Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-17144 October 28, 1960 SERGIO OSME !, "R., petitioner, vs. S!LIP!#! $. PEN#!TUN, LEON %. GUINTO, "R., &ICENTE L. PER!LT!, '!USTINO TO(I!, LOREN%O G. TE&ES, "OPSE ". RO), '!USTINO #UGENIO, !NTONIO ). #E PIO, (EN"!MIN T. LIGOT, PE#RO G. TRONO, 'ELIPE !(RIGO, 'ELIPE S. !(ELE#!, TECL! S!N !N#RES %IG!, !NGEL (. 'ERN!#E%, *+, EUGENIO S. (!LT!O, -+ t.e-r c*/*c-t0 *1 2e2ber1 o3 t.e S/ec-*4 Co22-ttee cre*te, b0 5o61e Re1o46t-o+ No. 79,respondents. Antonio Y. de Pio in his own behalf. F. S. Abeleda, A. b. Fernandez. E. S. Baltao and Tecla San Andres Ziga in their own behalf. C. T. Villareal and . !. Bagatsing as a"ici c#riae. (ENG%ON, J.: On July !, "#$, Con%ress&an 'er%io Os&e(a, Jr., sub&itted to this Court a verified petition for )declaratory relief, certiorari and prohibition *ith preli&inary in+unction) a%ainst Con%ress&an 'alapida ,. Pendatun and fourteen other con%ress&en in their capacity as &e&bers of the 'pecial Co&&ittee created by -ouse Resolution No. .". -e as/ed for annul&ent of such Resolution on the %round of infrin%en&ent of his parlia&entary i&&unity0 he also as/ed, principally, that said &e&bers of the special co&&ittee be en+oined fro& proceedin% in accordance *ith it, particularly the portion authori1in% the& to re2uire hi& to substantiate his char%es a%ainst the President *ith the ad&onition that if he failed to do so, he &ust sho* cause *hy the -ouse should not punish hi&. 3he petition attached a copy of -ouse Resolution No. .", the pertinent portions of *hich reads as follo*s4 5-EREA', on the 67rd day of June, "#$ , the -onorable 'er%io Os&e(a, Jr., Me&ber of the -ouse of Representatives fro& the 'econd 8istrict of the province of Cebu, too/ the floor of this cha&ber on the one hour privile%e to deliver a speech, entitled 9A Messa%e to :arcia0 5-EREA', in the course of said speech, the Con%ress&an fro& the 'econd 8istrict of Cebu stated the follo*in%4. ;;; ;;; ;;;

ano&alous situation *ould reflect badly on the /ind of +ustice that your ad&inistration is dispensin%. . . . . 5-EREA', the char%es of the %entle&an fro& the 'econd 8istrict of Cebu, if &ade &aliciously or rec/lessly and *ithout basis in truth and in fact, *ould constitute a serious assault upon the di%nity and presti%e of the Office of 7= 7 the President, *hich is the one visible sy&bol of the soverei%nty of the >ilipino people, and *ould e;pose said office to conte&pt and disrepute0 . . . . esol$ed b% the &o#se of e'resentati$e , that a special co&&ittee of fifteen Me&bers to be appointed by the 'pea/er be, and the sa&e hereby is, created to investi%ate the truth of the char%es a%ainst the President of the Philippines &ade by -onorable 'er%io Os&e(a, Jr., in his privile%e speech of June 667, "#$, and for such purpose it is authori1ed to su&&on -onorable 'er%io Os&e(a, +r., to appear before it to substantiate his char%es, as *ell as to issue s#b'oena and?or s#b'oena d#ces tec#" to re2uire the attendance of *itnesses and?or the production of pertinent papers before it, and if -onorable 'er%io Os&e(a, Jr., fails to do so to re2uire hi& to sho* cause *hy he should not be punished by the -ouse. 3he special co&&ittee shall sub&it to the -ouse a report of its findin%s and reco&&endations before the ad+ourn&ent of the present special session of the Con%ress of the Philippines. <n support of his re2uest, Con%ress&an Os&e(a alle%ed0 first, the Resolution violated his constitutional absolute parlia&entary i&&unity for speeches delivered in the -ouse0 second, his *ords constituted no actionable conduct0 and third, after his alle%edly ob+ectionable speech and *ords, the -ouse too/ up other business, and Rule @A<<, sec. = of the Rules of -ouse provides that if other business has intervened after the &e&ber had uttered obno;ious *ords in debate, he shall not be held to ans*er therefor nor be sub+ect to censure by the -ouse. Althou%h so&e &e&bers of the court e;pressed doubts of petitioner9s cause of action and the Court9s +urisdiction, the &a+ority decided to hear the &atter further, and re2uired respondents to ans*er, *ithout issuin% any preli&inary in+unction. Evidently a*are of such circu&stance *ith its i&plications, and pressed for ti&e in vie* of the i&&inent ad+ourn&ent of the le%islative session, the special co&&ittee continued to perfor& its tal/, and after %ivin% Con%ress&an Os&e(a a chance to defend hi&self, sub&itted its reports on July B, "#$, findin% said con%ress&an %uilty of serious disorderly behaviour0 and actin% on such report, the -ouse approved on the sa&e dayCbefore closin% its sessionC-ouse Resolution No. =., declarin% hi& %uilty as reco&&ended, and suspendin% hi& fro& office for fifteen &onths. 3hereafter, on July ", "#$, the respondents D*ith the e;ception of Con%ress&en 8e Pio, Abeleda, 'an Andres Ei%a, >ernande1 and BalataoF filed their ans*er, challen%ed the +urisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition, defended the po*er of Con%ress to discipline its &e&bers *ith suspension, upheld a -ouse Resolution No. =. and then invited attention to the fact that Con%ress havin% ended its session on July B, "#$, the Co&&itteeC*hose &e&bers are the sole respondentsChad thereby ceased to e;ist. 3here is no 2uestion that Con%ress&an Os&e(a, in a privile%e speech delivered before the -ouse, &ade the serious i&putations of bribery a%ainst the President *hich are 2uoted in Resolution No. ." and that he refused to produce before the -ouse Co&&ittee created for the

3he people, Mr. President, have been hearin% of u%ly reports that under your unpopular ad&inistration the free thin%s they used to %et fro& the %overn&ent are no* for sale at pre&iu& prices. 3hey say that even pardons are for sale, and that re%ardless of the %ravity or seriousness of a cri&inal case, the culprit can al*ays be bailed out forever fro& +ail as lon% as he can co&e across *ith a handso&e dole. < a& afraid, such an

purpose, evidence to substantiate such i&putations. 3here is also no 2uestion that for havin% &ade the i&putations and for failin% to produce evidence in support thereof, he *as, by resolution of the -ouse, suspended fro& office for a period of fifteen &onths for serious disorderly behaviour. Resolution No. =. states in part4 5-EREA', the 'pecial Co&&ittee created under and by virtue of Resolution No. .", adopted on July B, "#$, found Representative 'er%io Os&e(a, Jr., %uilty of serious disorderly behaviour for &a/in% *ithout basis in truth and in fact, scurrilous, &alicious, rec/less and irresponsible char%es a%ainst the President of the Philippines in his privile%e speech of June 67, "#$0 and 5-EREA', the said char%es are so vile in character that they affronted and de%raded the di%nity of the -ouse of Representative4 No*, 3herefore, be it RE'OGAE8 by the -ouse of Representatives. 3hat Representative 'er%io Os&e(a, Jr., be, as he hereby is, declared %uilty of serious disorderly behaviour0 and . . . As previously stated, Os&e(a contended in his petition that4 D F the Constitution %ave hi& co&plete parlia&entary i&&unity, and so, for *ords spo/en in the -ouse, he ou%ht not to be 2uestioned0 D6$ that his speech constituted no disorderly behaviour for *hich he could be punished0 and D7F supposin% he could be 2uestioned and discipline therefor, the -ouse had lost the po*er to do so because it had ta/en up other business before approvin% -ouse Resolution No. .". No*, he ta/es the additional position D!F that the -ouse has no po*er, under the Constitution, to suspend one of its &e&bers. 'ection ., Article A< of our Constitution provides that )for any speech or debate) in Con%ress, the 'enators or Me&bers of the -ouse of Representative )shall not be 2uestioned in any other place.) 3his section *as ta/en or is a copy of sec. #, clause of Art. of the Constitution of the Hnited 'tates. <n that country, the provision has al*ays been understood to &ean that althou%h e;e&pt fro& prosecution or civil actions for their *ords uttered in Con%ress, the &e&bers of Con%ress &ay, nevertheless, be 2uestioned in Congress itself. Observe that )they shall not be 2uestioned in any other place) than Con%ress. >urther&ore, the Rules of the -ouse *hich petitioner hi&self has invo/ed DRule @A<<, sec. =F, reco%ni1e the -ouse9s po*er to hold a &e&ber responsible )for *ords spo/en in debate.) Our Constitution enshrines parlia&entary i&&unity *hich is a funda&ental privile%e cherished in every le%islative asse&bly of the de&ocratic *orld. As old as the En%lish Parlia&ent, its purpose )is to enable and encoura%e a representative of the public to dischar%e his public trust *ith fir&ness and success) for )it is indispensably necessary that he should en+oy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected fro& the resent&ent of every one, ho*ever po*erful, to *ho& e;ercise of that liberty &ay occasion offense.) 6 'uch i&&unity has co&e to this country fro& the practices of Parlia&entary as construed and applied by the Con%ress of the Hnited 'tates. <ts e;tent and application re&ain no lon%er in doubt in so far as related to the 2uestion before us. <t %uarantees the le%islator co&plete freedo& of e;pression *ithout

fear of bein% &ade responsible in cri&inal or civil actions before the courts or any other foru& o#tside of the Con%ressional -all. But is does not protect hi& fro& responsibility before the le%islative body itself *henever his *ords and conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbeco&in% a &e&ber thereof. <n the Hnited 'tates Con%ress, Con%ress&an >ernando 5ood of Ne* Ior/ *as censured for usin% the follo*in% lan%ua%e on the floor of the -ouse4 )A &onstrosity, a &easure the &ost infa&ous of the &any infa&ous acts of the infa&ous Con%ress.) D-inds9 Precedents, Aol. 6,. pp. ="BJ=""F. 3*o other con%ress&en *ere censured for e&ployin% insultin% *ords durin% debate. D6 -inds9 Precedents, =""JB$ F. <n one case, a &e&ber of Con%ress *as su&&oned to testify on a state&ent &ade by hi& in debate, but invo/ed his parlia&entary privile%e. 3he Co&&ittee re+ected his plea. D7 -inds9 Precedents 67J 6!.F >or unparlia&entary conduct, &e&bers of Parlia&ent or of Con%ress have been, or could be censured, co&&itted to prison 7, even e;pelled by the votes of their collea%ues. 3he appendi; to this decision a&ply attest to the consensus of infor&ed opinion re%ardin% the practice and the traditional po*er of le%islative asse&blies to ta/e disciplinary action a%ainst its &e&bers, incl#ding i"'rison"ent, s#s'ension or e('#lsion. <t &entions one instance of suspension of a le%islator in a forei%n country. And to cite a local illustration, the Philippine 'enate, in April "!", suspended a senator for one year. Needless to add, the Rules of Philippine -ouse of Representatives provide that the parlia&entary practices of the Con%ress of the Hnited 'tates shall apply in a supple&entary &anner to its proceedin%s. 3his brin%s up the third point of petitioner4 the -ouse &ay no lon%er ta/e action a%ainst &e, he ar%ues, because after &y speech, and before approvin% Resolution No. .", it had ta/en up other business. Respondents ans*er that Resolution No. ." *as unani&ously approved by the -ouse, that such approval a&ounted to a suspension of the -ouse Rules, *hich accordin% to standard parlia&entary practice &ay done by unani&ous consent. :ranted, counters the petitioner, that the -ouse &ay suspended the operation of its Rules, it &ay not, ho*ever, affect past acts or rene* its ri%hts to ta/e action *hich had already lapsed. 3he situation &i%ht thus be co&pared to la*s ! e;tendin% the period of li&itation of actions and &a/in% the& applicable to actions that had lapsed. 3he 'upre&e Court of the Hnited 'tates has upheld such la*s as a%ainst the contention that they i&paired vested ri%hts in violation of the >ourteenth A&end&ent DCa&pbell $s. -olt, . H. '. #6$F. 3he states hold diver%ent vie*s. At any rate, court are sub+ect to revocation &odification or *aiver at the pleasure of the body adoptin% the&.). And it has been said that )Parlia&entary rules are &erely procedural, and *ith their observance&, the courts have no concern. 3hey &ay be *aived or disre%arded by the le%islative body.) Conse2uently, )&ere failure to confor& to parlia&entary usa%e *ill not invalidate the action Dta/en by a deliberative bodyF *hen the re2uisited nu&ber of &e&bers have a%reed to a particular &easure.)# 3he follo*in% is 2uoted fro& a reported decision of the 'upre&e court of 3ennessee4

3he rule here invo/ed is one of parlia&entary procedure, and it is unifor&ly held that it is *ithin the po*er of all deliberative bodies to abolish, &odify, or *aive their o*n rules of procedure, adopted for the orderly con duct of business, and as security a%ainst hasty action. DBennet $s. Ne* Bedford, $ Mass, !770 -olt $s.'o&erville, 6= Mass. !$B, ! 0 City of 'adalia $s. 'cott, $! Mo. App. ."., =B '. 5. 6=#0 E; parte Mayor, etc., of Albany, 67 5end. KN. I.L 6==, 6B$0 5heeloc/ $s. City of Go*ell, "# Mass. 66$, 67$. B N. e. "==, 6! A&. 't. Rep. .!7, 6 Ann. Cas. $"0 City of Corinth $s. 'harp, $= Miss. #"#, #. 'o. BBB0 Mc:ra* $s.5hitson, #" <o*a, 7!B, 6B N. 5. #760 3uell $s. Meacha& Contractin% Co. !. ,y. B , B#, !$ '. 5. Ann. Cas. " 7B, B$6.F K3a/enfro& the case of Rutherford $s. City of Nashville, =B south 5estern Reporter, p. .B!.L <t &ay be noted in this connection, that in the case of Con%ress&an 'tanbery of Ohio, *ho insulted the 'pea/er, for *hich Act a resolution of censure *as presented, the -ouse approved the resolution, despite the ar%u&ent that other business had intervened after the ob+ectionable re&ar/s. D6 -inds9 Precedents pp. =""JB$$.F On the 2uestion *hether delivery of speeches attac/in% the Chief E;ecutive constitutes disorderly conduct for *hich Os&e(a &ay be discipline, &any ar%u&ents pro and con have been advanced. 5e believe, ho*ever, that the -ouse is the +ud%e of *hat constitutes disorderly behaviour, not only because the Constitution has conferred +urisdiction upon it, but also because the &atter depends &ainly on factual circu&stances of *hich the -ouse /no*s best but *hich can not be depicted in blac/ and *hite for presentation to, and ad+udication by the Courts. >or one thin%, if this Court assu&ed the po*er to deter&ine *hether Os&e(a conduct constituted disorderly behaviour, it *ould thereby have assu&ed appellate +urisdiction, *hich the Constitution never intended to confer upon a coordinate branch of the :overn&ent. 3he theory of separation of po*ers fastidiously observed by this Court, de&ands in such situation a prudent refusal to interfere. Each depart&ent, it has been said, had e;clusive co%ni1ance of &atters *ithin its +urisdiction and is supre&e *ithin its o*n sphere. DAn%ara $s. Electoral Co&&ission, #7 Phil., 7".F 'EC. 6$$. )#dicial *nterference with +egislat#re . C 3he principle is *ell established that the courts *ill not assu&e a +urisdiction in any case a&ount to an interference by the +udicial depart&ent *ith the le%islature since each depart&ent is e2ually independent *ithin the po*er conferred upon it by the Constitution. . . . . 3he %eneral rule has been applied in other cases to cause the courts to refuse to intervene in *hat are e;clusively le%islative functions. 3hus, *here the stated 'enate is %iven the po*er to e;a&ple a &e&ber, the court *ill not revie* its action or revise e$en a "ost arbitrar% or #nfair decision . D A&. Jur., Const. Ga*, sec. p. "$6.F KE&phasis Ours.L. 3he above state&ent of A&erican la* &erely abrid%ed the land&ar/ case of Clifford $s. French.= <n "$., several senators *ho had been e;pelled by the 'tate 'enate of California for havin% ta/en a bribe, filed &anda&us proceedin% to co&pel reinstate&ent, alle%in% the 'enate had %iven the& no hearin%, nor a chance to &a/e defense, besides falsity of the char%es of bribery. 3he 'upre&e Court of California declined to interfere , e;plainin% in orthodo; +uristic lan%ua%e4

,nder o#r for" of go$ern"ent, the -#dicial de'art"ent has no 'ower to re$ise e$en the "ost arbitrar% and #nfair action of the legislati$e de'art"ent, or of either ho#se thereof, ta.ing in '#rs#ance of the 'ower co""itted e(cl#si$el% to that de'art"ent b% the Constit#tion. <t has been held by hi%h authority that, even in the absence of an e;press provision conferrin% the po*er, every le%islative body in *hich is vested the %eneral le%islative po*er of the state has the i&plied 'ower to e('el a "e"ber for an% ca#se which it "a% dee" sufficient. <n &iss. $s. Barlett, 7 :ray !=7, #7 A&. 8ec. =#B, the supre&e court of Mass. says, in substance, that this po*er is inherent in e$er% legislati$e bod%/ that it is necessar% to the to enable the bod% 0to 'erfor" its high f#nctions, and is necessar% to the safet% of the state/0 0That it is a 'ower of self1 'rotection, and that the legislati$e bod% "#st necessaril% be the sole -#dge of the e(igenc% which "a% -#stif% and re2#ire its e(ercise. 0. . . There is no 'ro$ision a#thorit% co#rts to control, direct, s#'er$ise, or forbid the e(ercise b% either ho#se of the 'ower to e('el a "e"ber. These 'owers are f#nctions of the legislati$e de'art"ent and therefore, in the e(ercise of the 'ower this co""itted to it, the senate is s#'re"e. An atte"'t b% this co#rt to direct or control the legislat#re, or either ho#se thereof, in the e(ercise of the 'ower, wo#ld be an atte"'t to e(ercise legislati$e f#nctions , *hich it is e;pressly forbidden to do. 5e have underscored in the above 2uotation those lines *hich in our opinion e&phasi1e the principles controllin% this liti%ation. Althou%h referrin% to e;pulsion, they &ay as *ell be applied to other disciplinary action. 3heir %ist as applied to the case at bar4 the -ouse has e;clusive po*er0 the co#rts ha$e no -#risdiction to interfere . Our refusal to intervene &i%ht i&press so&e readers as subconscious hesitation due to discovery of i&per&issible course of action in the le%islative cha&ber. Nothin% of that sort4 *e &erely refuse to disre%ard the allocation of constitutional functions *hich it is our special duty to &aintain. <ndeed, in the interest of co&ity, *e feel bound to state that in a conscientious survey of %overnin% principles and?or episodic illustrations, *e found the -ouse of Representatives of the Hnited 'tates ta/in% the position upon at least t*o occasions, that 'ersonal attac.s #'on the Chief E(ec#ti$e constitute unparlia&entary conduct or breach of orders.B And in several instances, it too/ action a%ainst offenders, e$en after other b#siness had been considered." Petitioner9s principal ar%u&ent a%ainst the -ouse9s po*er to suspend is the Ale+andrino precedent. <n "6!, 'enator Ale+andrino *as, by resolution of 'enate, suspended fro& office for 6 &onths because he had assaulted another &e&ber of the that Body or certain phrases the latter had uttered in the course of a debate. 3he 'enator applied to this Court for reinstate&ent, challen%in% the validity of the resolution. Althou%h this Court held that in vie* of the separation of po*ers, it had no +urisdiction to co&pel the 'enate to reinstate petitioner, it nevertheless *ent on to say the 'enate had no po*er to adopt the resolution because suspension for 6 &onths a&ounted to re&oval, and the Jones Ga* Dunder *hich the 'enate *as then functionin%F %ave the 'enate no 'ower to re"o$e an a''ointi$e "e"ber , li/e 'enator Ale+andrino. 3he Jones Ga* specifically provided that )each house &ay punish its &e&bers for disorderly behaviour, and, *ith the concurrence of t*oJthirds votes, e;pel an electi$e &e&ber Dsec. BF. Note particularly the *ord )elective.)

3he Jones Ga*, it &ist be observed, e&po*ered the :overnor :eneral to appoint )*ithout consent of the 'enate and *ithout restriction as to residence senators . . . *ho *ill, in his opinion, best represent the 3*elfth 8istrict.) Ale+andrino *as one appointive 'enator. <t is true, the opinion in that case contained an obiter dict#" that )suspension deprives the electoral district of representation *ithout that district bein% afforded any &eans by *hich to fill that vacancy.) But that re&ar/ should be understood to refer particularly to the a''ointi$e senator *ho *as then the affected party and *ho *as by the sa&e Jones Ga* char%ed *ith the duty to represent the 3*elfth 8istrict and &aybe the vie* of the :overn&ent of the Hnited 'tates or of the :overnorJ:eneral, *ho had appointed hi&. <t &ust be observed, ho*ever, that at that ti"e the Ge%islature had only those po*er *hich *ere %ranted to it by the Jones Ga* $0 *hereas now the Congress has the f#ll legislati$e 'owers and 're'rogati$es of a soverei%n nation, e;cept as restricted by the Constitution. <n other *ords, in the Ale+andrino case, the Court reached the conclusion that the Jones Ga* did not gi$e the Senate the po*er it then e;ercisedCthe po*er of suspension for one year. 5hereas no*, as *e find, the Con%ress has the inherent legislati$e 'rerogati$e of s#s'ension *hich the Constitution did not i&pair. <n fact, as already pointed out, the Philippine 'enate suspended a 'enator for 6 &onths in "!". 3he Ge%islative po*er of the Philippine Con%ress is plenary, sub+ect only to such li&itations are found in the Republic9s Constitution. 'o that any po*er dee&ed to be le%islative by usa%e or tradition, is necessarily possessed by the Philippine Con%ress, unless the Constitution provides other*ise. DAera $s. Avelino, == Phil., "6, 6 6 .F <n any event, petitioner9s ar%u&ent as to the deprivation of the district9s representation can not be &ore *ei%htly in the &atter of suspension than in the case of i&prison&ent of a le%islator0 yet deliberative bodies have the po*er in proper cases, to co&&it one of their &e&bers to +ail. 6 No* co&e 2uestions of procedure and +urisdiction. the petition intended to prevent the 'pecial Co&&ittee fro& actin% tin pursuance of -ouse Resolution No. .". Because no preli&inary in+unction had been issued, the Co&&ittee perfor&ed its tas/, reported to the -ouse, and the latter approved the suspension order. 3he -ouse had closed it session, and the Co&&ittee has ceased to e;ist as such. <t *ould see&, therefore, the case should be dis&issed for havin% beco&e &oot or acade&ic. 7 Of course, there is nothin% to prevent petitioner fro& filin% ne* pleadin%s to include all &e&bers of the -ouse as respondents, as/ for reinstate&ent and thereby to present a +usticiable cause. Most probable outco&e of such refor&ed suit, ho*ever, *ill be a pronounce&ent of lac/ of +urisdiction, as in Vera $s. A$elino ! and Ale-andrino $s. 3e#aon. . At any rate, havin% perceived suitable solutions to the i&portant 2uestions of political la*, the Court thou%ht it proper to e;press at this ti&e its conclusions on such issues as *ere dee&ed relevant and decisive. ACCOR8<N:GI, the petition has to be, and is hereby dis&issed. 'o ordered.

Paras, C. )., Ba#tista Angelo, Conce'cion, Barrera, 4#tierrez !a$id, Paredes, and !izon, ))., concur.