Pobre v.

Defensor Santiago
597 SCRA 1
Facts:
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:
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.
According to Pobre, the words of the lady senator were disrespectful and requested that the
latter be disbarred or be subjected to disciplinary action.
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
Whether or not Miriam Defensor-Santiago can be charged for her comments on the Judiciary
Ruling:
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.
The petition is dismissed.