1/21/2017 G.R.No.

L34022

TodayisSaturday,January21,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L34022March24,1972

MANUELMARTINEZYFESTINpetitioner,
vs.
THEHONORABLEJESUSP.MORFEOFTHECOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCEOFMANILA,andTHECITY
WARDENOFMANILA,respondents.

G.R.Nos.L340467March24,1972

FERNANDOBAUTISTA,SR.,petitioner,
vs.
HON.FRANCISCOMA.CHANCO,PresidingJudge,CourtofFirstInstanceofBaguioandBenguet,
SecondJudicialDistrict,BranchIII,etal.,respondents.

EstanislaoA.Fernandez,AmelitoMutuc,ReynaldoVillar,AlbertoK.JamirAnacletoBadoy,Jr.,EmmanuelSantos,
SedfreyOrdoez,AntonioTupaz,ArturoPacificador,DominadorF.Carillo,AntonioBorromeo,AugustoCesar
Espiritu,DandyK.TupazandEugeneA.TanforpetitionerManuelMartinezYFestin.

Remulla,PerezandEstrella,FernandoP.CabatoandGaudencioN.FlorescaforpetitionerFernandoBautistaSr.

OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralFelixQ.Antonio,AssistantSolicitorGeneralBernardoP.Pardo,AssistantSolicitor
GeneralRosalioA.deLeonandSolicitorVicenteV.MendozaforrespondentsJudges.

KaulayaoV.Faylona,ManuelImbong,JacoboGonzales,FernandoP.Camaya,JoseTablizo,RomeoKahayon
andTomasP.Matic,Jr.forrespondentsPulidoandTamayo.

FERNANDO,J.:p

The question raised in these certiorariproceedings, one to which no authoritative answer has been yielded by
past decisions, is the scope to be accorded the constitutional immunity of senators and representatives from
arrestduringtheirattendanceatthesessionsofCongressandingoingtoandreturningfromthesameexceptin
casesoftreason,felonyandbreachofthepeace.1PetitionersManuelMartinezyFestin2andFernandoBautista,Sr.,
3 as delegate of the present Constitutional Convention would invoke what they consider to be the protection of the above
constitutionalprovision,ifconsideredinconnectionwithArticle145oftheRevisedPenalCodepenalizingapublicofficeror
employeewhoshall,duringthesessionsofCongress,"arrestorsearchanymemberthereof,exceptincasesuchmember
hascommittedacrimepunishableunder[such]Codebyapenaltyhigherthanprisionmayor."4ForundertheConstitutional
ConventionAct,5delegatesareentitledtotheparliamentaryimmunitiesofasenatororarepresentative.6 Both petitioners
arefacingcriminalprosecutions,theinformationfiledagainstpetitionerManuelMartinezyFestinforfalsificationofapublic
document and two informations against petitioner Fernando Bautista, Sr. for violation of the Revised Election Code. The
Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondent Judges in the above proceedings,7 would dispute such a contention on the
ground that the constitutional provision does not cover any criminal prosecution being merely an exemption from arrest in
civil cases, the logical inference being that insofar as a provision of the Revised Penal Code would expand such an
immunity,itwouldbeunconstitutionalorattheveryleastinoperative.Acarefulstudyoftheaboveconstitutionalprovision,
inthelightoftheproceedingsoftheConstitutionalConvention,adoptingthethenwellsettledprincipleunderAmericanlaw
andofthepurposestobeservedbysuchanimmunity,persuadeusthatthestandtakenbytheSolicitorGeneraliscorrect.
Thesecertiorariproceedingscannotprosper.

The facts in both petitions for certiorariare not in dispute. Petitioner Martinez y Festin8 alleged that on June 10,
1971, an information against him for falsification a public document was filed. Its basis was his stating under oath in his

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1972/mar1972/gr_l_34022_1972.html 1/7
1/21/2017 G.R.No.L34022
certificateofcandidacyfordelegatetothatConstitutionalConventionthathewasbornonJune20,1945,whenintruthand
infactheknewthathewasbornonJune20,1946.TherewasonJuly9,1971,aspecialappearanceonhispartquestioning
thepowerofrespondentJudgetoissueawarrantofarrestandseekingthattheinformationbequashed.Onthesameday,
therewasanorderfromthelowercourtsuspendingthereleaseofthewarrantofarrestuntilitcouldactonsuchmotionto
quash.ThencameonJuly22,1971anomnibusmotionfromhim,withpreviousleaveofcourt,toquashtheinformation,to
quashthewarrantofarrest,ortoholdinabeyancefurtherproceedinginthecase.Itwasnotfavorablyactedon.OnAugust
21, 1971, respondent Judge rendered an order denying the petitioner omnibus motion to quash. In his belief that the
information and the warrant of arrest in this case are null and void, the petitioner did not post the required bond. He was
arrestedbytheCitySheriffintheafternoonofSeptember6,1971.Atthetimeofthefilingofthepetitionhewasconfinedat
the City Jail in the custody of respondent City Warden of Manila. He was on his way to attend the plenary session of the
Constitutional Convention. Such arrest was against his will and over his protest. He was arraigned on September 9, 1971.
There was at such a time a motion by petitioner to reconsider the court's order of August 21, 1971. It was denied in open
court.Ontheverysameday,hefiledthepetitionforcertiorari and habeas corpus, but having been released thereafter on
bailonSeptember11,1971,thepetitionisnowinthenaturesolelyofacertiorariproceeding.9

AsforpetitionerFernandoBautista,Sr., 10itwasallegedthatheisadulyelectedandproclaimeddelegatetothe1971
Constitutional Convention. He took his oath of office and assumed the functions of such office on June 1, 1971. He has
continued since then to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of a delegate. Two criminal complaints,
docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 146(57) and 148(58), were directly filed with the Court of First lnstance of Baguio and
BenguetbyacertainMoisesMaspil,adefeateddelegateaspirantwhoplaced15thintheorderofvotesgarneredagainstthe
petitioner,andhiscoaccusedforallegedviolationofSection51oftheRevisedPenalCodeinthattheygaveanddistributed
freeofchargefood,drinksandcigarettesattwopublicmeetings,oneheldinSablanandtheotherinTuba,bothtownsbeing
in Province of Benguet. Respondent Presiding Judge conducted the preliminary investigation of said criminal complaints.
ThereafteronAugust7,1971,heissuedanorderforthefilingofthecorrespondinginformations.Beforeawarrantofarrest
in said criminal cases could be issued, petitioner in a motion of August 14, 1971 invoked the privilege of immunity from
arrestandsearch,pursuanttoSection15ofRepublicActNo.6132,otherwiseknownasthe1971ConstitutionalConvention
Act,inrelationtoSec.15,ArticleVIoftheConstitutionandArticle145oftheRevisedPenalCode.RespondentJudge,on
theverysameday,issuedanorder,holdinginabeyancetheissuanceofawarrantofarrestandsettingthehearingofsaid
MotiononAugust23,1971.AsscheduledonAugust23,1971,therewasahearingonsuchmotion.Petitionerhoweverdid
notprevailnotwithstandinghisvigorousinsistenceonhisclaimforimmunity,awarrantofarrestbeingorderedonthesame
day. On September 11, 1971, there was a motion to quash such order of arrest filed by petitioner. He was unsuccessful,
respondentJudge,inanorderofsaiddate,orderinghisimmediatearrest.Hispetitionforcertiorariand prohibition was filed
withthisCourtonSeptember15,1971.11

What is thus sought by petitioners Martinez y Festin and Bautista, Sr. is that the respective warrants of arrest
issued against them be quashed on the claim that by virtue of the parliamentary immunity they enjoy as
delegates,ultimatelytraceabletoSection15ofArticleVIoftheConstitutionasconstruedtogetherwithArticle145
of the Revised Penal Code, they are immune from arrest. In the case of petitioner Martinez y Festin, he is
proceededagainstforfalsificationofapublicdocumentpunishablebyprisionmayor. 12 As for petitioner Bautista,
Sr.,thepenaltythatcouldbeimposedforeachoftheRevisedElectionCodeoffense,ofwhichheischarged,isnothigher
thanprisionmayor.13

TherespondentsintheabovepetitionswererequiredtoanswerbyresolutionsofthisCourtissuedonSeptember
10andSeptember20,1971,respectively.AnansweronbehalfofrespondentJudgeJesusP.Morfeinthecaseof
petitionerMartinezyFestinwasfiledonSeptember20,1971withananswerininterventionfiledbyrespondent
ExecutiveSheriffofManilaandtheChiefofWarrantDivisionlikewisefiledonthesamedate.Hispetitionwasduly
heard on September 14, 1971, Delegate Estanislao A. Fernandez vehemently pressing his claim to immunity.
ThereafteronOctober29,1971,amemorandum,comprehensiveinscopeandpersuasiveinitsanalysisofthe
constitutional question presented, was filed on behalf of respondent Judge Morfe by Solicitor General Felix Q.
Antonio,twoAssistantsSolicitorsGeneralBernardoP.PardoandRosalioA.deLeonaswellasSolicitorVicente
V.Mendoza.AmemorandumonbehalfofPresidentDiosdadoMacapagaloftheConstitutionalConvention,who
was given permission to submit such a pleading, was submitted on March 8, 1972 by the Committee on Legal
AffairsoftheConstitutionalConvention.14

AsforthepetitionsofBautista,Sr.,theansweronbehalfofrespondentJudgewasfiledonSeptember29,1971.
When the matter was heard on October 14, 1971, he appeared through counsel, Delegate Juanito R. Remulla,
whilerespondentJudgewasrepresentedbyAssistantSolicitorGeneralRosalioA.deLeonandSolicitorVicente
V.Mendoza.Withthesubmission,onOctober30,1971,ofanablememorandumonbehalfofrespondentjudge,
again,bythesamecounselfromtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralaswellasacarefullypreparedmemorandum
ofpetitionerBautista,Sr.,onDecember1,1971,thematterwasdeemedsubmittedforadjudication.

Asnotedattheoutset,certioraridoesnotlietoquashthewarrantsofarrestissuedagainstpetitionerMartinezy
Festin as well as petitioner Bautista, Sr. Their reliance on the constitutional provision which for them should be
supplemented by what was provided for in the Revised Penal Code is futile. There is no justification then for
grantingtheirrespectivepleas.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1972/mar1972/gr_l_34022_1972.html 2/7
1/21/2017 G.R.No.L34022

NootherconclusionisallowableconsistentlywiththeplainandexplicitcommandoftheConstitution.Asismade
clearinSection15ofArticleVI,theimmunityfromarrestdoesnotcoveranyprosecutionfortreason,felonyand
breachofthepeace.TreasonexistswhentheaccusedlevieswaragainsttheRepublicoradherestoitsenemies
giving them aid and comfort. 15 A felony is act or omission punishable by law. 16 Breach of the peace covers any
offensewhetherdefinedbytheRevisedPenalCodeoranyspecialstatute.Itisawellsettledprincipleinpubliclawthatthe
public peace must be maintained and any breach thereof renders one susceptible to prosecution. Certainly then from the
explicitlanguageoftheConstitution,evenwithoutitscontrollinginterpretationasshownbythedebatesoftheConstitutional
Convention to be hereinafter discussed, petitioners cannot justify their claim to immunity. Nor does Article 145 of the
RevisedPenalCodecometotheirrescue.Suchaprovisionthattookeffectin1932couldnotsurviveaftertheConstitution
became operative on November 15, 1935. As will be shown, the repugnancy between such an expansion of the
congressional immunity and the plain command of the Constitution is too great to be overcome, even on the assumption
thatthepenaltytowhichapublicofficerwillbesubjectedintheeventthathedidarrestoneentitledtheretoforanoffense
punishablebylessthanreclusiontemporalsufficestowidenitsscope.Thisissoconsideringnotonlythehistoryofsucha
Constitutionalgrantofimmunitybutalsoitsbasicpurposeandobjective.

1. Even if the provision granting the legislative immunity of freedom from arrest were clothed in language less
clear, its history precludes any other interpretation. As submitted to the Constitutional Convention of 1934, the
draftproposalwaswordedasfollows:"TheMembersoftheNationalAssemblyshallinallcasesexcepttreason,
opendisturbanceofpublicorder,orotheroffensepunishablebydeathorimprisonmentofnotlessthansixyears,
be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of the National Assembly, and in going to and
returningfromthesame."OnDecember4,1934,uponitsbeingconsideredbytheConvention,anamendment
was proposed by Delegate Aldeguer so that it would read: "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
sessionsoftheNationalAssembly,andingoingandreturningfromthesame."Whatwassoughtbyhimwasto
retain the provision of the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, with phraseology identical to that found in the
AmericanConstitution.

He defended his proposal thus: "My amendment is not new. It is the same phrase granting parliamentary
immunitytothemembersoftheParliamentofEngland.Itisthesamephrasegrantingparliamentaryimmunityto
members of Congress. It is the same phrase granting parliamentary immunity to members of the various state
legislatorsoftheUnion.Now,inreadingthedraftproposedbytheSubCommitteeofSeven,Ifoundoutthatitisa
broadrule.Mr.President,thequestionisnotwhetherweshouldgrantprivilegeofimmunitytothemembersofthe
NationalAssembly..."17Hewasinterruptedbyapointoforderraised,buthewasallowedtocontinue.Hewenton:"AsI
wassaying,Mr.PresidentandGentlemenoftheConvention,thedraftgivestothememberoftheNationalAssemblymore
privileges than what the nature of the office demands. My question is that if the members of the Congress of the United
States, if the members of the Parliament, if the members of the various State Legislatures were able to perform their
functionsasmembersoflawmakingbodieswiththeprivilegesandimmunitiesgrantedbythephrase"breachofpeace."I
wonderwhythemembersofthefutureNationalAssemblycannotperformtheirdutieswiththesamelimitationsandwiththe
sameprivileges.Mr.PresidentandmemberstheConvention,thehistoryofparliamentaryimmunityshowsthatitwasnever
intendedtoexemptmembersoftheNationalAssemblyfromcriminalarrest.WhenAmericansovereigntywasimplantedinto
theseIslands,anewtheoryofgovernmentwasimplantedtoo.Thistheoryofgovernmentplaceseverymanequalbeforethe
eyesofthelaw.Thegrantofcertainprivilegestoanysetofpersonsmeanstheabrogationofthisprincipleofequalitybefore
the eyes of the law. Another reason, Mr. President and Members of the Convention, is this: The State Legislature is the
agentoftheState.ThepowerortherightoftheLegislaturetoclaimprivilegesisbasedontherightofselfpreservation.The
rightoftheStatetoclaimprivilegesisduetothefactthatithastherighttocarryitsfunctionwithoutobstacle.Butwemust
alsorememberthatanyLegislatureisbuttheagentoftheState.TheStateistheprincipal.Anycrimecommitted,whether
suchcrimeiscommittedbyacolorumorbyagangster,endangerstheState.Givingmoreprivilegestoanagent,whichis
the Legislature, at the expense of the principal, which is the State, is not a sound policy. So that, Mr. President, and
Members of the Convention, believing that under the phrase "breach of peace", our future members of the Assembly can
verywellperformthedutiesincumbentuponthem.IsubmitmyamendmentfortheconsiderationofthisConvention."18

DelegateManuelRoxasonbehalfofthesubcommitteeofsevendidnotobject.Asamatteroffact,hewasfor
suchamendment.Heconsideredit"wellfounded"andwasforsuchimmunitycomplying"withthewordingofthe
[PhilippineAutonomyAct]inthisparticular."19TheConventionreadilyapprovedtheamendmentbyacclamation.

ItdoesnotadmitofdoubtthereforethattheimmunityfromarrestisgrantedbytheConstitutionwasunderstoodin
the same sense it has in American law, there being a similar provision in the American Constitution. 20 Its
authoritativeinterpretationintheUnitedStateswassuppliedbytheWilliamsoncase,a1908decision.21

AccordingtothethenJustice,laterChiefJustice,Whitewhopennedtheopinion,"theterm"treason,felonyand
breach of the peace," as used in the constitutional provision relied upon, excepts from the operation of the
privilege all criminal offenses, ... " 22 He traced its historical background thus: "A brief consideration of the subject of
parliamentaryprivilegeinEnglandwill,wethink,showthesourcewhencetheexpression"treasonfelony,andbreachofthe
peace" was drawn, and leave no doubt that the words were used in England for the very purpose of excluding all crimes
fromtheoperationoftheparliamentaryprivilege,andthereforetoleavethatprivilegetoapplyonlytoprosecutionsofacivil
nature."23Story'streatiseontheConstitutionwaslikewisecited,hisviewonthematterbeingquiteemphatic:"Now,asall
crimesareoffensesagainstthepeace,thephrase"breachofthepeace"wouldseemtoextendtoallindictableoffenses,as
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1972/mar1972/gr_l_34022_1972.html 3/7
1/21/2017 G.R.No.L34022
wellthosewhichareinfactattendedwithforceandviolence,asthosewhichareonlyconstructivebreachesofthepeaceof
thegovernment,inasmuchastheyviolateitsgoodorder."24

AsfarasAmericanconstitutionallawisconcerned,bothBurdick 25andWilloughby 26 could use practically identical

appraisingsuchimmunity,theformerstatingthatit"isnotnowofgreatimportance"andthelatteraffirmingthatit"isoflittle
importance as arrest of the person is now almost never authorized except for crimes which fall within the classes exempt
fromthepriviledge."ThestateoftheAmericanlawonthispointisaptlysummarizedbyCooley:"Bycommonparliamentary
law, the members of the legislature are privileged from arrest on civil process during the session of that body, and for a
reasonabletimebeforeandafter,toenablethemtogotoandreturnfromthesame."27Aprosecutionforacriminaloffense,
is thus excluded from this grant of immunity. So it should be Philippine law, if deference were to be paid to what was
explicitlyagreeduponintheConstitutionalConvention.

2.Woulditmakeadifferencehoweverintheavailabilityofthewritsofcertiorarisoughtbypetitionersconsidering
thatArticle145oftheRevisedPenalCodewouldimposeuponanypublicofficeroremployeewhoshall,whilethe
Congressisinregularorspecialsession,arrestorchargeanymemberthereofexceptincasesuchmemberhas
committed a crime punishable by penalty higher than prisionmayor? 28 The assumption here indulged is that the
effect of the above in the Revised Penal Code was to expand the grant of parliamentary immunity under the Philippine
Autonomy Act, although its literal language does not go that far. It is to be remembered, however, that it took effect on
January 1, 1932 before the enforcement of the present Constitution in 1935. Considering that both under the then organic
law,thePhilippineAutonomyActandequallysounderthepresentConstitution,suchamoregeneroustreatmentaccorded
legislators exempting them from arrest even if warranted under a penal law, the question as to whether it did survive
becomesunavoidable.Itisouropinionthattheanswermustbeinthenegative.

TheConstitutionisequallyexplicitonthefollowingpoint:"AlllawsofthePhilippineIslandsshallcontinueinforce
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,andallreferencesinsuchlawstothegovernmentorofficialsofthePhilippinesshallbeconstrued,in
sofarasapplicable,torefertotheGovernmentandcorrespondingofficialsunderthisConstitution."29InPeoplev.
Linsangan 30 decided in December, 1935, barely a month after the Constitution took effect, the continued applicability of
Section2718oftheRevisedAdministrativeCodethatwouldallowtheprosecutionofapersonwhoremainsdelinquentinthe
paymentofcedulatax, 31thisCourt,initsopinionthruthepenofthethenJustice,laterChiefJustice,AbadSantos,after
setting forth that the Constitution prohibits the imprisonment for debt on nonpayment of poll tax, 32 held: "It seems too
clear to require demonstration that section 2718 of the Revised Administrative Code is inconsistent with section 1, clause
12,ofArticleIIIoftheConstitutioninthat,whiletheformerauthorizesimprisonmentfornonpaymentofthepollorcedula
tax,thelatterforbidsit.ItfollowsthatupontheinaugurationoftheGovernmentoftheCommonwealth,saidsection2718of
theRevisedAdministrativeCodebecameinoperative,andnojudgmentofconvictioncanbebasedthereon."33

SoitwasinDelosSantosv.Mallare. 34 Again under the provision of the Revised Administrative Code the President
could remove at pleasure any of the appointive officials under the Charter of the City of Baguio. 35 Relying on such a
provision,thethenPresidentQuirinoremovedpetitionerDelosSantoswhowasappointedCityEngineerBaguioofonJuly
16,1946,andchoseinhisplacerespondentGilR.Mallare.TheRevisedAdministrativeCodewasalegislationthatdates
backto1917,36eighteenyearsbeforetheConstitutionprohibitedanyofficeroremployeeinthecivilservicebeingremoved
orsuspendedexceptforcauseasprovidedbylaw. 37AgainthisCourt,inthelightofaforecitedprovisioninanopinionof
Justice Tuason, held: "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
courttoputitoutoftheway.Toallintentsandpurposes,itisnonexistent,outlawedandeliminatedfromthestatutebook
bytheConstitutionitselfbyexpressmandatebeforethepetitionerwasappointed." 38Inthelanguageoftheconstitutional
provisionthenthatportionofArticle145penalizingapublicofficialoremployeewhoshallwhiletheCongressisinregularor
special session arrest or search any member thereof except in case he has committed a crime punishable under the
RevisedPenalCodebyapenaltyhigherthanprisionmayorisdeclaredinoperative.

The above conclusion reached by this Court is bolstered and fortified by policy considerations. There is, to be
sure,afullrecognitionofthenecessitytohavemembersofCongress,andlikewisedelegatestotheConstitutional
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. Necessarily the utmost latitude in free speech should be
accordedthem.Whenitcomestofreedomfromarrest,however,itwouldamounttothecreationofaprivileged
class, without justification in reason, if notwithstanding their liability for a criminal offense, they would be
consideredimmuneduringtheirattendanceinCongressandingoingtoandreturningfromthesame.Thereis
likelytobenodissentfromthepropositionthatalegislatororadelegatecanperformhisfunctionsefficientlyand
well,withouttheneedforanytransgressionofthecriminallaw.Shouldsuchanunfortunateeventcometopass,
heistobetreatedlikeanyothercitizenconsideringthatthereisastrongpublicinterestinseeingtoitthatcrime
shouldnotgounpunished.Tothefearthatmaybeexpressedthattheprosecutingarmofthegovernmentmight
unjustlygoafterlegislatorsbelongingtotheminority,itsufficestoanswerthatpreciselyallthesafeguardsthrown
around an accused by the Constitution, solicitous of the rights of an individual, would constitute an obstacle to

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1972/mar1972/gr_l_34022_1972.html 4/7
1/21/2017 G.R.No.L34022

suchanattemptatabuseofpower.Thepresumptionofcourseisthatthejudiciarywouldmainindependent.Itis
tritetosaythatineachandeverymanifestationofjudicialendeavor,suchavirtueisoftheessence.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionforcertiorariand habeas corpus by Delegate Manuel Martinez by Festin in L34022

and the petitions for certiorariand prohibition by Delegate Fernando Bautista, Sr. in L34046 and L34047 are
herebydismissed.Withoutpronouncementastocosts.

Reyes,J.B.L.,Makalintal,Zaldivar,Castro,Teehankee,Barredo,VillamorandMakasiar,JJ.,concur.

Concepcion,C.J.,concursintheresult.

Footnotes

1AccordingtoArt.VI,Sec.15oftheConstitution:"TheSenatorsandMembersoftheHouseof
Representativesshallinallcasesexcepttreason,felony,andbreachofthepeace,beprivilegedfrom
arrestduringtheirattendanceatthesessionsoftheCongress,andingoingtoandreturningfromthe
sameandforanyspeechordebatetherein,theyshallnotbequestionedinanyotherplace."

2L34022,ManuelMartinezyFestinvs.TheHonorableJesusP.MorfeoftheCourtofFirstInstance
ofManila,andtheCityWardenofManila.Hispetitionwaslikewiseforawritofhabeascorpus,but
afterpostingthebailbond,hewasreleasedonSept.11,1971.Essentiallythen,thepetitionisfor
certiorari.

3L34046and34047,FernandoBautista,Sr.v.Hon.FranciscoMa.Chanco,PresidingJudge,Court
ofFirstInstanceofBaguioandBenguet,SecondJudicialDistrict,BranchIII,etal.

4Art.145oftheRevisedPenalCodereadsinfull:"ViolationofparliamentaryimmunityThe
penaltyofprisionmayorshallbeimposeduponanypersonwhoshalluseforce,intimidation,threats,
orfraudtopreventanymemberoftheNationalAssemblyfromattendingthemeetingsofthe
Assemblyoranyofitscommitteesorsubcommittees,constitutionalcommissionsorcommitteesor
divisionsthereof,fromexpressinghisopinionsorcastinghisvoteandthepenaltyofprision
correccionalshallbeimposeduponanypublicofficeroremployeewhoshall,whiletheCongressisin
regularorspecialsession,arrestorsearchanymemberthereof,exceptincasesuchmemberhas
committedacrimepunishableunderthisCodebyapenaltyhigherthanprisionmayor.(Amendedby
Com.ActNo.264)."

5RepublicAct6132(1970).

6AccordingtoSec.15ofRepublicAct6132:"Thelawsrelativetoparliamentaryimmunityofthe
MembersofCongressshallbeapplicabletothedelegatestotheConstitutionalConvention,andthe
penaltiesimposedinArticlesonehundredfortythree,onehundredfortyfourandonehundredforty
fiveoftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended,foroffensesdefinedthereinagainsttheCongressof
thePhilippines,itscommitteesorsubcommittees,oritsMembersshalllikewiseapplyifsuch
offensesarecommittedagainsttheConstitutionalConvention,itscommitteesorsubcommittees,or
thedelegatesthereto."

7RespondentJudgeJesusP.MorfeinL34022andrespondentJudgeFranciscoMa.ChancoinL
34046and34047.

8MartinezyFestinv.Morfe,L34022.

9PetitionfortheWritsofHabeasCorpusandCertiorari,pars.18.

10FernandoBautista,Sr.v.Hon.FranciscoMa.Chanco,L34046andL34047.

11PetitionersinFernandoBautista,Sr.v.Hon.FranciscoMa.Chanco,L34046andL34047,pars.
112.

12AsprovidedforbyArt.171oftheRevisedPenalCode:"Falsificationbypublicofficer,employee,
ornotaryorecclesiasticminister.ThepenaltyofprisionmayorandafinenottoexceedP5,000
shallbeimposeduponanypublicofficer,employee,ornotarywho,takingadvantageofhisofficial
position,shallfalsifyadocumentbycommittinganyofthefollowingacts:..."

13AccordingtoSec.185ofRepublicAct180,theElectionCodeenforcedatthetimethealleged
offenseswerecommitted:"Anyonefoundguiltyofaseriouselectionoffenseshallbepunishedwith
imprisonmentofnotlessthanoneyearandonedaybutnotmorethanfiveyearsandanyoneguilty
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1972/mar1972/gr_l_34022_1972.html 5/7