Case Summary (G.R. No. 132875-76)
Petitioner and Respondent
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellant: Romeo G. Jalosjos, Member of the House of Representatives
Key Dates
Decision Date: February 3, 2000 (applying the 1987 Philippine Constitution)
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 11: Privilege from arrest for legislators in offenses punishable by not more than six years’ imprisonment while Congress is in session.
• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 1: Equal protection under the law.
• Revised Penal Code, Title XI: Statutory rape (punishable by reclusion perpetua).
• Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 7: No bail for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong.
Issue Presented
Whether an elected Congressman convicted of a non-bailable, serious criminal offense may claim legislative privilege from arrest and detention restrictions in order to perform his duties in Congress.
Accused-Appellant’s Contentions
- His re-election reflects the sovereign will of his constituents and cannot be nullified by his detention.
- Denying him attendance at sessions equates to “taxation without representation” and effectively suspends his mandate.
- U.S. precedents allow detained legislators to attend sessions; the House itself recognizes him as a bona fide member.
- He has complied with temporary-leave conditions and has been granted multiple furloughs for official, medical, and personal reasons.
Constitutional Privilege from Arrest: Scope and Limits
• Historical Context: The 1935 Constitution limited legislative immunity to civil arrests; the 1973 Constitution extended it to offenses punishable by not more than six years’ imprisonment, subject to surrender requirements.
• Present Scope: Under the 1987 Constitution, a legislator is privileged from arrest only for offenses punishable by up to six years’ imprisonment, and only while Congress is in session.
• No Implication or Extension: Privilege must be expressly conferred; it cannot be broadened by implication, equity, or courtesy.
Court’s Analysis of Privilege Claim
• Statutory Rape Penalty: Punishable by reclusion perpetua—an “afflictive” penalty well beyond the six-year threshold—placing the offense outside the scope of legislative immunity.
• Nature of Immunity: Designed to prevent undue interference with legislative functions, not to shield serious criminal conduct.
• Mootness: The privilege against arrest addresses detention prior to conviction; Jalosjos is already convicted and incarcerated pending appeal.
Equal Protection and Classification
• All detainees validly confin
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 132875-76)
Facts
- Romeo G. Jalosjos, a sitting Member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, was convicted in the first instance of two counts of statutory rape and six counts of acts of lasciviousness under Title Eleven of the Revised Penal Code.
- His conviction is final in the Regional Trial Court but pending appeal before the Supreme Court.
- He is detained at the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, by reason of a non-bailable offense punishable by reclusion perpetua.
- While in detention, he has filed bills and resolutions, maintained a congressional office at the House complex and an office inside the penitentiary, and continued to receive salary and benefits.
- He previously obtained several court-authorized temporary leaves for official and medical reasons, including attendance before the House Committee on Ethics, dental and medical treatment, voter registration, and participation in a prison work-volunteer program.
Procedural Background
- RTC Makati convicted Jalosjos; he was denied bail after judgment, which barred his release pending appeal.
- On appeal to the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 132875–76), he filed a “Motion To Be Allowed To Discharge Mandate As Member of House of Representatives,” seeking permission to attend legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his lawful detention.
- The Supreme Court treated the motion as presenting a question of first impression on the reach of legislative immunity and the interplay of penal law.
Issue
- Whether membership in Congress and the “mandate of sovereign will” entitle a detained Member to exemption from statutes and rules that apply to all persons validly confined under law, thereby allowing him to attend sessions and committee meetings despite a non-bailable conviction.
Movant’s Contentions
- His re-election reflects a covenant with the electorate that cannot be nullified by procedural restraints or the State’s police power.
- To bar him from legislative functions amounts to “taxation without representation” and effectively suspends or removes him without due process.
- A U.S. precedent allowed a detained legislator to attend Congress; the House has recognized him as a bona fide member.
- The concept of temporary detention does not nullify his duties; his p