Freedom from Arrest

People vs. Jalosjos [03 February 2000]

Plaintiff appellee: People of the PH

Accused appellee: Rep. Romeo Jalosjos

FACTS:
 Jalosjos was a member of HoR, but was serving inside prison pending appeal of
his case of rape and acts of lasciviousness.
 He filed a motion asking he be allowed to fully discharge his duties as
Congressman with the following grounds:
 His re-election is an expression of the popular will which cannot be ignored by
any ruling even by the Police Power of the State;
 Denial of motion would equate to taxation without representation;
 Barring him from performing his congressional duties amounts to removal and
a mockery of people’s will; among others.

ISSUE:
 Whether Jalosjos, as a member of Congress, is exempted from serving sentence
for violating penal statute and rules as part of legislators’ freedom from arrest.

RULING:
 Appointment to high government office does not, by itself, frees an official from
common restraints of the law. The higher the rank, the greater is the expectation
for obedience.
 The privilege from arrest or detention of legislators provided in Art. VI Sec. 11 of
the Constitution should be granted in a restrictive sense.
 Offenses punishable by more than 6 years is not covered by the immunity. Also,
this immunity only applies to civil arrests. Thus, Jalosjos, convicted for criminal
case, cannot avail of the immunity.
 The members of Congress cannot compel an absent member to attend sessions if
the reason for absence is legitimate (in this case, serving of sentence for criminal
offense).
 Jalosjos’ contention that he was previously allowed by lower court and the NBP to
leave prison cells for various purposes, e.g., attend sessions on the issue of
whether to expel or suspend him from the HoR, dental and medical treatment
purposes, voter registration, and work-volunteer program of the NBP.
 However, the above privileges are not peculiar to him or to a member of Congress.
Those emergency or temporary leaves from imprisonment are allowed to all
prisoners, at the discretion of the authorities or courts.
 His motion does not concern “emergency” but for the Court to allow him to attend
Congressional sessions and committee hearings, which will virtually make him
“free,” which is a mockery of the correction system.
 The Constitution provides “nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
laws.” Thus, all criminals shall be treated alike. The performance of legitimate and
even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person
validly in prison.