Jimenez v Cabangbang (1966)

Caluag, J.
- Bartolome Cabangbang sends an open letter to the President
o It has come to my attention that there have been allegedly 3 operational plans under
serious study by some ambitious AFP officers, with the aid of some political strategists
o Describes a massive plan of then Secretary of National Defense Jesus Vargas
Political build-up for his alleged campaign for the Presidency in 1961
By means of on-going radio announcements, speaking engagements,
press releases, loyalty parades, etc. extolling him as a hero of
democracy in previous elections as well as a planned coup detat
o Recommends that Secretary be asked to resign and that the present chiefs of various
intelligence agencies in the AFP, including the chiefs of the NICA, NBI, and other intelligence
agencies, be reassigned, considering that they were handpicked by Secretary Vargas and
Gen. Arellano
- The letter was published in several newspapers
- Plaintiffs Nicanor Jimenez, Carlos Albert and Jose Lukban filed for damages from what they allege as
a libelous letter
- Defendant says
o Letters arent libelous and that its within the scope of his privileges as a member of Congress
- RTC ruled in favor of plaintiffs
- CA reversed

ISSUE
WON the publication in question is a privileged communication
WON it was libelous

HELD
NO
- Section 15, Art. VI
o The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases, except
treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance
at the sessions of Congress, and in going and returning from the same; and for any speech or
debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Speech or debate refers to utterance made in the performance of official
functions, such as speeches, statements, votes cast in the halls of Congress, as well
as bills introduced, and other acts performed by Congressmen either in Congress or
outside the premises in the official discharge of their duties
o The open letter was dated and published on and around Nov. 14, 1958, when the Congress
was NOT in session
o In causing the communication to be published, he was NOT performing his official duty,
either as a member of Congress or as officer of any committee
- Not privileged

NO
- The open letter includes:
o It is reported that the Planners have under their control the following:
Col. Nicanor Jimenez of NICA
Lt. Col. Jose Lukban of NBI
Capt. Carlos Alberto of G-2 AFP
o It is possible that the officers mentioned above are un-witting tools of the plan of which they
may have absolutely no knowledge
- Letter in question is not sufficient to support the action for damages
o They might be absolutely unaware of the alleged operational plans is not derogatory to
the plaintiffs, to the point of entitlement to recover damages
o The complaint of public ridicule, hatred tarnished reputation and alienation from their
associates are found to be inconsistent with the contents of the letter
Osmea v. Pendatun (1960)
Bengson, J.
- June 1960
o Cong. Sergio Osmena Jr delivered a one hour privilege speech entitled A Message to
Garcia
About the ugly reports of Garcias administration
- This prompted the HoR to promulgate House Resolution No. 59
o Creates a special committee to investigate the truth of the charges
- July 14 1960
o Cong. Osmena Jr submitted to SC a verified petition for declaratory relief, certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction against Congressman Salapida Pendatun and 14
other congressmen in their capacity as members of the special committee
The Resolution violated his constitutional absolute parliamentary immunity for
speeches delivered in the House
His words constituted no actionable conduct
Section 7, Rule XVIII
If other business has intervened after the member had uttered obnoxious
words in debate, he shall not be held to answer therefor nor be subject to
censure by the House
- July 18 1960
o House approved House Resolution No. 175
Declaring him guilty and suspending hom from office for 15 months

ISSUE
WON the Constitution gave him complete parliamentary immunity
WON the speech constituted orderly behavior for which he could be punished
WON the House has already lost its power to question and discipline him because it has taken up
other business after his speech
WON the House has no power, under the Constitution, to suspend one of its members

HELD
NO
- Section 15, Art. VII
o Its purpose is:
To enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public
trust with firmness and success
It is indispensably necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of
speech
That he should be protected from resentment of everyone, however powerful, to
whom exercise of that liberty may occasion offense
o Guarantees complete freedom of expression without fear of being made criminally or civilly
liable before any court or forum outside the Congressional Hall
But this does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body itself
whenever his words and conduct are considered to be disorderly or unbecoming a
member thereof

Not for Court to decide

NO
- Petitioner: the House may suspend the operation of its Rules but it may not affect past acts or renew its
rights to take action which had already lapsed
- Court: at any rate, courts are subject to revocation modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body
adopting them
o Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and the courts have no concern with their
observance
They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body
- Mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action when the requisited
number of members have agreed to a particular measure

YES
- Congress has the inherent legislative prerogative of suspension which the Constitution didnt impair
o The PH Senate has even suspended a Senator for 12 months in 1949
Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago (2009)
Velasro, Jr., J.
- The Judicial Bar Council sent invites for nomination for the position of Chief Justice (only incumbent
justices of the Supreme Court were qualified for the position)
- In a speech delivered in the Senate floor, Sen. Miriam said:
o 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
- Citizen Antero Pobre wrote a complaint dated Dec. 22, 2006

ISSUE
WON the Senator is administratively liable for her actions

HELD
NO
- Section 11, Article VI, 1987 Constitution
o A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives 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.
- The legislative assembly is privileged the full liberty of speech so as to discharge his public trust with
firmness and success
- The complaint also failed to include his motive in his argument
o Because disciplinary actions must be undertaken solely for public welfare
- Code of Professional Responsibility
o Canon 8, Rule 8.01
A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper
o Canon 11
A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others
- The Senate can be the body to call her to order. They can punish her for her improper language
against any public institution under the provision on Unparliamentary Acts and Language in the Rules
of the Senate. But they didnt.
- So the Court cant also. LOL weak af.
Adaza v. Pacana, Jr. (1985)
Escolin, J.
- Homobono Adaza was elected governor of Misamis Oriental on Jan. 30, 1980
o Fernando Pacana, Jr. was elected vice-governor
o Their terms would expire on March 3, 1984
- March 27, 1984 and April 27, 1984
o They both filed their COC for the May 14, 1984 Batasang Pambansa elections
- Petitioner won and he took oath of office as Mambabatas Pambansa on July 1984
o Started discharging duties immediately
- Respondent took his oath of office as governor on July 23, 1984 before President Marcos
o Started discharging duties 2 days after
- Petitioner says:
o He is the rightful governor and that his term has not expired
o A local elective official can hold the position to which he had been elected and
simultaneously be an elected member of Parliament
o That respondent had no right to assume governorship because he became a private citizen
when he filed his candidacy for BP

ISSUE
WON he can serve as a member of BP and a governor simultaneously
WON a VG who ran for BP and lost assume original position and by virtue of succession, take the
vacated seat of governor

HELD
NO
- Section 10, Article VIII of 1973 Constitution
o A member of the National Assembly shall not hold any other office or employment in the
government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including the government-
owned or controlled corporation, during his tenure, except that of a prime minister or
member of the cabinet

YES
- BP 697, Section 13(2)
o Governors, mayor, members of various sanggunian or barangay officials shall, upon filing a
COC, be considered on forced leave of absence from office
- Respondent is a part of the Sanggunian when he filed the COC
- He was acting within the law when he reassumed the position as VG and the eventual succession to
governorship (in accordance with Section 204(2a) of the LGC (powers, duties and privileges of a VG)
Liban v. Gordon (2009)
Carpio, J.
- Feb 23, 2006 Meeting of the PNRC Board of Governors
o Dick Gordon, during his incumbency as senator, was elected Chairman of the PNRC
- He accepted the position
- Petitioners say:
o He has automatically forfeited his seat as a member of the Senate by accepting
o Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office
or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed
to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased
during the term for which he was elected.
o PNRC is a government-owned or controlled corporation

ISSUE
WON the PNRC is a government-owned or controlled corporation
WON petitioners may legally institute this petition against respondent

HELD
NO
- PNRC is a private org performing public functions
o It is a member of the National Society of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement.
United and guided by its 7 fundamental principles: Humanity, impartiality, neutrality,
independence, voluntary service, unity, universality
o The Movement is independent and maintains their autonomy so that they may be able to
act in accordance with its principles
Must not be seen as belonging to any side of the armed conflict or be identified as
government personnel or as instruments of government policy
o It does not have government assets and does not receive any appropriation from the PH
Congress

- PNRC Chairman is not an official or employee of the PH Government

NO
- This is an action for quo warranto
o Section 1, Rule 66, RoC
Action by Government against individuals. An action for the usurpation of a
public office, position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition
brought in the name of the Republic of the PH against:
B) A public officer who does or suffers an act which by provision of law,
constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office
o Section 5, Rule 66, RoC
An individual may commence such an action if he claims to be entitled to the
public office allegedly usurped by another, in which case, he can bring the action
in his own name
He must be able to show he is entitled to the office in dispute
Otherwise, the petition may be dismissed at any stage
o Petitioner has no standing to file the petition
-