Osemeña v. Pendatun (1960) | No. L-17144 | October 28, 1960 | Ponente: Bengzon, J.

Nature of the Case: Original action in the Supreme Court. Declaratory relief and/or certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction.
Petitioner(s): Sergio Osmeña, Jr.
Respondent(s): Salipada Pendatun, Leon Guinto, Jr., Vicente Peralta, Faustino Tobia, Lorenzo Teves, Jose Roy, Fausto
Dugenio, Anton de Pio, Benjamin Ligot, Pedro Trono, Felipe Abrigo, Felipe Abeleda, Tecla San Andres Ziga, Angel
Fernandez, and Eugenio Baltao (in their capacity as members of the Special Committee created by House Resolution
No. 59)

SUMMARY: Osmeña, in his privilege speech as a Governor, accused the President for bribery. House of
Representatives issued House Resolution No. 59 creating a special committee to investigate this, which they see as
an assault to the Office of the President. Osmeña filed this petition to annul HR#59, invoking his parliamentary
immunity. Court dismissed petition for its lack of jurisdiction (separation of powers).
DOCTRINE: Discipline of members of the House of Representatives

FACTS:
 June 23, 1960: Congressman Sergio Osmeña (2nd District of Cebu) delivered a privilege speech calling
out/accusing the President for bribery. This was seen as a serious assault upon the dignity of the Office of
the President.
 July 8: House of Representatives (House) issued House Resolution No. 59 (HR#) creating a special committee
(committee) consisting of 15 members of the House to investigate the truth of his allegations. It authorized
the committee to summon Osmeña to appear before it to substantiate his charges, and if he fails to do so to
require him to show cause as why he should not be punished by the House.
 July 14: Osmeña filed a petition for declaratory relief, certiorari, and prohibition with preliminary injunction
against the members of the committee. He asked for annulment of HR#59 on grounds that it infringes his
parliamentary immunity.
 July 18: House issued HR#175 finding Osmeña guilty of serious disorderly behavior, suspending him for 15
months. (Osmeña failed to prove his allegations of bribery).
 July 19: Respondents filed their answer to Osmeña’s petition. They challenged the SC’s jurisdiction,
defended the House’s power to punish its members, and contend that committee has ceased to exist.

ISSUES + RULINGS:
1. WON HR#59 violated Osmeña’s parliamentary immunity? – NO
 Sec 15 Art 6 of 1935 Consti: “for any speech or debate” in Congress, or members of the House “shall not
be questioned in any other place.”
o Although exempt from prosecution or civil actions for their words uttered in Congress, the
members of Congress may be questioned in Congress itself.
o Parliamentary immunity guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear
of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before the courts or any other
forum outside of the Congressional Hall, but is does not protect him from responsibility before
the legislative body itself.
2. WON Osmeña’s speech constituted disorderly behavior? – YES
 House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior because the Constitution conferred it
jurisdiction, and because the matter at hand depends mainly on factual circumstances of which the
House knows best.
 If Court assumes power to decide this, it would be deemed to have assumed appellate jurisdiction,
which the Constitution never intended to confer upon a coordinate branch of the Government.
3. WON the House can suspend House Rules to hold Osmeña liable after time to do so has elapsed? – YES
 HR#59 was unanimously approved by the House, and such unanimous consent amounts to suspension of
the House Rules.
 Rules adopted by deliberative bodies are subject to revocation, modification, or waiver at the pleasure
of the body adopting them.
 Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and the courts have no concern with their observance. They
may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body.
 Mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action when the requisite number
of members have agreed to a particular/different measure/procedure.
4. WON the Court can review the acts of the House? – NO
 The judicial department has no power to revise even the most arbitrary and unfair action of the
legislative department.
 The legislative body is the sole judge of the exigency which may justify and require its exercise.
 When the House has exclusive power, the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere.

FINAL RULING: Petition DISMISSED.

DISSENTS:
Reyes, J.:
 Osmeña was entitled to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction since HR#59 constituted an unlawful attempt to
divest him of an immunity already vested in him.
 By expressed wording of House Rule 17, he was no longer subject to censure or disciplinary action by the
House. Immunity becomes absolute if other debate or business has taken place before the motion for
censure is made, whether or not exceptions or point of order have been made to the remarks complained of
at the time they were uttered
 HR#59 and #175 violates constitutional inhibition against ex post facto legislation, thus invalid. It deprives
Osmeña of his immunity which he possessed before its passage.
 Right of the House to amend its Rules does not carry with it the right to retroactively divest Osmeña of his
immunity. He shouldn’t be subjected to punishment which he was formerly not amenable. It’s against the
Bill of Rights.
 The plain purpose of the immunity provided by the House Rules is to protect the freedom of action of its
members and to relieve them from the fear of disciplinary action.
 The fact that the Court possesses no power to direct or compel the Legislature should not deter it from
recognizing and declaring the unconstitutionality and nullify of the questioned resolutions.

Labrador, J.:
 Concurs with dissent of Justice Reyes.
 Congress must follow the rules and regulations that it had itself promulgated for its guidance and for that of
its members.
 Pursuant to its own Rules the House may no longer punish Osmeña for the speech delivered fifteen days
before.
 House may amend its Rules anytime but it may not do so in utter disregard of the fundamental principle of
law that an amendment takes place only after its approval, or, as in this case, to the extent of punishing an
offense after the time to punishing an had elapsed.
 Rule 17 was substantive, not merely a procedural principle, and may not be ignored when invoked.
 Court should not interfere with the legislature in the manner it performs its functions; but the Court cannot
abandon its duty to pronounce what the law is when any of its (the House) members, or any humble citizen,
invokes the law.
 Attacks against the Chief Executive should be condemned, but where the Rules fix the period during which
punishment may be meted out, said Rules should be enforced regardless of who may be prejudicated.

NOTE:
 Rule XVII, sec. 7 of the Rules of House provides that if other business has intervened after the member had
uttered obnoxious words in debate, he shall not be held to answer therefor nor be subject to censure by the
House.