Pobre vs. Defensor-Santiago DIGEST

POBRE vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO (A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009) PETITIONER Petitioner Antero Pobre made aware to the court the contents of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s speech delivered on the senate floor. The following excerpts are the ones in question: 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. According to Pobre, the words of the lady senator were disrespectful and requested that the latter be disbarred or be subjected to disciplinary action. RESPONDENT Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago argued that the statements she made 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 claims to have made those comments to expose anomalies with regard to the selection process of the Judicial Bar Council for the next Chief Justice.

The argument of the respondent is based on Article VI Section 11 which states that: "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." ISSUE WON Miriam Defensor-Santiago can be charged for her comments on the Judiciary SUPREME COURT: NO. The court ruled in favor of Defensor-Santiago in this case. The plea of Senator Santiago for the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action is well taken. Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court. Despite this, the court feels that the lady senator has gone beyond the limits of decency and good conduct for the statements made which were intemperate and highly improper in substance. The court is not hesitant to impose some form of disciplinary sanctions on her, but the factual and legal circumstances of this case, however, deter the Court from doing so, even without any sign of remorse from her. Petition is DISMISSED