ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 132451.December 14, 1999]

REP. ENRIQUE T. GARCIA vs. CORONA, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 14, 1999 .

G.R. 132451(Rep. Enrique T. Garcia v. Hon. Renato C. Corona, et al.)

This Court, in a resolution dated August 10, 1999, directed petitioner Representative Enrique T. Garcia to show cause and explain within ten (10) days from notice why he should not be cited for indirect contempt under Rule 71, Section 3(c) and (d) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, for causing the publication of full page paid advertisements in the August 9 issues of the Philippine Star and Today newspapers of an article petitioner wrote which tends to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice in this case.

On August 23, 1999, petitioner filed his "Answer to the Contempt of Court Charge," pleading good faith and fair criticism as his defenses. However, this Court finds his explanation unsatisfactory. On the contrary, petitioner's cavalier attitude of invoking the cloak of free speech, taken together with his manifest disappointment over this Court's refusal to allow him to orally argue the petition and of granting him only a short period when the Court finally gave him the floor, betray petitioner's intent to deride and trifle with the dignity of this Court. Indeed, notwithstanding petitioner's explanations, this Court maintains that the utterances made by petitioner in his article entitled "Supreme Court's Choice: Public Interest vs. Big 3 Oligopoly", and which are reproduced in the August 10, 1999 Resolution, are sub judice and constitute indirect contempt as conduct tending directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.

In the penultimate paragraph of his Answer, petitioner contends that his article, inasmuch as it was taken from a privilege speech he purportedly delivered in Congress, should be covered by parliamentary immunity, enshrined in Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution. It bears stressing that parliamentary immunity extends only to speeches or debates made "in the Congress or in any committee thereof ¹ Constitution, Article VI, Section 11.In the early case of Jimenez, et al. v. Cabangbang, ² 17 SCRA 876, at 878 (1966).it was held:

Said expression refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions, such as speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress, while the same is in session, as well as bills introduced in Congress, whether the same is in session or not, and other acts performed by Congressmen, either in Congress or outside the premises housing its offices, in the official discharge of their duties as members of Congress and of Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform its functions as such, at the time of the performance of the acts in question.

The publication of petitioner's article, albeit taken from a privilege speech, as paid public advertisements in national newspapers, was definitely not done in the official discharge of petitioner's duties as a member of Congress. Hence, the same was removed from the protective mantle of parliamentary immunity.

ACCORDINGLY, petitioner is hereby ADMONISHED to avoid making remarks which tend to impede or degrade the administration of justice and is hereby STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar conduct as that involved in this case will be dealt with severely.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Assistant Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE