Osmena vs.

Pendatun
G.R. No. L-17144
October 28, 1960
BENGZON, J.

Article 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity. - The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon
any person who shall use force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any member of the National
Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) from attending the meetings of the Assembly (Congress) or of
any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof,
from expressing his opinions or casting his vote; and the penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed
upon any public officer or employee who shall, while the Assembly (Congress) is in regular or special
session, arrest or search any member thereof, except in case such member has committed a crime
punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor.

FACTS: The petitioner, in his privilege speech before the House of Representatives,
accused the President of the Philippines of selling things such as pardons at premium
prices. For this, a resolution was passed by the House which created a special
committee to investigate the allegations made by the petitioner, and ordered the
petitioner go before the House to substantiate his claims, and if in in case he fails to do
so, to show cause why he should not be punished for his statements. Thus, petitioner
filed a petition for declaratory relief, certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction,
against the members of the committee tasked to investigate his allegations, on the
ground that his parliamentary immunity would be violated by the investigation and the
orders issued against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has complete parliamentary immunity as provided by

the Constitution

RULING: Petitioner has immunity but it does not protect him from responsibility before
the legislative body itself as stated in the provision that “xxx shall not be questioned in
any other place”. For unparliamentary conduct, members of the Congress have been, or
could be censured, committed to prison, even expelled by the votes of their colleagues.
Martirez vs. Morfe
G.R. No. L-34022
March 24, 1972
FERNANDO, J.

Article 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity. - The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon
any person who shall use force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any member of the National
Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) from attending the meetings of the Assembly (Congress) or of
any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof,
from expressing his opinions or casting his vote; and the penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed
upon any public officer or employee who shall, while the Assembly (Congress) is in regular or special
session, arrest or search any member thereof, except in case such member has committed a crime
punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor.

FACTS: Manuel Martinez and Fernando Bautista, Sr. were delegates to the
1972 Constitutional Convention. Both were facing criminal prosecutions. Martinez was
charged for falsification of a public document before the sala of Judge Jesus Morfe.
While Bautista was charged for violation of the Revised Election Code. The two were
later arrested, this is while the Constitutional Convention was still in session. They now
assail the validity of their arrest. They contend that under the 1935 Constitution, they
are immune from arrest because the charges upon which they were arrested are within
the parliamentary immunity.

ISSUE: Whether or not Martinez and Bautista are immune from arrest.

RULING: No. There is, to be sure, a full recognition of the necessity to have members
of Congress, and likewise delegates to the Constitutional Convention. They are
accorded the constitutional immunity of senators and representatives from arrest during
their attendance at the sessions of Congress and in going to and returning from the
same except in cases of treason, felony and breach of the peace. In the case at bar, the
crimes for which Martinez and Bautista were arrested fall under the category 0f “breach
of peace”. Breach of the peace covers any offense whether defined by the Revised
Penal Code or any special statute. Therefore, Martinez and Bautista cannot invoke the
privilege from arrest provision of the Constitution.