Art.

6
Sec. 6-11
Jimenez v. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 876
17 SCRA 876 Political Law Freedom of Speech and Debate
Bartolome Cabangbang was a member of the House of Representatives and
Chairman of its Committee on National Defense. In November 1958, Cabangbang
caused the publication of an open letter addressed to the Philippines. Said letter
alleged that there have been allegedly three operational plans under serious study by
some ambitious AFP officers, with the aid of some civilian political strategists. That
such strategists have had collusions with communists and that the Secretary of
Defense, Jesus Vargas, was planning a coup dtat to place him as the president. The
planners allegedly have Nicanor Jimenez, among others, under their guise and that
Jimenez et al may or may not be aware that they are being used as a tool to meet such
an end. The letter was said to have been published in newspapers of general
circulation. Jimenez then filed a case against Cabangbang to collect a sum of damages
against Cabangbang alleging that Cabangbangs statement is libelous. Cabangbang
petitioned for the case to be dismissed because he said that as a member of the lower
house, he is immune from suit and that he is covered by the privileged communication
rule and that the said letter is not even libelous.
ISSUE: Whether or not the open letter is covered by privilege communication
endowed to members of Congress.
HELD: No. Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution provides The Senators and
Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony, and
breach of the peace. Be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions
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.
The publication of the said letter is not covered by said expression which refers to
utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions, such
as speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress, while
the same is in session as well as bills introduced in Congress, whether the same is in
session or not, and other acts performed by Congressmen, either in Congress or
outside the premises housing its offices, in the official discharge of their duties as
members of Congress and of Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform
its functions as such at the time of the performance of the acts in question. Congress
was not in session when the letter was published and at the same time he, himself,
caused the publication of the said letter. It is obvious that, in thus causing the
communication to be so published, he was not performing his official duty, either as a
member of Congress or as officer of any Committee thereof. Hence, contrary to the
finding made by the lower court the said communication is not absolutely privileged.

Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago, 597 SCRA 1

PETITIONER
Petitioner Antero Pobre made aware to the court the contents of Senator Miriam DefensorSantiagos speech delivered on the senate floor. The following excerpts are the ones in
question:
x x x 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 x x x.
According to Pobre, the words of the lady senator were disrespectful and requested that the
latter be disbarred or be subjected to disciplinary action.
RESPONDENT
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago argued that the statements she made 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. She claims to have made
those comments to expose anomalies with regard to the selection process of the Judicial Bar
Council for the next Chief Justice.
The argument of the respondent is based on Article VI Section 11 which states that:
"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."
ISSUE
WON Miriam Defensor-Santiago can be charged for her comments on the Judiciary
SUPREME COURT: NO.
The court ruled in favor of Defensor-Santiago in this case. The plea of Senator Santiago for
the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action is well taken. Indeed, her
privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules
of Court.
Despite this, the court feels that the lady senator has gone beyond the limits of decency and
good conduct for the statements made which were intemperate and highly improper in
substance. The court is not hesitant to impose some form of disciplinary sanctions on her, but
the factual and legal circumstances of this case, however, deter the Court from doing so, even
without any sign of remorse from her.
Petition is DISMISSED