Name of writer (Aspacio)
OSMEÑA VS. PENDATUN 4. Petitioner cited the Alejandrino Case where, in 1924, the Senate’s resolution
Oct. 28, 1960 | Bengzon, J.
PETITIONER: Sergio Osmeña, Jr.
RESPONDENTS: Salipada K. Pendatun, et. al., in their capacity as members of
the Special Committee created by House Resolution No. 59
SUMMARY: Cong. Osmeña, during his privilege speech entitled “A Message to
Garcia”, alleged that President Garcia accepted bribes. A Special Committee was
created through House Resolution No. 59 to investigate Cong. Osmeña’s
allegations against the president. When Cong. Osmeña failed to prove his
allegations, the committee suspended him for 15 months through Resolution No.
175. Cong. Osmeña argued that the Constitution provides that he is privileged
from arrest for any speech made during his attendance in Congress. The SC said
the Congress has the inherent legislative prerogative of suspension. Cong.
Osmeña’s petition was dismissed.
DOCTRINE: Art. VI, Sec. 15, 1935 Constitution. The Senators and Members of
the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach
of peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of the
Congress, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or
debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
FACTS:
1. On 23 June 1960, Cong. Osmeña delivered a 1-hour privilege speech entitled
“A Message to Garcia” where he alleged that “pardons are for sale, and that
regardless of the gravity or seriousness of a criminal case, the culprit can
always be bailed out forever from jail as long as he can come across with a
handsome dole”.
2. A Special Committee was created through House Resolution No. 59 which
was tasked to investigate Cong. Osmeña’s allegations. On 18 July 1960, after
failing to prove his allegations, Cong. Osmeña was declared guilty of serious
disorderly behavior by the committee and was suspended for 15 months
through Resolution No. 175.
3. Cong. Osmeña argued that (1) the Resolution violated his Constitutional
absolute parliamentary immunity for speeches delivered in the House; (2) his
words constituted no actionable conduct; (3) the House took up other
business after his speech and Rule XII, sec. 7 of the Rules of House provides
that if other business has intervened after a member had uttered obnoxious
words in a debate, he shall not be held to answer or be subject to censure by
the House; and that (4) the House has no power, under the Constitution, to
suspend one of its members.
for Senator Alejandrino’s suspension was lifted because the Jones Law did
not give power to the senate to remove an appointive member like Sen.
Alejandrino.
5. Respondents (1) challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the
petition, (2) defended the power of Congress to discipline its members with
suspension, (3) upheld House Resolution No. 175 and then argued that (4)
Congress ended its session on July 18, 1960, therefor the Committee, whose
members are the sole respondents, had thereby ceased to exist.
ISSUE/s:
1. W/N House Resolution No. 59 violated Cong. Osmeña’s immunity. – NO
RULING: Petition dismissed.
RATIO:
1. SC said the Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a
fundamental privilege cherished in every legislative assembly in the
democratic world. However, for unparliamentary conduct, members of
Parliament or of Congress have been, or could be censured, committed to
prison, even expelled by the votes of their colleagues, and to cite an example,
in April 1949, the Philippine Senate suspended a senator for 1 year.
2. The House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior because the
matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of which the House knows
best. If the Court assumed the power to determine whether Cong. Osmeña’s
conduct constituted disorderly behavior, it would thereby have assumed
appellate jurisdiction, which the Constitution never intended to confer upon
a coordinate branch of the Government.
3. The Rules of House may be suspended. Resolution No. 59 was unanimously
approved by the House which amounts to a suspension of the House Rules.
It has been said that “Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with
their observance, the courts have no concern. They may be waived or
disregarded by the legislative body”.
4. The Congress has the full legislative powers and prerogatives of a sovereign
nation, except as restricted by the Constitution. In the Alejandrino Case, the
Legislature only had the powers granted to it by the Jones Law. Now, the
Court finds that the Congress has the inherent legislative prerogative of
suspension which the Constitution does not impair.