Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
127 views1 page

Osmena Vs Pendatun

The petitioner, a Congressman, delivered a privilege speech accusing the President of bribery. In response, the House issued a resolution authorizing an investigation into the accusations and requiring the petitioner to substantiate the claims or face punishment. The petitioner argued this violated his parliamentary immunity. The Court ruled that (1) parliamentary immunity protects legislators from prosecution for speeches but not internal disciplinary actions by Congress; and (2) determining disorderly conduct is within Congress's jurisdiction, not the courts. The House was within its rights to investigate and suspend the petitioner for 15 months based on its finding of seriously disorderly behavior.

Uploaded by

Shimi Fortuna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
127 views1 page

Osmena Vs Pendatun

The petitioner, a Congressman, delivered a privilege speech accusing the President of bribery. In response, the House issued a resolution authorizing an investigation into the accusations and requiring the petitioner to substantiate the claims or face punishment. The petitioner argued this violated his parliamentary immunity. The Court ruled that (1) parliamentary immunity protects legislators from prosecution for speeches but not internal disciplinary actions by Congress; and (2) determining disorderly conduct is within Congress's jurisdiction, not the courts. The House was within its rights to investigate and suspend the petitioner for 15 months based on its finding of seriously disorderly behavior.

Uploaded by

Shimi Fortuna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ISSUE: Whether the House Resolution violated

SERGIO OSMENA, JR., petitioner, vs. SALIPADA petitioner’s constitutionally granted


parliamentary immunity for speeches.
K. PENDATUN, LEON Z. GUINTO, JR., VICENTE L.
PERALTA, FAUSTINO TOBIA, LORENZO G. RULING

TEVES, JOSE J. ROY, FAUSTO DUGENIO, Parliamentary Immunity


ANTONIO Y. DE PIO, BENJAMIN T. LIGOT,
1. Section 15, Article VI of our Constitution
PEDRO G. TRONO, FELIPE ABRIGO, FELIPE S. provides that "for any speech or debate" in
ABELEDA, TECLA SAN ANDRES ZIGA, ANGEL B. Congress, the Senators or Members of the
House of Representative "shall not be
FERNANDEZ, and EUGENIO S. BALTAO, in their questioned in any other place."
capacity as members of the Special Committee
2. This section was taken or is a copy of sec. 6,
created by House Resolution No. 59, clause 1 of Art. 1 of the Constitution of the
United States. In that country, the provision has
respondents.
always been understood to mean that although
G.R. No. L-17144 | 1960-10-28 exempt from prosecution or civil actions for
their words uttered in Congress, the members of
Congress may, nevertheless, be questioned in
FACTS: Congressman Sergio Osmeña Jr., herein Congress itself. Observe that "they shall not be
petitioner, delivered his privilege speech before questioned in any other place" than Congress.
the House making serious imputations of bribery
against the President of the Philippines. Because 3. It guarantees the legislator complete freedom
of this, a Resolution was issued authorizing the of expression without fear of being made
creation of special House Committee to responsible in criminal or civil actions before the
investigate the truth of the charges made courts or any other forum outside of the
against the President, to summon petitioner to Congressional Hall.
substantiate his charges, and in case petitioner
fails to do so, to require petitioner to show 4. But is does not protect him from
cause why he should not be punished by the responsibility before the legislative body itself
House. whenever his words and conduct are considered
by the latter disorderly or unbecoming a
Petitioner then resorted to the Court seeking for member thereof.
the annulment of said resolution on the ground
that it infringes his constitutional absolute Disorderly Behavior
parliamentary immunity for speeches delivered
in the House. Meanwhile, the Special 5. The House is the judge of what constitutes
Committee continued with its proceeding, and disorderly behavior, not only because the
after giving petitioner a chance to defend Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it,
himself, found the latter guilty of seriously but also because the matter depends mainly on
disorderly behavior. A House resolution was factual circumstances of which the House knows
issued and petitioner was suspended from office best but which can not be depicted in black and
for 15 months. white for presentation to, and adjudication by
the Courts.
Thereafter, respondents filed their answer
challenging the jurisdiction of this Court to
entertain the petition, and defended the power
of Congress to discipline its members with
suspension.

You might also like