Pobre vs Defensor-Santiago

Facts:
Pobre asks that disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions be taken against Sen. Santiago on her speech
she delivered in the discharge of her duty as member of the Congress on the Senate floor insulting the Judicial Bar
Council and Chief Justice Panganiban. The following ecerpts of Senator !iriam "efensor#Santiago$s speech
delivered on the Senate floor:
% am not angry. % am irate. % am foaming in the mouth. % am homicidal. % am suicidal. % am humiliated& debased&
degraded. 'nd % am not only that& % feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. % am
nauseated. % spit on the face of Chief Justice 'rtemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court& % am no
longer interested in the position (of Chief Justice) if % was to be surrounded by idiots. % would rather be in another
environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots . Senator Santiago& through counsel& does not deny making
the afore*uoted statements. She& however& eplained that those statements 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. The purpose of her speech& according to her& was to bring out in the open controversial
anomalies in governance with a view to future remedial legislation. The immunity Senator Santiago claims is rooted
primarily on the provision of 'rticle +%& Section ,, of the Constitution& which provides: -' Senator or !ember of the
.ouse of /epresentative shall& in all offenses punishable by not more than si years imprisonment& be privileged
from arrest while the Congress is in session. 0o member shall be *uestioned nor be held liable in any other place
for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.1
2plaining the import of the underscored portion of the provision& the Court& in 3sme4a& Jr. v. Pendatun& said:
3ur Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every legislative
assembly of the democratic world. 's old as the 2nglish Parliament& its purpose -is to enable and encourage a
representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success1 for -it is indispensably necessary
that he should en5oy the fullest liberty of speech and that he should be protected from resentment of every one&
however& powerful& to whom the eercise of that liberty may occasion offense.1(,)
Issue:
6as the speech of Sen. Santiago within constitutional bound of parliamentary immunity of privilege of speech and
debate7
Ruling:
8es. The Court is aware of the need and has in fact been in the forefront in upholding the institution of parliamentary
immunity and promotion of free speech. 0either has the Court lost sight of the importance of the legislative and
oversight functions of the Congress that enable this representative body to look diligently into every affair of
government& investigate and denounce anomalies& and talk about how the country and its citi9ens are being served.
Courts do not interfere with the legislature or its members in the manner they perform their functions in the
legislative floor or in committee rooms. 'ny claim of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of the
statement uttered by the member of the Congress does not destroy the privilege. The disciplinary authority of the
assembly(:) and the voters& not the courts& can properly discourage or correct such abuses committed in the name
of parliamentary immunity. 'lthough she has not categorically denied making such statements& she has
une*uivocally said making them as part of her privilege speech. ;or the above reasons& the plea of Senator
Santiago for the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action is well taken. %ndeed& her privilege
speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the /ules of Court. The Court& however&
wishes to epress its deep concern about the language Senator Santiago& a member of the Bar& used in her speech
and its effect on the administration of 5ustice. To the Court& the lady senator has undoubtedly crossed the limits of
decency and good professional conduct. %t is at once apparent that her statements in *uestion were intemperate
and highly improper in
substance.
6.2/2;3/2& the letter#complaint of Pobre against Senator "efensor#Santiago is& conformably to 'rt. +%& Sec. ,,
of the Constitution&"%S!%SS2".