You are on page 1of 4

Osmea v.

Pendatun
28 October 1960 (though in the syllabus its 2001)
Bengzon, J.
Internal Rules and Discipline (Disorderly Behavior)
Background:
Abbreviation:
House of Representative (HOR)
Facts:
On 23 May 1960, Honorable Sergio Osmea Jr. and members of the Second District
of Cebu took the floor of the Chamber of House of Representative (HOR) for an
hour of privilege speech entitled A Message to Garcia. During the speech,
Osmea besmirched the president with allegations of bribery and
corruption in his administration. He claimed:
hearing of ugly reports that under your (Presidents) unpopular
administration the free things they (the people of the Philippines) used to
get from the government are now for sale at premium prices pardons
are for sale the culprit can always be bailed out forever from jail as long
as he can come across with a handsome dole kind of justice that your
administration is dispensing.
The HOR aimed to resolve the matter as the imputations are of serious
assault upon the dignity and prestige of the Office of the President, which is
the one visible symbol of the sovereignty of the Filipino people by issuing a
subpoena to Osmea and provide the evidence such as witness and pertinent
papers regarding his allegations and failure to do so will warrant a punishment.
Osmea did not produce the said evidence but nonetheless claimed that 1) He has
parliamentary immunity for speeches in House 2) His words contain no actionable
conduct 3) After his speech the House moved on with another business which in
Rule XVII Sec. 7 of the Rules of the House provides that 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. During this
time, the HOR issued House Resolution 59, which created a special committee of
fifteen Members appointed by the Speaker in order to investigate the truth of the
charges against the President of the Philippines made by Honorable Sergio
Osmea, Jr. During the investigation, the HOR continued to perform its task since
the legislative session will imminently be adjourned.
On 18 July 1960, HOR issued House Resolution No. 175 declaring Hon. Osmea
guilty and suspending him from office for fifteen months.

Petitions for "declaratory relief, certiorari and prohibition with preliminary


injunction"
- Against Congressman Salipada K. Pendatun and fourteen other congressmen in
their capacity as members of the Special Committee created by House
Resolution No. 59
Issue/s with Ruling:
W/N Honorable Sergio Osmea, Jr. is liable for his conduct despite his immunity?
Petitioner/s:
Court
According to
Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a
petitioner, the
fundamental privilege. Its purpose is to allow the representative
Constitution
to discharge his duty with firmness and success. Such practice
gave him
originate from United States. However, it does not protect him
complete
from responsibility before the legislative body itself
parliamentary
whenever his words and conduct are considered by the
immunity, and
latter disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof. In USA,
so, for words
unparliamentary conduct have been, or could be censured,
spoken in the
or committed to prison. The Philippine Senate, in April 1949,
House, he ought suspended a senator for one year. Furthermore, the Rules of
not to be
Philippine House of Representatives provide that the
questioned; (2)
parliamentary practices of the Congress of the United
that his speech
States shall apply in a supplementary manner to its
constituted no
proceedings
disorderly
behaviour for
which he could
be punished;
Petitioner/s:
Court
According to
The rules adopted by deliberative bodies are subject to
petitioner
revocation modification or waiver at the pleasure of the
argues that
body adopting them. Parliamentary rules are merely
because after
procedural, and with their observance, the courts have no
his speech, and
concern. They may be waived or disregarded by the
before
legislative body." Consequently, "mere failure to conform to
approving
parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action (taken by
Resolution No.
a deliberative body) when the requisite number of members
59, the house
have agreed to a particular measure. Thus mere failure to
had taken up
conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action
other business.
(taken by a deliberative body) when the requisite number of
members have agreed to a particular measure."

Petitioner/s:
The petitioner
questions
whether the
delivery of his

Court
The court believes that the determination of rules that are
punishable within the House depend on the House itself not only
because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but
also because the matter depends mainly on factual circumstances

speeches
attacking the
Chief Executive
constitutes
disorderly
conduct for
which he may
be disciplined.

Petitioner/s:
According to
petitioner
questions
whether he can
still file an
injunction for
the instatement
of Resolution
No. 59 since the
House has
closed its
session, and the
Committee has
ceased to exist
as such making
the case moot
and academic.

of which the House knows best. Thus, where the state Senate is
given the power to expel a member, the courts will not review its
action or revise even a most arbitrary or unfair decision. That it is
a power of self-protection, and that the legislative body must
necessarily be the sole judge of the exigency which may
justify and require its exercise.
The invocation of Alejandrino as precedent by petitioner is not
warranted. Senator Alejandrino was suspended by office for 12
months because he had assaulted another member of that Body
for certain phrases the latter had uttered. In this case, despite the
cognizance of the separation of powers, the Court nevertheless
reinstated him. However the case at hand is different since
Senator Alejandrino is an appointed member of the Governor
General from the Jones Law and under the Jones Law, the
Governor General is empowered to appoint "without consent of
the Senate and without restriction as to residence senators who
will, in his opinion, best represent the Twelfth District."
Therefore his removal will contravene the Jones Law.
The Legislative power of the Philippine Congress is plenary,
subject only to such limitations as are found in the
Republic's Constitution. So that any power deemed to be
legislative by usage or tradition, is necessarily possessed by
the Philippine Congress, unless the Constitution provides
otherwise
Court
The Court thought it proper to express at this time its conclusions
on such issues as were deemed relevant and decisive.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the Petitions are hereby DISMISSED. So ordered.

J.B.L. Reyes Dissenting

You might also like