A.C. No.

7399 August 25, 2009 being part of a speech she delivered in the discharge of her duty as
member of Congress or its committee. The purpose of her speech,
ANTERO J. POBRE, Complainant,
according to her, was to bring out in the open controversial
vs.
anomalies in governance with a view to future remedial legislation.
Sen. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, Respondent.
She averred that she wanted to expose what she believed "to be an
DECISION unjust act of the Judicial Bar Council [JBC]," which, after sending out
public invitations for nomination to the soon to-be vacated position
VELASCO, JR., J.: of Chief Justice, would eventually inform applicants that only
In his sworn letter/complaint dated December 22, 2006, with incumbent justices of the Supreme Court would qualify for
enclosures, Antero J. Pobre invites the Court’s attention to the nomination. She felt that the JBC should have at least given an
following excerpts of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s speech advanced advisory that non-sitting members of the Court, like her,
delivered on the Senate floor: would not be considered for the position of Chief Justice.

x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am The immunity Senator Santiago claims is rooted primarily on the
homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded. And I provision of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution, which provides:
am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years "A Senator or Member of the House of Representative shall, in all
in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be
Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member
am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any
surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another environment but speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof."
not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x. Explaining the import of the underscored portion of the provision,
the Court, in Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, said:
To Pobre, the foregoing statements reflected a total disrespect on
the part of the speaker towards then Chief Justice Artemio Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a
Panganiban and the other members of the Court and constituted fundamental privilege cherished in every legislative assembly of the
direct contempt of court. Accordingly, Pobre asks that disbarment democratic world. As old as the English Parliament, its purpose "is to
proceedings or other disciplinary actions be taken against the lady enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his
senator. public trust with firmness and success" for "it is indispensably
necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech and that
In her comment on the complaint dated April 25, 2007, Senator he should be protected from resentment of every one, however,
Santiago, through counsel, does not deny making the aforequoted powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion
statements. She, however, explained that those statements were offense."1
covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity,
As American jurisprudence puts it, this legislative privilege is founded The Court wishes to express its deep concern about the language
upon long experience and arises as a means of perpetuating inviolate Senator Santiago, a member of the Bar, used in her speech and its
the functioning process of the legislative department. Without effect on the administration of justice. To the Court, the lady senator
parliamentary immunity, parliament, or its equivalent, would has undoubtedly crossed the limits of decency and good professional
degenerate into a polite and ineffective debating forum. Legislators conduct. It is at once apparent that her statements in question were
are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of their intemperate and highly improper in substance. To reiterate, she was
legislative duties, not for their private indulgence, but for the public quoted as stating that she wanted "to spit on the face of Chief Justice
good. The privilege would be of little value if they could be subjected Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court," and
to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial upon a calling the Court a "Supreme Court of idiots."
conclusion of the pleader, or to the hazard of a judgment against
The lady senator alluded to In Re: Vicente Sotto.6 We draw her
them based upon a judge’s speculation as to the motives.2
attention to the ensuing passage in Sotto that she should have taken
This Court is aware of the need and has in fact been in the forefront to heart in the first place:
in upholding the institution of parliamentary immunity and
x x x [I]f the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity
promotion of free speech. Neither has the Court lost sight of the
of this Court and believe that they cannot expect justice therefrom,
importance of the legislative and oversight functions of the Congress
they might be driven to take the law into their own hands, and
that enable this representative body to look diligently into every
disorder and perhaps chaos would be the result.1avvphi1
affair of government, investigate and denounce anomalies, and talk
about how the country and its citizens are being served. Courts do No lawyer who has taken an oath to maintain the respect due to the
not interfere with the legislature or its members in the manner they courts should be allowed to erode the people’s faith in the judiciary.
perform their functions in the legislative floor or in committee rooms. In this case, the lady senator clearly violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and
Any claim of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
the statement uttered by the member of the Congress does not respectively provide:
destroy the privilege.3 The disciplinary authority of the assembly4 and
the voters, not the courts, can properly discourage or correct such Canon 8, Rule 8.01.––A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,
abuses committed in the name of parliamentary immunity.5 use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

For the above reasons, the plea of Senator Santiago for the dismissal Canon 11.––A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to
of the complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action is well taken. the courts and to the judicial officers and should insist on similar
Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a conduct by others.
disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court. It is felt, however, Senator/Atty. Santiago is a cut higher than most lawyers. Her
that this could not be the last word on the matter. achievements speak for themselves. She was a former Regional Trial
Court judge, a law professor, an oft-cited authority on constitutional
and international law, an author of numerous law textbooks, and an disgust. Authorities are agreed that parliamentary immunity is not an
elected senator of the land. Needless to stress, Senator Santiago, as individual privilege accorded the individual members of the
a member of the Bar and officer of the court, like any other, is duty- Parliament or Congress for their personal benefit, but rather a
bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court and to privilege for the benefit of the people and the institution that
maintain the respect due its members. Lawyers in public service are represents them.
keepers of public faith and are burdened with the higher degree of
To be sure, Senator Santiago could have given vent to her anger
social responsibility, perhaps higher than their brethren in private
without indulging in insulting rhetoric and offensive personalities.
practice.7Senator Santiago should have known, as any perceptive
individual, the impact her statements would make on the people’s Lest it be overlooked, Senator Santiago’s outburst was directly
faith in the integrity of the courts. traceable to what she considered as an "unjust act" the JBC had taken
in connection with her application for the position of Chief Justice.
As Senator Santiago alleged, she delivered her privilege speech as a
But while the JBC functions under the Court’s supervision, its
prelude to crafting remedial legislation on the JBC. This allegation
individual members, save perhaps for the Chief Justice who sits as the
strikes the Court as an afterthought in light of the insulting tenor of
JBC’s ex-officio chairperson,8 have no official duty to nominate
what she said. We quote the passage once more:
candidates for appointment to the position of Chief Justice. The Court
x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am is, thus, at a loss to understand Senator Santiago’s wholesale and
homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded. indiscriminate assault on the members of the Court and her choice of
And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle critical and defamatory words against all of them.
years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of
At any event, equally important as the speech and debate clause of
Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme
Art. VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution is Sec. 5(5) of Art. VIII of the
Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I
Constitution that provides:
was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another
environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x. (Emphasis Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
ours.)
xxxx
A careful re-reading of her utterances would readily show that her
statements were expressions of personal anger and frustration at not (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
being considered for the post of Chief Justice. In a sense, therefore, constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
her remarks were outside the pale of her official parliamentary the admission to the practice of the law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
functions. Even parliamentary immunity must not be allowed to be assistance to the underprivileged. (Emphasis ours.)
used as a vehicle to ridicule, demean, and destroy the reputation of The Court, besides being authorized to promulgate rules concerning
the Court and its magistrates, nor as armor for personal wrath and pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, exercises specific
authority to promulgate rules governing the Integrated Bar with the fidelity, "not to promote distrust in the administration of justice."
end in view that the integration of the Bar will, among other things: Faith in the courts, a lawyer should seek to preserve. For, to
undermine the judicial edifice "is disastrous to the continuity of
(4) Shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot defend itself
government and to the attainment of the liberties of the people."
except within its own forum, from the assaults that politics and self
Thus has it been said of a lawyer that "[a]s an officer of the court, it
interest may level at it, and assist it to maintain its integrity,
is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy
impartiality and independence;
unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so
xxxx essential to the proper administration of justice."13

(11) Enforce rigid ethical standards x x x.9 The lady senator belongs to the legal profession bound by the
exacting injunction of a strict Code. Society has entrusted that
In Re: Letter Dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel S. Sorreda,10 we profession with the administration of the law and dispensation of
reiterated our pronouncement in Rheem of the Philippines v. justice. Generally speaking, a lawyer holding a government office
Ferrer11 that the duty of attorneys to the courts can only be may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct
maintained by rendering no service involving any disrespect to the committed while in the discharge of official duties, unless said
judicial office which they are bound to uphold. The Court wrote misconduct also constitutes a violation of his/her oath as a lawyer. 14
in Rheem of the Philippines:
Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their
x x x As explicit is the first canon of legal ethics which pronounces that private capacity, as long as their misconduct reflects their want of
"[i]t is the duty of a lawyer to maintain towards the Courts a probity or good demeanor,15 a good character being an essential
respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for
the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme continuance of such privilege. When the Code of Professional
importance." That same canon, as a corollary, makes it peculiarly Responsibility or the Rules of Court speaks of "conduct" or
incumbent upon lawyers to support the courts against "unjust "misconduct," the reference is not confined to one’s behavior
criticism and clamor." And more. The attorney’s oath solemnly binds exhibited in connection with the performance of lawyers’
him to a conduct that should be "with all good fidelity x x x to the professional duties, but also covers any misconduct, which––albeit
courts." unrelated to the actual practice of their profession––would show
Also, in Sorreda, the Court revisited its holding in Surigao Mineral them to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which
Reservation Board v. Cloribel12 that: their license and the law invest in them.16

A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, "like the court itself, an This Court, in its unceasing quest to promote the people’s faith in
instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice." His duty is to courts and trust in the rule of law, has consistently exercised its
uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to which he owes disciplinary authority on lawyers who, for malevolent purpose or
personal malice, attempt to obstruct the orderly administration of against another Senator or against any public institution."19 But as
justice, trifle with the integrity of courts, and embarrass or, worse, to Senator Santiago’s unparliamentary remarks, the Senate President
malign the men and women who compose them. We have done it in had not apparently called her to order, let alone referred the matter
the case of former Senator Vicente Sotto in Sotto, in the case of Atty. to the Senate Ethics Committee for appropriate disciplinary action,
Noel Sorreda in Sorreda, and in the case of Atty. Francisco B. Cruz in as the Rules dictates under such circumstance. 20 The lady senator
Tacordan v. Ang17 who repeatedly insulted and threatened the Court clearly violated the rules of her own chamber. It is unfortunate that
in a most insolent manner. her peers bent backwards and avoided imposing their own rules on
her.
The Court is not hesitant to impose some form of disciplinary
sanctions on Senator/Atty. Santiago for what otherwise would have Finally, the lady senator questions Pobre’s motives in filing his
constituted an act of utter disrespect on her part towards the Court complaint, stating that disciplinary proceedings must be undertaken
and its members. The factual and legal circumstances of this case, solely for the public welfare. We cannot agree with her more. We
however, deter the Court from doing so, even without any sign of cannot overstress that the senator’s use of intemperate language to
remorse from her. Basic constitutional consideration dictates this demean and denigrate the highest court of the land is a clear
kind of disposition. violation of the duty of respect lawyers owe to the courts.21

We, however, would be remiss in our duty if we let the Senator’s Finally, the Senator asserts that complainant Pobre has failed to
offensive and disrespectful language that definitely tended to prove that she in fact made the statements in question. Suffice it to
denigrate the institution pass by. It is imperative on our part to re- say in this regard that, although she has not categorically denied
instill in Senator/Atty. Santiago her duty to respect courts of justice, making such statements, she has unequivocally said making them as
especially this Tribunal, and remind her anew that the parliamentary part of her privilege speech. Her implied admission is good enough
non-accountability thus granted to members of Congress is not to for the Court.
protect them against prosecutions for their own benefit, but to
WHEREFORE, the letter-complaint of Antero J. Pobre against
enable them, as the people’s representatives, to perform the
Senator/Atty. Miriam Defensor-Santiago is, conformably to Art. VI,
functions of their office without fear of being made responsible
Sec. 11 of the Constitution, DISMISSED.
before the courts or other forums outside the congressional hall.18 It
is intended to protect members of Congress against government SO ORDERED.
pressure and intimidation aimed at influencing the decision-making
prerogatives of Congress and its members.

The Rules of the Senate itself contains a provision