EOPLE V JALOSJOS

Feb. 3, 2000

Facts: The accused-appellant, Romeo Jalosjos, is a full-fledged member of Congress

who is confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape and

acts of lasciviousness is pending appeal. The accused-appellant filed a motion asking

that he 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 on the basis of popular

sovereignty and the need for his constituents to be represented

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant should be allowed to discharge mandate as

member of House of Representatives

Held: Election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. However, inspite

of its importance, the privileges and rights arising from having been elected may be

enlarged or restricted by law.

The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and members of the House of

Representatives arises from a provision of the Constitution. The privilege has always

been granted in a restrictive sense. The provision granting an exemption as a special

privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms. It may not be

extended by intendment, implication or equitable considerations.

The accused-appellant has not given any reason why he should be exempted from the

operation of Sec. 11, Art. VI of the Constitution. The members of Congress cannot

compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for the absence is a legitimate

one. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime punishable by

imprisonment of more than six years is not merely authorized by law, it has

constitutional foundations. To allow accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions

and committee meetings for 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-appellant’s status to that of a special class, it also would be a

mockery of the purposes of the correction system.

People vs jalosjosFacts:The accused-appellant, Romeo Jalosjos, is a full-fledged member of Congress who is confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness is pending appeal. The accused-appellant filed a motion asking that he 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 on the basis of popular sovereignty and the need for his constituents to be represented. Issue:Whether or not accused-appellant should be allowed to discharge mandate as member of House of RepresentativesHeld:Election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. However, in spite of its importance, the privileges and rights arising from having been elected may be enlarged or restricted by law. The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and members of the House of Representatives arises from a provision of the Constitution. The privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense. The provision granting an exemption as a special privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms. It may not be extended by intendment, implication or equitable considerations. The accused-appellant has not given any reason why he should be exempted from the operation of Sec.11, Art. VI of the Constitution. The members of Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for the absence is a legitimate one. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than six years is not merely authorized by law, it has constitutional foundations. To allow accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and committee meetings for 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- appellant’s status to that of a special class, it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system

FACTS:  While his appeal from a conviction of rape is pending, the accused, a Congressman was confined at the

national penitentiary.  Since he was reelected to his position, he argued that he should be allowed to attend the

legislative sessions and committee hearings, because his confinement was depriving his constituents of their voice in

Congress.

HELD:  Election to high government office does free accused from the common restraints of general law.  Under

Section II, Article VI of the Constitution, a member of the House of Rep is privileged from arrest only if offense is

punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment.  Confinement of a congressman charged with a crime punishable

by more than 6 years has constitutional foundations.  If allowed to attend the congressional sessions, the accused

would be virtually made a free man.  When he was elected into office, the voters were aware of his limitations on his

freedom of action.  Congress can continue to function even without all its members being present.  Election to the

position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/132875_76.htm