74. JIMENEZ VS.

CABANGBANG

EN BANC
Nicanor T. Jimenez, et al., plaintiffs-appellants v. Bartolome Cabangbang,
defendant-appellee
17 SCRA 876 | GR.NO. L-15905 | August 3, 1966
Concepcion, C. J.

TOPIC:

Section 11 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution: Immunities and Privileges

FACTS:

On November 14, 1958, defendant Cabangbang published an open letter to the

President in several newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. The publication
talked about the alleged operational plans of the then Secretary of National Defense to
launch his presidential career in 1961 elections. Cabangbang's letter mentioned the
names of Nicanor Jimenes and his comrades as subordinates to the 'Planners' behind
the alleged operation. They sued Cabangbang for the crime of libel and sought financial
compensation for the damages caused by the letter. The defendant moved to dismiss the
complaint on the grounds that the letter was a privileged form of communication and that
it was not libellous.

ISSUE:

Whether the contested publication could be classified as a privileged form of

communication under the provisions of Sec. 11, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

RULING:

No. Sec. 11, Article VI of the Constitution states that:

“The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives

shall in al 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.”

Under the provisions of Sec. 11, Article VI of the Constitution, "speech or debate
therein" only refers to the utterances made by Congress members in the performance of
their official duties, such as delivering speeches, making statements, or casting votes in
the Congressional hall while the same is in session. It could also refer to the introduction
of bills in Congress, whether it is session or not, and other acts performed by Congress
members in their official capacity whether there was a session or not, whether inside or
outside the premises of one's office.
 74. JIMENEZ VS. CABANGBANG

In the case at bar, the Court ruled that Cabangbang's letter cannot be classified as
a privileged form of communication because it was published during a time when the
Congress was not in session. Moreover, the defendant was not performing his official
duty as either a member of Congress when he intended the letter to be published.
Therefore, the open letter was not privileged. Because of these reasons, Cabangbang's
open letter cannot be classified as a privileged form of communication.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed. Is it so ordered.