Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Pobre Vs Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Daphne Rodriguez
    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.

    Copyright:

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

    Pobre Vs Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Daphne Rodriguez
    40 views2 pages
    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.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    Pobre vs 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?

    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views2 pages

    Pobre Vs Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Daphne Rodriguez
    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.

    Copyright:

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