MARTINEZ v MORFE GR No. L-34022 Petitioner: Manuel Martinez y Festin Respondent: The Honorable Jesus P.

Morfe of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and the City Warden of Manila GR No. L-34046-7 Petitioner: Fernando Bautista, Sr. Respondents: Honorable Francisco Ma.Chanco, Presiding Judge, CFI of Baguio and Benguet Ponente: Fernando, J. Date: March 24, 1972

As they were arrested, they invoke Sec 145 of the Revised Penal Code (See notes) which makes an arrest of a delegate/congressman a felony under certain circumstances. They also used Sec 145 RPC to prove that the offenses they committed are covered by the Immunity because it is not punishable by more than prision mayor. Despite the contentions, the respondent Judges issued warrants. They are now sued for grave abuse of discretion. ISSUES/HELD (1) WoN the petitioners are covered by the immunity (WoN criminal offenses are covered by the immunity).NO (2) WoN Art 145 can be raised as a defense - NO RATIO (1) No. The clear language of the constitution does not intend to include criminal offenses in the grant of Immunity to the Parliamentary. The court cited the drafts and amendments made by the 1935 convention regarding the grant of immunity. The original provision submitted reads: The Members of the National Assembly shall in all cases except treason, open disturbance of public order, or other offense punishable by death or imprisonment of not less than six years, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of the National Assembly, and in going to and returning from the same This was latter amended by the proposal of Delegate Aldeguer which states: The Members of the National Assembly shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of the National Assembly, and in going and returning from the same (See Notes for the list of differences) . The phrase treason, felony and breach of the peace is understood to remove criminal offenses from the operation of the Immunity privilege. The court also emphasized that the States grant of immunity to the Legislature is based on the right of selfpreservation, and it is due to the fact that it has to carry its legislative function without obstacle. But also to the fact that the same is a part or an appendage of the State all harmful actions committed by the Legislature will endanger the State. Thus, giving more privileges to an

TOPIC: Violation of Parliamentary Immunity Art VI Sec 15, 1935 Constitution: DOCTRINE Parliamentary Immunity from arrest does not cover criminal offenses. SHORT VERSION Both petitioners are facing criminal charges but, as delegates to the Constitutional Convention, they invoked the Parliamentary Immunity granted to them. They raised Art VI Sec 15 of the Constitution and Art 145 RPC to support their claim. SC however held that the word of the Constitution clearly does not grant immunity to criminal offenses. Parliamentary immunity only covers civil arrests. FACTS Both petitioners (delegates of the Constitutional Convention) are facing criminal prosecutions (Martinez-in falsification of public document1 punishable by prision mayor; Bautista-a violation of the Revised Election Code which is punishable by not higher that prision mayor) and both invoked parliamentary immunity by declaring Sec 15 of RA 6132 which grants delegates of the Constitutional Convention (See Doctrine) the same privileges as that of the members of the Congress.
1

He falsified his birth in his certificate of candidacy for delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He wrote June 20 1945 when it should be June 1946.

agent, which is the Legislature, at the expense of the State, is not a sound policy. The purpose of the immunity is to (2) No. The court declared Art 145 RPC as inoperative. The RPC took effect on January 1, 1932 while the 1935 constitution was enforced 3 years after. It is widely understood that, disregarding the fact that the constitution is the fundamental law and a higher law than a statute, newer law prevails the older one.

DECISION Petition dismissed. NOTES > Art. 145 of the Revised Penal Code reads in full: Violation of parliamentary immunityThe penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall use force, intimidation, threads, or fraud to prevent any member of the National Assembly from attending the meetings of the Assembly or any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, from expressing his opinions or casting his vote; and the penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall, while the Congress is in regular or special session, arrest or search any member thereof, except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor > The diffence in the provision and its amendment: (1) the amendment includes felony in the exception from the immunity (2) the amendment includes breach of peace in the exception from the immunity (3) the amendment removed the phrase or other offenses punishable by death or imprisonment of not less than six years. O