Osmeña v. Pendatun (1960)

OSMEÑA v. PENDATUN, et. al

October 28, 1960 | Justice Bengzon | Powers of Congress, Separation of Powers, and Parliamentary Immunity

PETITIONER: Sergio Osmena, Jr.

RESPONDENT: Salipada K. Pedantun, Leon Z. Gunito, Jr., Vicente L. Peralta, Faustino Tobia, Lorenzo G. Teves, Jose J. Roy, Fausto Du Genio, Antonio Y. De Pio, Benjamin T. Ligot, Pedro G. Trono, Felipe Abrigo, Felipe S. Abeleda, Tecla San Andres Ziga, Angel B. Fernandez, and Eugenio S. Baltao.

SUMMARY: This is an ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court for declaratory relief and/or certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction filed by Osmeña against Pendatun and 14 other congressmen in their capacity as members of the Special Committee created by Resolution No. 59. On June 23, 1960, Hon. Osmena delivered a one-hour privilege speech entitled “A Message to Garcia.” The members of the said Committee then issued House Resolution No. 59, stating the need to substantiate his claims and that failure to do so will require Osmena to show cause why he should not be punished by the House. Osmena alleges that the Resolution violated his constitutional absolute parliamentary immunity for speeches delivered in the house. On July 18, 1960 (House Resolution No. 175) found Osmena guilty for serious disorderly behaviour and recommended a 15-month suspension from office. Osmeña asked the Court for annulment of such resolution and that said members of the Committee be prohibited from proceeding.

DOCTRINE/THEORY: Separation of Powers

Each department has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere. (Angara v. Electoral Commission)

FACTS:

1. Osmena’s privileged speech: “The people, Mr. president, have been hearing of ugly reports that under your unpopular administration the free things they used to get from the gov’t are now for sale at premium prices. They said that even pardons are for sale, and that regardless of the gravity of 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.”
2. House Resolution No. 59 intends to: (1) investigate the truth behind Osmena’s charges against the President, (2) summon Osmena to appear before the Committee to substantiate his charges, (3) issue subpoenas to require attendance of witnesses or the production of pertinent papers.
3. The Court finds that Osmeña’s speech made serious imputations of bribery against the President and refused to produce evidence to substantiate such claims to the House Committee.

ISSUES:

1. W/N Osmeña has complete parliamentary immunity provided by the Constitution by virtue of his being a congressman. YES (Is this immunity absolute? NO)
2. W/N Congress has the power to suspend/sanction its members. YES
3. W/N the Court has jurisdiction to take/act upon Osmeña’s petition. NO

RATIO:

1. The Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental privilege. This guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without the fear of criminal/civil actions before the courts or any other forum outside of the Congressional Hall.

CAVEAT: This does not protect him from responsibility before the Congress itself whenever his words/conduct are considered unbecoming or disorderly.

2. Sec. 15 Article VI of the Constitution - “for any speech or debate” in Congress, Senators or Members of the HoR “shall not be questioned in any other place.”

2.1. Rules of House (Rule XVII) Sec 7 – recognizes the House’s power to hold a member responsible for “words spoken in debate.”

3. If the Court assumed the power to act upon Osmeña’s petition, it would have assumed appellate jurisdiction, which is not conferred upon by the Constitution to the judicial branch of the government. The theory of separation of powers is observed by the Court.

JUDGMENT: Petition is DENIED.

DISSENTING OPINION: Justice J.B.L. Reyes

Believes that Osmeña was entitled to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction on his petition with regard to House Resolution No. 59, as this constitutes to an unlawful attempt to divest him of immunity from censure or punishment. Indeed, the Court has no power to direct or compel the Legislature to act in a certain manner, but this should not deter the Court to recognize and declare unconstitutionality.

DISSENTING: Justice Labrador

Concurs with the dissenting opinion of Justice Reyes. Believes that the Court should not shrink their responsibility to declare Osmeña’s rights under the protection rule of the House the rule simply because of separation of powers.