ARTICLE VI - LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

SECTION 11
POBRE vs DEFENSOR SANTIAGO
A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009

FACTS: The Supreme Court dismissed the disbarment charge against the latter
because it is barred by the Constitution from doing so, it manifested “its deep
concern about the language Senator Santiago, a member of the Bar, used in
her speech and its effect on the administration of justice. To the Court, the lady
senator has undoubtedly crossed the limits of decency and good professional
conduct. It is at once apparent that her statements in question were
intemperate and highly improper in substance.”
The Supreme Court also noted that the Rules of the Senate contains a
provision on “Unparliamentary Acts and Language” that enjoins a Senator from
using, under any circumstance, “offensive or improper language against
another Senator or against any public institution” (which means that
parliamentary immunity is not absolute). However, the Court said,
“…as to Senator Santiago’s unparliamentary remarks, the Senate President had
not apparently called her to order, let alone referred the matter to the Senate
Ethics Committee for appropriate disciplinary action, as the Rules dictates under
such circumstance. The lady senator clearly violated the rules of her own
chamber. It is unfortunate that her peers bent backwards and avoided imposing
their own rules on her.”
Section 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives
shall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and
business interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict
of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they
are authors.
Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may
hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat.
Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the
emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected.
Forfeiture of the seat in Congress shall be automatic upon the member’s
assumption of such other office deemed incompatible with his seat in
Congress. However, no forfeiture shall take place if the member of the Congress
holds the other government office in an ex officio capacity, e.g., membership in
the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines of the Chairman,
Committee on Education, in the Senate. Forbidden Office The ban against
appointment to the office created or the emoluments thereof increased shall,
hwever, last only for the duration of the term for which the member of the
Congress was elected.
 ALTERNATIVE DIGEST:
POBRE vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
(A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009)
PETITIONER
Petitioner Antero Pobre made aware to the court the contents of Senator
Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s speech delivered on the senate floor. The following
excerpts are the ones in question:
x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal.
I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel
like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am
nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts
in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if
I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another environment but not
in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x.
According to Pobre, the words of the lady senator were disrespectful and
requested that the latter be disbarred or be subjected to disciplinary action.
RESPONDENT
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago argued that the statements she made
were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity, being
part of a speech she delivered in the discharge of her duty as member of Congress
or its committee. She claims to have made those comments to expose anomalies
with regard to the selection process of the Judicial Bar Council for the next Chief
Justice.
The argument of the respondent is based on Article VI Section 11 which
states that:
"A Senator or Member of the House of Representative shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest
while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held
liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
committee thereof."
ISSUE: Whether Miriam Defensor-Santiago can be charged for her comments on
the Judiciary
HELD: SUPREME COURT: NO.
The court ruled in favor of Defensor-Santiago in this case. The plea of
Senator Santiago for the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment or
disciplinary action is well taken. Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable
criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court.
Despite this, the court feels that the lady senator has gone beyond the
limits of decency and good conduct for the statements made which were
intemperate and highly improper in substance. The court is not hesitant to
impose some form of disciplinary sanctions on her, but the factual and legal
circumstances of this case, however, deter the Court from doing so, even without
any sign of remorse from her.
Petition is DISMISSED