THIRD DIVISION

ANTERO J. POBRE, Complainant

VS.
SEN. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, Respondent
A.C. NO. 7399, August 25, 2009

VELASCO, JR., J.

FACTS:

A sworn letter/complaint was filed by private complainant, Antero J. Pobre, inviting the
Court’s attention regarding the speech delivered on the Senate floor by Senator Miriam
Defensor-Santiago:

“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 surrounded by idiots. I
would rather be in another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots”

Her speech came as a response to what she believed to be, “ an unjust act of the
Judicial Bar Council (JBC) with regard to the nomination to the soon to be vacated
position of Chief that would only qualify incumbent justices of the Supreme Court and
that non-sitting members of the Court, like her, would not be considered for the position
of Chief Justice.

To Pobre, the foregoing statements of the lady Senator reflected a total disrespect
towards then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the other members of the Court
and constituted direct contempt of Court and asks that disbarment proceedings or other
disciplinary actions be taken against Senator Defensor-Santiago.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the speech delivered by Senator Defensor-Santiago be a ground for

disbarment or be subject to disciplinary actions.

RULINGS:

No, the Court sided with Senator Meriam Defensor-Santiago that she should be
afforded parliamentary immunity as rooted primarily on the provision of Article VI,
Section 11 of the Constitution, which provides: “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.”

Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is fundamental privilege

cherished in every legislative assembly of the democratic world. The Court, however,
would be remiss in their duty if they let the Senator’s offensive and disrespectful
language that definitely tended to denigrate the institution pass by. It is imperative on
the part of Court to re-instill in Senator Defensor-Santiago her duty to respect court of
justice, especially this Tribunal, and remind her that the parliamentary non-
accountability thus granted to members of Congress is not to protect them against
prosecutions for their own benefit, but to enable them, as the people’s representatives,
to perform the functions of their office without fear of being made responsible before the
courts or other forums outside the congressional hall. It is intended to protect members
of Congress against government pressure and intimidation aimed at influencing the
decision-making prerogatives of Congress and its members.

Although Senator Defensor-Santiago has not categorically denied making such

statements, she has unequivocally said making them as part of her privilege speech.
Her implied admission is good enough for the court.

WHEREFORE, the letter-complaint of Antero J. Pobre against Senator/Atty. Miriam

Defensor-Santiago is, conformably to Article VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution,
DISMISSED.
 EN BANC

DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO, and SALVADOR M. VIARI, Petioner

VS.
RICHARD J. GORDON, Respondent.
G.R. NO. 175352, July 15, 2009

CARPIO, J.

FACTS: