OSMENA vs.

PENDATUN

Nature: Petition for declaratory relief and/or certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction.
Facts:In a privilege speech before the House of Representatives, Congressman Sergio Osmena from the
2
nd
District of Cebu made serious imputations of bribery against then President Garcia.
The people, Mr. President, have been hearing of ugly reports that under your unpopular
administration the free things they used to get from the government are now for sale at
premium prices. They say that even pardons are for sale, and that regardless of the gravity or
seriousness of a criminal case, the culprit can always be bailed out forever from jail as long as he
can come across with a handsome dole. I am afraid, such an anomalous situation would reflect
badly on the kind of justice that your administration is dispensing.

A resolution (#59) was then passed that a special committee of 15members to be appointed by the
Speaker shall be tasked to investigate the truth of the charges against Garcia and for Osmena to
substantiate his charges with evidence (i.e. papers and witnesses) and if he fails to do so, he show cause
why he should not be punished by the House. However, Osmena refused to comply. He was then
suspended for 15 months for disorderly behavior. Osmena then filed this petition to the Supreme Court.

Issue: W/N the House had the power to discipline Osmena with suspension?

Whether the courts can determine whether personal attack upon the President constitutes disorderly
behavior:

The House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behaviour not only because the Constitution
delegates it but also because this matter depends on factual circumstances of which the House knows best
and cannot be presented to and adjudicated by the Courts. The courts will not assume an appellate
jurisdiction, which will amount to interference by the judicial department with the legislature. The theory
of separation of powers demands a prudent refusal to interfere.
Parliamentary immunity invoked by Osmena:

Section 15, Article VI of the 1935 Constitution provides that for any speech or debate in Congress,
Senators and Members of the House shall not be questioned in any other place. This is understood to
mean that although members of Congress are exempt from prosecution or civil action for
their words uttered in Congress, they can nevertheless be questioned in Congress itself.
Furthermore, Rule XVII, sec. 7 of the Rules of the House recognizes the Houses power to
hold a member responsible for words spoken in debate. Parliamentary immunity guarantees the
legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal and civil
actions before the courts or any other forum outside the Congressional hall, however, it does not
protect him from responsibility before the legislative body itself whenever his words and
conduct are considered disorderly or unbecoming. For unparliamentary conduct, members of Congress
may be censured committed to prison, suspended even expelled by the voted of their colleagues.
Whether the House has lost power to question and discipline Osmena as it had taken up other business
before approving Resolution No. 59:

Parliamentary rules are merely procedural and may be waived or disregarded by the legislature. The
courts have no concern with their observance

Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every
legislative assembly of the democratic world. As old as the English Parliament, its purpose is to enable
and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success for
it is indispensably necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be
protected from the resentment of every one, however, powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty
may occasion. Such immunity has come to this country from the practices of Parliament as construed
and applied by the Congress of the United States. Its extent and application remain no longer in doubt
insofar as related to the question before us. It guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression
without fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before the courts or any other forum
outside of the Congressional hall. But it does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative
body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbecoming to a
member thereof.