Osmena Vs.

Pendatun

MARCH 31, 2018 BY LAWISKOOL

Facts:

In June 1960, Congressman Sergio Osmeña, Jr. delivered a speech entitled “A Message to Garcia”. In the
said speech, he disparaged then President Carlos Garcia and his administration. Subsequently, House
Resolution No. 59 was passed by the lower house in order to investigate the charges made by Osmeña
during his speech and that if his allegations were found to be baseless and malicious, he may be
subjected to disciplinary actions by the lower house.

Osmeña then questioned the validity of the said resolution before the Supreme Court. Osmeña avers
that the resolution violates his parliamentary immunity for speeches delivered in
Congress. Congressman Salipada Pendatun filed an answer where he averred that the Supreme Court
has not jurisdiction over the matter and Congress has the power to discipline its members.

Issue: Whether or not Osmeña’s immunity has been violated?

Held:

No. Section 15, Article VI of the 1935 Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity upon members of
the legislature which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every parliament in a democratic world. It
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 the Hall of Congress. However, it
does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body whenever his words and conduct
are considered disorderly or unbecoming of a member therein. Therefore, Osmeña’s petition is
dismissed.
Osmena vs Pendatun (G.R. No. L-17144)

Posted: July 25, 2011 in Case Digests

FACTS: Congressman Osmena petitioned for declaratory relief, certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction against Congressman Pendatun and 14 others in their capacity as member of the
Special Committee created by House Resolution # 59. Specifically, petitioner asked for the annulment of
the resolution on the ground of infringement of his parliamentary immunity; and asked the member of
the Special Committee be enjoined from proceeding, as provided by Resolution # 59, requiring the
petitioner to substantiate his charges against the President during his privilege speech entitled “A
Message to Garcia” wherein he spoke of derogatory remarks of the President’s administration selling
pardons. For refusing to provide evidence as the basis of his allegations, Osmena was suspended for 15
months for the serious disorderly behavior.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not petitioner has complete parliamentary immunity as provided by the Constitution.
2. Whether or not petitioner’s words constitute disorderly conduct.
3. Whether or not the taking up of other business matters bars the House from investigating the speech
and words of Osmena.
4. Whether or not the House has the power to suspend its members.

HELD:
1. Petitioner has immunity but it does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body
itself as stated in the provision that “xxx shall not be questioned in any other place”.

2. What constitutes disorderly conduct is within the interpretation of the legislative body and not the
judiciary, because it is a matter that depends mainly on the factual circumstances of which the House
knows best. Anything to the contrary will amount to encroachment of power.

3. Resolution # 59 was unanimously approved by the House and such approval amounted to the
suspension of the House Rules, which according to the standard parliamentary practice may be done by
unanimous consent.

4. For unparliamentary conduct, members of the Congress have been, or could be censured, committed
to prison, even expelled by the votes of their colleagues.
Osmena, Jr. vs. Pendatun G.R. No. L-17144, October 28, 1960
Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Congressman Osmena, in a privilege speech delivered before the House

of Representatives, made serious imputations of bribery against President Garcia.
Thereafter, a special committee of 15 members was created to investigate the
truth of the charges made by Congressman Osmena against the President.
Osmena refused to produce before the House Committee evidence to substantiate
such imputations. For having made the imputations and for failing to produce
evidence in support thereof, Osmena was, by resolution of the House, suspended
from office for a period of 15 months for serious disorderly behavior.

Issue: Whether or not there is an infringement of Osmena’s parliamentary

privilege of speech

Held: Sec. 15 (now Sec. 11), Art. VI of the Constitution provides that for any
speech or debate in Congress, the Senators or Members of the House of
Representatives shall not be questioned in any other place.

The Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental

privilege cherished in every legislative assembly of the democratic world. It
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 it does not protect him from responsibility
before the legislative body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered
by the latter disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof.

On the question whether delivery of speeches attacking the President constitutes

disorderly conduct for which Osmena may be disciplined, the Court believes that
the House of Representatives is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior,
not only because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also
because the matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of which the House
knows best but which can not be depicted in black and white for presentation to,
and adjudication by the Courts. For one thing, if the Court assumed the power to
determine whether Osmena’s conduct constituted disorderly behavior, it would
have assumed appellate jurisdiction, which the Constitution never intended to
confer upon a coordinate branch of the government.
FERDINAND E. MARCOS vs. HON. RAUL MANGLAPUS (177 SCRA 668) Case Digest

Facts:

After Ferdinand Marcos was deposed from the presidency, he and his family fled to Hawaii. Now in his
deathbed, petitioners are asking the court to order the respondents to issue their travel documents and
enjoin the implementation of the President’s decision to bar their return to the Philippines. Petitioners
contend under the provision of the Bill of Rights that the President is without power to impair their
liberty of abode because only a court may do so “within the limits prescribed by law.” Nor, according to
the petitioners, may the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do
so.

Issue:

Does the president have the power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines?

Ruling:

The President has the obligation, under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare
and advance national interest.

This case calls for the exercise of the President’s power as protector of the peace. The president is not
only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with day-to-day
problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility in times when no foreign
foe appears on the horizon.

The documented history of the efforts of the Marcoses and their followers to destabilize the country
bolsters the conclusion that their return at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence
directed against the state and instigate more chaos.

The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from taking preemptive actions against
threats to its existence if, though still nascent they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct
protection of the people is the essence of the duty of the government.

The Supreme Court held that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in
determining the return of the petitioners at the present time and under present circumstances poses a
serious threat to national interest and welfare prohibiting their return to the Philippines. The petition is
DISMISSED.
MARCOS VS MANGLAPUS

Posted by kaye lee on 1:16 PM

G.R. No. 88211 September 15 1989

FACTS:

Former President Marcos, after his and his family spent three year exile in Hawaii, USA, sought to return
to the Philippines. The call is about to request of Marcos family to order the respondents to issue travel
order to them and to enjoin the petition of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit
the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

RULING:
Yes
According to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution: "The executive power shall be vested in the
President of the Philippines." The phrase, however, does not define what is meant by executive power
although the same article tackles on exercises of certain powers by the President such as appointing
power during recess of the Congress (S.16), control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and
offices (Section 17), power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and
forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment (Section 19), treaty making power (Section 21), borrowing
power (Section 20), budgetary power (Section 22), informing power (Section 23).
The Constitution may have grant powers to the President, it cannot be said to be limited only to the
specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. Whatever power inherent in the government that is
neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.

Marcos v. Manglapus
MARCH 30, 2018 BY LAWISKOOL

177 SCRA 668

178 SCRA 760
FACTS: This is a petition for mandamus asking the Court to order the respondents to issue travel
documents to Mr. Marcos and his immediate family and to enjoin the implementation of the President’s
decision to bar their return to the Philippines.
ISSUE: whether or not, in the exercise of executive power, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from
returning to the Philippines.
HELD: The Constitution provides that the executive power shall be vested in the President (Art. VII, Sec.
1). However, it does not define what is meant by “executive power” although in the same article it touches
on the exercise of certain powers by the President, i.e. the power of control over all executive depts.,
bureaus and offices, the power to execute the laws, the appointing power, the powers under the
commander in chief clause, the power to grant reprieves, commutations, pardons, the power to grant
amnesty with the concurrence of Congress, the power to contract or guarantee foreign loans, the power
to enter into treaties or international agreements, the power to submit the budget to congress and the
power to address Congress. (VII, Sec. 14-23)
The inevitable question is whether by enumerating certain powers of the President, did the framers of the
Constitution intend that the President shall exercise those specific powers and no other?
According to the SC, that although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific
powers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of
executive power. Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific
power enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific
powers so enumerated. In this case, the President has the power to bar the Marcoses from returning to
the Philippines. She has the obligation to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the
national interest. She has to balance the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of
rights of certain individuals. The power involved is the President’s residual power to protect the general
welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people.

Resolution on Motion for Reconsideration :

It cannot be denied that the President, upon whom executive power is vested, has unstated residual
powers which are implied from the grant of executive power and which are necessary for her to comply
with her duties under the Constitution. The powers of the President are not limited to what are expressly
enumerated in the article on the Executive Department and in scattered provisions of the Constitution.