Osmena v. Pendatun

SERGIO OSMEÑA JR. v. SALAPIDA PENDATUN (D)
GR. No.  L-17144 October 28, 1960

FACTS:

• June 23, 1960 , the Honorable Sergio Osmeña, Jr., Member of the House of Representatives from the 2nd District of the province of Cebu, took the floor of this chamber on the one hour privilege to deliver a speech, entitled 'A Message to Garcia;
• The congress passed House Resolution No. 59, creation of a special committee of 15 Members to be appointed by the Speaker, created to investigate the truth of the charges against the President made by Honorable Sergio Osmeña, Jr., in his privilege speech of June 23, 1960.
• July 14, 1960, Congressman Sergio Osmeña, Jr., submitted to this Court a verified petition for "declaratory relief, certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction" against Congressman Salapida K. Pendatun and 14 other congressmen in their capacity as members of the Special Committee created by House Resolution No. 59.
• July 18, 1960, Petitioner is found guilty of serious disorderly behaviour; the House approved on the same day House Resolution No. 175, declaring him guilty as recommended, and suspending him from office for 15 months.

ISSUE:

• Whether or not House Resolution No. 59 is an infringement of Osmeña’s parliamentary immunity?

HELD:

• No, House Resolution No. 59 is an infringement of Osmeña’s parliamentary immunity.
• Sec 15, Article VI of our Constitution provides that "for any speech or debate" in Congress, the Senators or Members of the House of Representative "shall not be questioned in any other place." Furthermore, the Rules of the House which petitioner himself has invoked (Rule XVII, sec. 7), recognize the House's power to hold a member responsible "for words spoken in debate."
• On the question whether delivery of speeches attacking the Chief Executive constitutes disorderly, we believe, that the House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behaviour, not only because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also because the matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of which the House knows best but which cannot be depicted in black and white for presentation to, and adjudication by the Courts. For one thing, if this Court assumed the power to determine whether Osmeña conduct constituted disorderly behaviour, it would thereby have assumed appellate jurisdiction, which the Constitution never intended to confer upon a coordinate branch of the Government.