THE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT CONGRESS

DISQUALIFICATIONS FREEDOM FROM ARREST

G.R. Nos. 132875-76

SALARIES,

PRIVILEGES

AND

February 3, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROMEO G. JALOSJOS, defendant-appellant.
Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Legal action: Motion To Be Allowed to Discharge Mandate as Member of House of Representatives
Facts:

The accused-appellant, Romeo G. Jalosjos was a full-fledged member of Congress who was confined at
the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and acts of lasciviousness on
six counts was pending appeal.

The accused-appellant filed said motion asking to be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a
Congressman, including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having
been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense.

The accused-appellants primary argument is the mandate of sovereign will. He states that the sovereign
electorate of the First District of Zamboanga del Norte chose him as their representative in Congress; thus,
he has the duty to perform the functions of a Congressman. He calls this a covenant with his constituents
made possible by the intervention of the State. He adds that it cannot be defeated by insuperable
procedural restraints arising from pending criminal cases.

ISSUE
Whether or not membership
in Congress exempt an
accused from statutes and
rules which apply to validly
incarcerated persons in
general

HELD
No

RATIO
Election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable
classification in criminal law enforcement.
The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime
punishable by imprisonment of more than six months is not
merely authorized by law, but it also has constitutional
foundations. Sec. 11, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution says:
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 the Congress or
in any committee thereof.

The accused-appellant argues that a member of Congress

function to attend sessions is underscored by Section 16 (2),
Article VI of the Constitution which states:
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a
smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the
attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties,

as such House may provide.

However, the performance of legitimate and even essential

duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a
person validly in prison. Allowing accused-appellant to attend
congressional sessions and committee meetings for five (5)
days or more in a week will virtually make him a free man with
all the privileges appurtenant to his position. Such an aberrant
situation not only elevates accused-appellants status to that of
a special class, it also would be a mockery of the purposes of
the correction system.
Also, the accused-appellant is only one of 250 members of the
House of Representatives, not to mention the 24 members of
the Senate, charged with the duties of legislation. Congress
continues to function well in the physical absence of one or a
few of its members.

Decision: The instant motion is hereby denied.

Kapunan, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Gonzaga-Reyes, J., has separate concurring opinion.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, and Mendoza, JJ., concurs in the main and separate opinion.