Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Jimenez v Cabangbang

17 SCRA 876 Political Law Freedom of Speech and Debate


Bartolome Cabangbang was a member of the House of Representatives and
Chairman of its Committee on National Defense. In November 1958, Cabangbang
caused the publication of an open letter addressed to the Philippines. Said letter
alleged that there have been allegedly three operational plans under serious study
by some ambitious AFP officers, with the aid of some civilian political strategists.
That such strategists have had collusions with communists and that the Secretary of
Defense, Jesus Vargas, was planning a coup dtat to place him as the president.
The planners allegedly have Nicanor Jimenez, among others, under their guise
and that Jimenez et al may or may not be aware that they are being used as a tool
to meet such an end. The letter was said to have been published in newspapers of
general circulation. Jimenez then filed a case against Cabangbang to collect a sum
of damages against Cabangbang alleging that Cabangbangs statement is libelous.
Cabangbang petitioned for the case to be dismissed because he said that as a
member of the lower house, he is immune from suit and that he is covered by the
privileged communication rule and that the said letter is not even libelous.
ISSUE: Whether or not the open letter is covered by privilege communication
endowed to members of Congress.

HELD: No. Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution provides 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 the Congress, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any
speech or debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
The publication of the said letter is not covered by said expression which 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. Congress was not in session when the letter was published and
at the same time he, himself, caused the publication of the said letter. It is obvious
that, in thus causing the communication to be so published, he was not performing
his official duty, either as a member of Congress or as officer of any Committee
thereof. Hence, contrary to the finding made by the lower court the said
communication is not absolutely privileged.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi