The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the disbarment complaint or the imposition of disciplinary sanction against Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago for her 2006 privilege speech that was critical of the members of the High Court.

In a decision written by Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., the SC said that Senator Santiago’s statements in her privilege speech as member of Congress were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity.

“Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court,” the SC said as it dismissed the complaint of a certain Antero J. Pobre.

‘’The private citizen was reportedly used by my political enemies, and I know who they are. The news item was a hatchet job,’’ Santiago said.

But the SC said that while it is not hesitant to impose some form of disciplinary sanction on Senator Santiago for her act of utter disrespect towards the court and its members, “the factual and legal circumstances of this case, however, deter the court from doing so, even without any sign of remorse from her” as “basic constitutional consideration dictates this kind of disposition.”

The SC, however, exhorted Senator Santiago that being a lawyer herself, it is her duty to respect the courts of justice, especially the High Tribunal, as it reminded her “that the parliamentary non-accountability thus granted to members of Congress” is not to protect them against prosecution for their own benefit, but to enable them, as representatives of the people, to perform the functions of their office without fear of being made responsible before the courts or other forums outside the congressional halls.

Santiago said that she and retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban remained friends today, and were even “amicable” when they both attended an international conference in Doha, Qatar last year, where Santiago delivered a paper on international relations.

Santiago said that in her official comment on the disbarment complaint three years ago, she relied on the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity which states: “No member (of Congress) shall be questioned nor held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress.”

After she delivered the speech, no senator interpellated her, nor filed a complaint with the Senate ethics committee; instead, some senators even congratulated her.

“My own colleagues apparently agreed with what I said. It is unfortunate that another branch of government would criticize the internal actuations of a co-equal branch,” Santiago said.

According to the SC, the Rules of the Senate contain a provision on “unparliamentary acts and language” that enjoins a senator from using, under any circumstance, “offensive or improper language against another senator or against any public institution.”

“But as to Senator’s Santiago’s unparliamentary remarks, the Senate President had not apparently called her to order, let alone referred the matter to the Senate ethics committee for appropriate disciplinary action, as the Rules dictate under such circumstance. The lady senator clearly violated the rules of her own chamber. It is unfortunate that her peers bent backwards and avoided imposing their own rules on her,” the SC stressed.

In her comment, Santiago did not deny her critical statements against the SC. But she said that those remarks were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity in the discharge of her duty as member of Congress or its committee.

Santiago said she was prompted to deliver the speech to expose what she believed “to be unjust act of the Judicial and Bar Council” which, after sending out public invitations for nomination to the soon-to-be vacated position of Chief Justice, would eventually inform applicants that only incumbent justices of Supreme Court would qualify for nomination.

According to Santiago, the JBC should have at least given an advanced advisory that non-sitting members of the Court, like her, would not be considered for the position of Chief Justice.

Justices Minita V. Chico Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Diosdado M. Peralta, and Conchita Carpio Morales concurred in the decision.