UP LAW BGC EVE 2

Case name People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs Romeo G. Jalosjos, accused-appellant

GR No|Date G.R. Nos. 132875-76 | February 3, 2000

Topic Legislative Branch | Salaries, Privileges and Disqualifications of Members of Congress | Freedom from Arrest

Ponente Ynares-Santiago, J.

Doctrine The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and members of the House of Representatives cannot be extended beyond the ordinary
meaning of its terms. Furthermore, being an elective public official does not result in a substantial distinction that allows a different treatment
from a validly confined prisoner.

Facts
● Accused-appellant, Romeo G. Jalosjos was a full-fledged member of Congress.
● He 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 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.

Ratio
Decidendi

Whether or not being an elective public official result in a substantial distinction that allows a different treatment
from a validly confined prisoner?
No. The Constitution guarantees “…nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws.” This means that all
persons similarly situated shall be treated alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. The Court held that
election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. The functions and
duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom
and restricted in liberty of movement. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to
all those belonging to the same class. Moreover, even with the confinement of the accused-appellant, Congress is still able
to function well in the physical absence of one or few of its members. The Court further held that it cannot validate badges
of inequality. The necessities imposed by public welfare may justify exercise of government authority to regulate even if
thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded.

Ruling
Premises considered, the Court is constrained to rule against the accused-appellant’s claim that re-election to public office
gives priority to any other right or interest, including the police power of the State. Wherefore, the instant motion is
hereby denied.