For this, a
resolution was passed by the House which created a special committee to
investigate the allegations made by the petitioner, and ordered the petitioner go
before the House to substantiate his claims, and if in in case he fails to do so, to
show cause why he should not be punished for his statements. Thus, petitioner
filed a petition for declaratory relief, certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction, against the members of the committee.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the disciplinary action by the Congressman is in violation of

Section 15, Article VI of the Constitution, considering that the petitioner’s
contention that the resolution violates his parliamentary immunity speeches
delivered in Congress and contrasting further that respondent averred that the
supreme court has no jurisdiction over the matters and Congress has the power to
discipline its members.

RULING:

No, the disciplinary action is not in violation of the constitution.

Under Section 15, Article VI of the 1935 Constitution provides that “for any
speech or debate in Congress, the Senators or Members of the House of
Representative shall not be questioned in any other place.”

In this case, the legislators have total complete guarantees in 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. Although
exempt from prosecution or civil actions for their word uttered in Congress, the
members of Congress may, nevertheless, be questioned in Congress itself in which
they are observed that “they shall not be questioned in any other place” in
Congress.
 JIMENEZ VS CABANGBANG
G. R. No. L-15905, August 3, 1966

Facts:

Defendant Cabangbang was a member of the House of Representatives and

Chairman of its Committee on National Defense. He wrote an open letter to the
President and caused its publication in several newspapers of general circulation
exposing the alleged operational plans by some ambitious AFP officers regarding a
massive political build-up of the Secretary of National Defense, Jesus Vargas to
prepare him to become a candidate for president in 1961.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the publication in question is a privileged communication,

considering that the petitioner alleged that such open letter was written by
Cabangbang knowing the same to be false and with the intent to impeach their
reputation, to expose them to public hatred, contempt, dishonor and ridicule, and to
alienate them from their associates, and contrasting further that the respondent’s
contention that the letter in question is not liable and even if it were, it is
considered a privileged communication.

RULING:

No, the publication could not be classified as privileged form of

communication.

Under the provision of Sec. 15, Article VI of the Constitution, “speech or

debate therein” only refers to the utterances made by the Congress members in the
performance of their duties, such as delivering speeches, making statements, or
casting votes in the Congressional hall while in the same is in session.

In this case, the publication does not qualify as privileged communication

because at the time the letter was sent, the Congress was not in session, thus
Cabangbang was not performing his official duty, either as a member of Congress
or as officer or any Committee thereof in causing the communication to be
published.
 PUYAT VS DE UZMAN
G. R. No. L-51122, March 25, 1982

Facts:

A petition for certiorari and prohibition with a preliminary injunction was filed by
the petitioners to question the order of the SEC associate commissioner which granted the
motion for intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez to intervene in a SEC case involving
the directors of International Pipe Industries Corporation. The case stemmed from the
controversy surrounding the election of the board of directors of the said corporation,
where one group, the Puyat group, won. The other group, the Acero group, contested this
by filing a case before the SEC. in the conferences of the parties before the SEC.
Assemblyman Fernandez already entered his appearance as counsel, to which the
petitioners objected to. Thus, the Assemblyman stopped his appearance before the SEC.
Before the case was heard before the SEC, Assemblyman Fernandez bought shares of
stock in the corporation, and the following day, he filed his motion to intervene in the
case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Assemblyman Fernandez as a stockholder of IPI, may

intervene in the SEC case without violating Sec. 11, Article VIII, considering the
petitioners claimed that at conferences of the parties with SEC Commissioner De
Guzman, Justice Fernandez and member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa, orally
entered an appearance as counsel for respondent Acero which the Puyat Group
objected on Constitutional grounds.

RULING:

No, Assemblyman Fernandez cannot intervene in the SEC case under the
guise that he is not appearing as a counsel.

Under Sec. 11, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution provided that no
Assemblyman could “appear as counsel before….any administrative body.”

In this case, the Court en banc said that ordinarily, by virtue of the Motion
for Intervention, Assemblyman Fernandez cannot be said to be appearing as
counsel. His appearance could theoretically be for the protection of his ownership
of ten (10) IPI shares. Hence, what could be done directly could likewise be done
indirectly.