Fernando

TRILLANES v. PIMENTEL
Ponente: CARPIO MORALES, J.
Date: June 27, 2008
This is an ordinary civil action for damages.
RECIT READY:
On December 22, 2006 Antero J. Pobre wrote a letter inviting the Supreme Court
to pay attention to Sen. Defensor-Santiago’s speech delivered in the Senate Floor:

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

Ponte believes that this is a total disrespect towards then Chief Justice Artemio

Panganiban and the other members of the Court and constituted direct contempt of
court. Thus, he is asking for disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions be
taken against the lady senator.

On April 25, 2007 Senator Santiago, through counsel, does not deny making the
statements. She, however, explained 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. She said
that the purpose of her speech was to bring out in the open controversial anomalies in
governance by exposing what she believed “to be an unjust act of the Judicial Bar Council
[JBC],” which, after sending out public invitations for nomination to the soon to-be
vacated position of Chief Justice, would eventually inform applicants that only incumbent
justices of the Supreme Court would qualify for nomination.

The Parliamentary Immunity is rooted on the provision of the Constitution, which

states: “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. (Art. 6, Sec.
11)
Fernando

FACTS:
1. The Judicial Bar Council sent out public invitations for nomination to the soon-to-be vacated
position of Chief Justice. Later on, JBC informed applicants that ONLY INCUMBENT justices
of the Supreme Court would qualify.
2. In a letter dated December 22, 2006, Pobre invited the Court's attention to a speech
rendered by respondent (lady senator) on the Senate Floor.
3. Petitioner asks that disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions be taken against
the lady senator.
4. In the comment filed by lady senator, she does not deny making the assailed speech done in
the discharge of her duty as a Senator, claiming that these are covered by the constitutional
provision on parliamentary immunity. Also, she used the assailed portion of her speech to
bring out in the open controversial anomalies in the government and to prelude to crafting
remedial legislation on the JBC.
5. Lady senator claimed immunity under the provisions of Section 11, Article VI of the
Constitution

HELD/RATIO:
1. WON the respondent lady senator may be questioned or be held liable in delivering a speech
demeaning and disrespecting the Supreme Court, in the discharge of her duties as a member of
Congress.
1. No. She cannot be questioned nor held liable.
a. Lady senator has clearly violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
b. Lady senator is also duty-bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the Court
and to maintain respect due its members
i. Her speech may have caused people to lose their faith in the Court
ii. Duty of lawyers to maintain respectful attitude towards the Courts
c. The court is not hesitant to impose discipline on lady senator. Factual and legal
circumstances deter the Court from doing so.
d. However, the Court cannot interfere with the legislature or its members in the
manner they perform their functions in the legislative floor.
e. Her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding
under the Rules of Court.

The letter-complaint is, conformably to Section 11, Article VI of the Constitution, DISMISSED.