Members of Congress cannot
be prosecuted for any words spoken in debate or in connection with voting or
used in written reports or with things generally done in a session of either
House in relation to the business before it. This protection is extended to
them during the session on the occasion of the exercise of their functions
either in their respective chambers or in joint assembly, or in committees or
commission.
Constitutional Basis
A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in Congress or in any committee thereof. (Section 11, Article VI, 1987 Philippine Constitution)
Purpose of the privilege
The purpose of this privilege of speech or debate is not to protect the members against prosecutions for their own benefit but to enable them as representatives of the people to execute the functions of their office without fear of prosecution, civil or criminal. As held in the case of OsmeƱa v. Pendatun, the Supreme Court took the occasion of defining the purpose of the privilege. It ruled:
Constitutional Basis
A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in Congress or in any committee thereof. (Section 11, Article VI, 1987 Philippine Constitution)
Purpose of the privilege
The purpose of this privilege of speech or debate is not to protect the members against prosecutions for their own benefit but to enable them as representatives of the people to execute the functions of their office without fear of prosecution, civil or criminal. As held in the case of OsmeƱa v. Pendatun, the Supreme Court took the occasion of defining the purpose of the privilege. It ruled:
Our Constitution enshrines
parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every
legislative assembly of the democratic world. As old as the English Parliament,
its purpose is to enable and encourage a representative of the public to
discharge his public trust with firmness and success for it is indispensably
necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he
should be protected from the resentment of every one, however, powerful, to
whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion. Such immunity has come to this
country from the practices of Parliament as construed and applied by the
Congress of the United States. Its extent and application remain no longer in
doubt insofar as related to the question before us. It guarantees the
legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made
responsible in criminal or civil actions before the courts or any other forum
outside of the Congressional hall. But it does not protect him from
responsibility before the legislative body itself whenever his words and
conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbecoming to a member thereof. (Source: http://www.senate.gov.ph)