PAGE __ of

NAME
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. IRENE D. VALONES
-

-|

PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS: NICANOR T. JIMENEZ, ET AL., VS

DEFENDANT AND APPELLEEBARTOLOME CABANGBANG
G.R. NO. L-15905 | AUGUST 3, 1966

FACTS:
Respondent Cabangbang was a congressman when he wrote an open letter to the President and caused the
same to be published in several newspapers of general circulation. The letter allegedly maligned several
officials of the AFP, including petitioners Col. Jimenez et al., associating them in purported operational plans
for a coup d’état. Jimenez et al. instituted this present action for recovery of damages for libel against
Cabangbang. In his defense, Cabangbang invoked parliamentary immunity averring the letter is a privileged
communication under Art VI, Sec 15 (now 11) of the Constitution.

ISSUES:
Is the letter in question a privileged communication protected by Art VI, Sec 15 (now 11) of the Constitution?

RULING:
No. Under the provisions of sec. 15, Article VI of the Constitution, "speech or debate therein" only refers to
the utterances made by Congress members in the performance of their official duties, such as delivering
speeches, making statements, or casting votes in the Congressional hall while the same is in session. It could
also refer to the introduction of bills in Congress, whether it is session or not, and other acts performed by
Congress members in their official capacity whether there was a session or not, whether inside or outside
the premises of one's office.

PRINCIPLES:
“Speech or debate therein (in Congress)” used in Art VI Sec 15 (now sec 11) of the Constitution, refers to
utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions while Congress is in session.
The open letter to the president was made by Cabangbang when Congress was not in session. And in causing
the communication to be so published, Cabangbang was not performing his official duty as a Member of
Congress. Hence, the communication is not absolutely privileged.