Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    75.pobre vs. Senator Defensor Santiago

    Uploaded by

    A M I R A
    1) A complaint was filed against Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago for statements she made on the Senate floor criticizing the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban. 2) In her speech, Defensor-Santiago expressed anger at not being considered for Chief Justice and used offensive language to describe the Supreme Court. 3) The Court dismissed the complaint, citing the constitutional provision granting parliamentary immunity to members of Congress for any speech made during legislative proceedings. However, the Court reminded Defensor-Santiago to show respect for the judiciary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    75.pobre vs. Senator Defensor Santiago

    Uploaded by

    A M I R A
    2K views1 page
    1) A complaint was filed against Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago for statements she made on the Senate floor criticizing the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban. 2) In her speech, Defensor-Santiago expressed anger at not being considered for Chief Justice and used offensive language to describe the Supreme Court. 3) The Court dismissed the complaint, citing the constitutional provision granting parliamentary immunity to members of Congress for any speech made during legislative proceedings. However, the Court reminded Defensor-Santiago to show respect for the judiciary.

    Original Title

    75.Pobre-vs.-Senator-Defensor-Santiago

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A complaint was filed against Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago for statements she made on the Senate floor criticizing the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban. 2) In her speech, Defensor-Santiago expressed anger at not being considered for Chief Justice and used offensive language to describe the Supreme Court. 3) The Court dismissed the complaint, citing the constitutional provision granting parliamentary immunity to members of Congress for any speech made during legislative proceedings. However, the Court reminded Defensor-Santiago to show respect for the judiciary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    75.pobre vs. Senator Defensor Santiago

    Uploaded by

    A M I R A
    1) A complaint was filed against Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago for statements she made on the Senate floor criticizing the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban. 2) In her speech, Defensor-Santiago expressed anger at not being considered for Chief Justice and used offensive language to describe the Supreme Court. 3) The Court dismissed the complaint, citing the constitutional provision granting parliamentary immunity to members of Congress for any speech made during legislative proceedings. However, the Court reminded Defensor-Santiago to show respect for the judiciary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    POBRE v.

    DEFENSOR – SANTIAGO | 75

    THIRD DIVISION
    ANTERO J. POBRE, Complainant, vs. SEN. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, Respondent
    A.C. NO. 7399, August 25, 2009
    VELASCO, JR., J.

    FACTS:
     A sworn letter/complaint was filed by private complainant, Antero J. Pobre, inviting the Court’s
    attention regarding the speech delivered on the Senate floor by Senator Miriam Defensor-
    Santiago:

    “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 surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another environment but not in
    the Supreme Court of idiots.”

     Her speech came as a response to what she believed to be, “an unjust act of the Judicial Bar
    Council (JBC) with regard to the nomination to the soon to be vacated position of Chief that would
    only qualify incumbent justices of the Supreme Court and that non-sitting members of the Court,
    like her, would not be considered for the position of Chief Justice.

     To Pobre, the foregoing statements of the lady Senator reflected a total disrespect towards then
    Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the other members of the Court and constituted direct
    contempt of Court and asks that disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions be taken
    against Senator Defensor-Santiago.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the speech delivered by Senator Defensor-Santiago be a ground for disbarment or be
    subject to disciplinary actions.

    RULING:
    No, the Court sided with Senator Meriam Defensor-Santiago that she should be afforded
    parliamentary immunity as rooted primarily on the provision of Article VI, Section 11 of the
    Constitution, which provides: “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.”

    Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is fundamental privilege cherished in


    every legislative assembly of the democratic world. The Court, however, would be remiss in their duty
    if they let the Senator’s offensive and disrespectful language that definitely tended to denigrate the
    institution pass by.

    It is imperative on the part of Court to re-instill in Senator Defensor-Santiago her duty to


    respect court of justice, especially this Tribunal, and remind her that the parliamentary non-
    accountability thus granted to members of Congress is not to protect them against prosecutions for
    their own benefit, but to enable them, as the people’s representatives, to perform the functions of their
    office without fear of being made responsible before the courts or other forums outside the
    congressional hall. It is intended to protect members of Congress against government pressure and
    intimidation aimed at influencing the decision-making prerogatives of Congress and its members.

    Although Senator Defensor-Santiago has not categorically denied making such statements,
    she has unequivocally said making them as part of her privilege speech. Her implied admission is
    good enough for the court.

    WHEREFORE, the letter-complaint of Antero J. Pobre against Senator/Atty. Miriam Defensor-


    Santiago is, conformably to Article VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution, DISMISSED.

    You might also like