[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
70 views2 pages

Pobre Vs Santiago

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered a speech on the Senate floor criticizing then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the Supreme Court. Antero Pobre filed a complaint seeking Santiago's disbarment for disrespecting the judiciary. Santiago claimed parliamentary immunity as the statements were part of her legislative duties. The court ruled in favor of Santiago, stating that as a Senator she has immunity from suit for any speech or debate in Congress per the Constitution, and that this protection is necessary for legislators to freely exercise their liberty of speech.

Uploaded by

Daphne Rodriguez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
70 views2 pages

Pobre Vs Santiago

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered a speech on the Senate floor criticizing then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the Supreme Court. Antero Pobre filed a complaint seeking Santiago's disbarment for disrespecting the judiciary. Santiago claimed parliamentary immunity as the statements were part of her legislative duties. The court ruled in favor of Santiago, stating that as a Senator she has immunity from suit for any speech or debate in Congress per the Constitution, and that this protection is necessary for legislators to freely exercise their liberty of speech.

Uploaded by

Daphne Rodriguez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ANTERO J.

POBRE, Complainant,
vs.
Sen. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, Respondent.
A.C. No. 7399 | August 25, 2009

Facts:
Petitioner Antero Pobre filed a sworn/complaint against Senator Miriam
Defensor-Santiago regarding the latter’s speech delivered on the Senate floor:

“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.”

To Pobre, the above-mentioned statements reflected a total disrespect on


the part of Sen. Santiago towards then Chief Justice Panganiban. Accordingly, the
former asks that disbarment proceedings and other disciplinary actions be taken
against the latter.

In her comment, Sen. Santiago does not deny making such statements. She
contends that those statements 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. Also, she wanted to expose
what she believes “to be an unjust act of the Judicial Bar Council.”

Issue:
Whether Sen. Santiago can be charged for her comments on the Judiciary
during here privilege speech.

Ruling:
No. The court sided we Sen. Santiago’s defense that she should be she
should be afforded parliamentary immunity from suit pursuant to Art. VI, Section
11 of the Constitution stating “no senator shall be questioned nor be held liable in
any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee
thereof.” In addition to this, “it is indispensably necessary that he should enjoy
the fullest liberty of speech and that he should be protected from resentment of
everyone, however, powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion
offense.” Although she has not categorically denied making such statements, her
implied admission is good enough for the court.

You might also like