University of the Philippines College of Law

Law on Public Officers | [JVGC]

Case Name People v Jalosjos

Topic D. Powers, Duties & Responsibilities of Public Officers - Rights & Privileges (Other Rights)
Case No. | Date GR No. 132875-76 | Feb 3, 2000
Ponente YNARES-SANTIAGO,
Jalosjos files a motion to be allowed to discharge his duties as Congressman—that is, he seeks to attend
Congress sessions, despite being detained while he appeals his conviction for criminal cases (statutory
rape and acts of lasciviousness).

Court does not grant his motion.

Case Summary
His being a congressman does not exempt him from the punishment of his crimes. Reasons are based on
constitutional provision, public policy. The argument that his confinement supplants the need of his
constituency for representation is untenable. He is still able to discharge his duties; voters must be aware
of his situation when he was reelected.
Ruling Denied. Jalosjos loses

RELEVANT FACTS
1. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS IS REPRESENTATIVE of the first district of Zamboanga del Norte
2. CONVICTED for statutory rape on 2 counts and acts of lasciviousness on 6 counts
3. Pending appeal, HE IS CONFINED AT THE NATIONAL PENITENTIARY
4. Petitioner filed this motion to be ALLOWED TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTIES as congressman

ISSUE & RULING.

WON Membership in Congress exempts an accused member from the statutes and rules that apply validly to incarcerated
persons in general? NO.
• The immunity from arrest or detention arises from Section 11, Art VI of the 1987 Consti
o “A senator or member of the HoR 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 held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in Congress or in any committee thereof”
# 1. THE PROVISION GRANTING SUCH EXEMPTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE ORDINARY MEANING OF ITS TERMS
• For minor offenses (less than six years imprisonment), enough that Congress is in session
• Confinement of Congressman charged with crime punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years is AUTHORIZED BY
LAW
#2. NOT ONLY AUTHORIZED BY LAW, ALSO BOLSTERED BY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
• Purpose behind the exemption: entitle members of Congress to utmost freedom to enable them to discharge their vital
responsibilities, while bowing down to only the dictates of conscience
o In line with this = utmost latitude in free speech necessary to perform tasks
o BUT A LEGISLATOR OR DELEGATE CAN PERFORM HIS FUNCTIONS EFFECTIVELY WITHOUT THE NEED FOR ANY
TRANSGRESSION OF CRIMINAL LAW
• Hence, no need for such exemption
#3. MOREOVER, EVEN ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION PRAYED FOR BY PETITIONER IS CONTRARY TO (1) PUBLIC INTEREST AND (2)
EQUAL PROTECTION
• Strong public interest that crime should not go unpunished = public self-defense
• BECAUSE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN PUBLIC POLICY, SUCH EXEMPTION ONLY LEADS TO THE CREATION OF A
PRIVILEGED CLASS
o Violative of the Constitutional provision on Equal Protection
o All persons similarly situated must be treated alike o Functions and duties of his office do NOT justify a
substantial distinction to lift petitioner from class of prisoners
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Law on Public Officers | [JVGC]
#4. RESPONDING TO PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT: THE HOUSE MAY COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF ABSENT MEMBERS (as per Sec
16 (2), Art VI)
• Members of Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for absence is a legitimate one
o “Legitimate absence”: as argued, his confinement is legitimate for reasons of
▪ Consti provision
▪ public policy
▪ equal protection
#5. RESPONDING TO PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT: THE MAKATI RTC GRANTED MANY TIMES HIS MOTION FOR TEMPORARY LEAVE
FOR OFFICIAL AND MEDICAL REASONS
o Example: Attend house committee hearings on
▪ WON he should be suspended;
▪ undergo dental check-up; medical check-up
• Court: Those privileges are NOT peculiar to his being a member of Congress
o All prisoners are entitled to emergency/ compelling temporary leaves
#6. RESPONDING TO PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT: HIS CONSTITUENCY WANT THEIR VOICES TO BE HEARD; HIS ABSENCE
AMOUNTS TO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
• THIS MANDATE SHOULD NOT BE SUPPLANTED BY “UNFOUNDED FEAR THAT HE MIGHT ESCAPE”
o The fear is not unfounded
▪ When a warrant of arrest was issued, he fled and evaded capture DESPITE call from colleagues to
attend session and surrender voluntarily
• He is able to discharge his mandate consistent with the restraints of one who is under detention
o Petitioner himself admits that while under detention, he filed several bills and resolutions
o Receiving his salaries and other monetary benefits
• When voters elected him, they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action

Premises considered, we are constrained to rule against the accused-appellant's claim that re-election to public oce gives
priority to any other right or interest, including the police power of the State.

WHEREFORE, the instant motion is hereby DENIED.