POBRE V DEFENSOR-

SANTIAGO

A.C. NO. 7399

AUGUST 25, 2009
 FACTS

• Administrative case
• Petitioner- Antero J. Pobre
• Respondent- Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago
 FACTS
• Dec 26, 2006- complaint of Antero J. Pobre regarding
excerpts of Sen. Santiago’s speech delivered on 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.
 FACTS

• 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.”
 FACTS

• April 25, 2007- respondent Sen. Miriam Defensor-

Santiago, through counsel, commented that those
statements were covered by the constitutional provision
on parliamentary immunity.
 ISSUE

• Whether or not Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago

should be disbarred or subject to disciplinary action
because of her speech
 RULING OF THE COURT

• NO. Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution

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.
 RULING OF THE COURT

• 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.”
 VIOLATIONS ON THE CODE OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
• Canon 8, Rule 8.01– A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive, or otherwise improper.
• Canon 11– A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduct by others.
 RULING OF THE COURT

• Parliamentary immunity is enshrined in our

Constitution (Art VI, Sec 11)
• Parliamentary immunity granted to members of
Congress is not to protect them against prosecutions for
their own benefit
 SUMMARY
• Complainant ANTERO J. POBRE seeks the disbarment of respondent,
SEN. MIRIAM D. SANTIAGO for her speech made in the Senate which
reflected a total disrespect towards Chief Justice Panganiban as well as the
other members of the Court and constituted direct contempt of court.
• Respondent Santiago commented that assailed statements from her speech
were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity.
• The Court ruled in favor of Santiago and DISMISSED the case.
 THANK YOU!
That in all things, God may be glorified!

Jose Rio E. Sanchez

2017400095