Martin v.

Morfe

Issues and Ratio:

WON parliamentary immunity covers criminal arrests? (NO)

Premise 1: Even if the language of the provision of legislative

immunity is less clear, the HISTORY of the provision precludes any
other interpretation except that parliamentary immunity does not
apply to arrests warranted under a penal law.

1. The initial provision in the 1934 constitutional convention:

a. Here it was initially proposed that parliamentary immunity will
in this manner: "The Members of the National Assembly shall
in all cases except treason, open disturbance of public
order, or other offense punishable by death or
imprisonment of not less than six years, be privileged from
arrest during their attendance at the sessions of the National
Assembly, and in going to and returning from the same."
b. So here we see that the initial provision does applies legislative
immunity even to criminal offenses with some exceptions.
2. The amended provision:
a. However, an amendment was offered by Delegate Aldeguer so
that it would read as: The Members of the National Assembly
shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the
peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the
sessions of the National Assembly, and in going and returning
from the same."
i. Here felony is: Acts or omission punishable by law
ii. Breach of peace: covers offense whether defined by the
Revised penal code or any special statute.
b. what was sought here was to retain the provision in the
Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 which is identical to the
American constitution.
3. The reason behind the amendment:
a. This was to answer the question of to what extent must
parliamentary immunity be given
b. To be consistent with the concept of parliamentary immunity yin
other countries like the US and England.
c. This amendment is to assure that the National assembly is not
given more priviliges than what the nature of the office
requires. Because if the members of the US congress and
 English parliament can effectively discharge their office as law
making bodies with this extent of privilege why broaden it?
4. More important reasons
a. 1st: The history of the immunity itself shows that it was never
intended to exempt members of the National assembly from
criminal arrests thus when American sovereignty was implanted
in the country, this concept was implanted also.
i. The theory is that every man must be equal before the
eyes of the law. Granting undue privileges to a few
people abrogates this principle.
b. 2 : The legislature is but an agent of the state, and the state
nd

has to fulfill its obligation without any obstacle. Thus a

legislature endangering the state by committing crimes and
subsequently being immune also abrogates this principle.
i. The claim of the legislature is based on self-preservation
while the states claim stems from the fact that it has
functions it has to carry.
ii. When these claims for privilege are pitted together, it does
not make sense why the agent (legislature) who can
potentially endanger the state must be immune at the
expense of the principal (state). Clearly this is not sound
policy.
5. The amendment was not objected to and was supported as a well-
founded for being consistent with the Philippine autonomy act
and was subsequently approved thus showing that the primary goal of
the immunity is NOT to exempt one from criminal arrests.

Premise 2: Clearly then the concept of immunity is understood in the

same way as it has been in American law being similar to the
American constitution. We can thus use American cases to
supplement our understanding.

1. CJ White:
a. the term 'treason, felony and breach of the peace,' as used in
the constitutional provision relied upon, excepts from the
operation of the privilege all criminal offenses,
b. A brief consideration of the subject of parliamentary privilege in
England willshow the source whence the expression 'treason,
felony, and breach of the peace' was drawn to leave no doubt
that the words were used in England for the very purpose of
excluding all crimes from the operation of the
 parliamentary privilege, and therefore to leave that privilege
to apply only to prosecutions of a civil nature
c. 'breach of the peace' would seem to extend to all indictable
offenses, as well those which are in fact attended with force and
violence, as those which are only constructive breaches of the
peace of the government, inasmuch as they violate its good
order."
2. Cooley: By common parliamentary law, the members of the
legislature are privileged from arrest on civil process during the
session of that body, and for a reasonable time before and after, to
enable them to go to and return from the same."

WON the writs of certiorari are still available based on the

imposition of the RPC?

Premise 1: The generous treatment of the RPC and the Philippine

Autonomy Act did not survive the 1935 constitution for being
inconsistent with the later.

1. The RPC sanction any public officer or employee who shall, while the
Congress is in regular or special session, arrest or charge any
member thereof except in case such member has committed a crime
punishable by penalty higher than prision mayor.
a. This expanded the parliamentary immunity granted by the
Philippine Autonomy act.
2. The question now is, did this expansion survive upon the
promilgatio of the 1935 constitution? NO

Premise 2: The constitution is clear that those inconsistent to it is

deemed inoperative.

1. The Constitution is equally explicit on the following point: "All laws of

the Philippine Islands shall continue in force until the inauguration of
the Commonwealth of the Philippines; thereafter, such laws shall
remain operative, unless inconsistent with this Constitution,
until amended, altered, modified, or repealed by the Congress
of the Philippines,
2. Examples of the effects of inconsistency with the constitution:

a. In People v. linsangan: the cort declared that to require

demonstration that section 2718 of the Revised Administrative
 Code is inconsistent with section 1, clause 12, of Article III of
the Constitution in that, while the former authorizes
imprisonment for non-payment of the poll or cedula tax, the
latter forbids it. It follow that upon the inauguration of the
Government of the Commonwealth, said section 2718 of
the Revised Administrative Code became inoperative, and
no judgment of conviction can be based thereon."

b. In De los Santos v. Mallare: "So, unlike legislation that is

passed in defiance of the Constitution, assertive and menacing,
the questioned part of section 2545 of the Revised
Administrative Code does not need a positive declaration of
nullity by the court to put it out of the way. To all intents
and purposes, it is non-existent, outlawed and eliminated
from the statute book by the Constitution itself by express
mandate

Premise 3: The above conclusion is bolstered by policy

considerations:

1. There is, to be sure, a full recognition of the necessity to have

members of Congress, and likewise delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, entitled to the utmost freedom to enable them to
discharge their vital responsibilities, bowing to no other force except
the dictates of their conscience.
2. Necessarily the utmost latitude in free speech should be accorded
them
3. However, if this privilege is given it would mae a privilege class where
without justification they would be considered immune during their
attendance in congress and going to and returning from the same.
4. Certainly, a legislator can perform his functions without violating
criminal law.
5. Moreover, the state cannot send the message that it can allow crime
to go unpunished.

Premise 4: As for the fear that the government might go after

legislators in the minority; there are safeguards in the constitution
itself assuming the judiciary remains still independent.

DISPOSITION: Petition for Habeas Corpus for Martinez by Festin and

the petition for Certiorari and prohibition by Bautista are
DISMISSED.