CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
HELD/RATIONALE:
PEOPLE v. JALOSJOS
THE CASE: MOTION to be allowed to discharge duties as Congressman
PROVISIONS/CONCEPTS APPLICABLE:
Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution
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.
FACTS:
● Petitioner Jalosjos is a full-fledged member of Congress
● He is confined at the National Penitentiary pending appeal
for his conviction (2 counts statutory rape, 6 counts acts
of lavisciousness)
● Petitioner filed this motion, asking that he be allowed to fully
discharge the duties of a congressman, including
attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings
despite having been convicted of a non-bailable offense
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT:
• Having been re-elected by his constituents in 1st District,
Zamboanga del Norte, he has the duty to perform the
functions of a Congressman;
• This cannot be defeated by procedural restraints arising from
pending criminal cases
ISSUES:
1. WoN membership in Congress exempts an accused from
statutes and rules which generally apply to validly
incarcerated persons? NO
● All top officials of gov’t are subject to the law
○ Immunity of legislators enshrined in Sec. 11, Art. VI
cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of
its terms
○ Broad coverage of “treason, felony, and breach of
the peace” in the provision limits the exemption
only to civil arrests;
○ A congressman convicted under the Revised
Penal Code (Title 11) cannot claim parliamentary
immunity from arrest
● Accused-appellant Jalosjos has not given any reason why
he should be exempted from Sec. 11, Art. VI
○ Members of Congress cannot compel absent
members to attend sessions if the reason for
absence is legitimate;
○ In this case, confinement of a congressman charged
with a crime punishable by imprisonment of
more than 6 years is enshrined in the Constitution
● Rationale of confinement: Public self-defense
○ Whether pending appeal or after final conviction,
society must protect itself
○ Emergency/temporary leaves from imprisonment are
not peculiar to members of congress; they apply
to all prisoners
○ Allowing accused-appellant accused-appellant to
attend congressional sessions and committee
meetings for 5 days or more per week virtually
makes him a free man with all the privileges of
his position (contrary to the purposes of
confinement)
 ● Accused-appellant can still discharge his duties from
within confinement
○ Jalosjos has:
■ Been provided with his own office in
prison from where he attends to his
constituents;
■ Filed several bills and resolutions
■ Received his salary monetary benefits for his
office
● Question of Equal protection: Does being an elective official
result in a substantial distinction that allows different
treatment? NO
○ The call of a particular duty (in this case, that of a
congressman) has never been an excuse to lift a
prisoner into a different classification from others
who are validly restrained by law
■ In other words, being a congressman does
not put one above the application of laws
regarding imprisonment
○ Congress can still discharge its duty given the
absence of some of its members
○ Necessity imposed by public welfare may justify
government authority to regulate, even if certain
groups may plausibly assert that their interests are
disregarded
● Nature of imprisonment: Restraint of personal liberty
○ Aside from physical restraint, it changes the
individual’s status in society which necessarily
curtails and eliminates certain rights
● Re-election to public office does not give priority to any
other right or interest, including police power

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the instant motion is hereby DENIED