GR 132875; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132875 -76 February 3, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Romeo Jalosjos, a duly elected and incumbent member of the House of Representatives, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for two counts of statutory rape and six counts of acts of lasciviousness. While his conviction was pending appeal, he was detained at the national penitentiary. Jalosjos filed a motion seeking permission to leave detention to fully attend legislative sessions and discharge his congressional duties. He argued that his re-election represented the sovereign will of his constituents, and preventing him from serving effectively amounted to their disenfranchisement and his removal from office without due process.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether a member of Congress, who has been convicted by the trial court of a non-bailable offense and is detained pending appeal, is entitled to be released from confinement to perform legislative duties based on parliamentary immunity or the mandate of the electorate.
RULING
The Supreme Court En Banc denied the motion. The Court held that no law or constitutional provision grants an elected representative immunity from detention arising from a final criminal conviction, even if pending appeal. The constitutional privilege from arrest under Article VI, Section 11 applies only to members attending, going to, or returning from sessions, and only for offenses punishable by imprisonment of not more than six years. The crimes for which Jalosjos was convicted—statutory rape—are punishable by reclusion perpetua, which far exceeds the six-year threshold, thus disqualifying him from the privilege.
The Court emphasized that all public officials, regardless of rank, are subject to the general law. The mandate of the electorate cannot override explicit constitutional limitations and the lawful orders of the courts. Election does not confer a privilege to be free from the ordinary processes of the criminal justice system. The duty to attend legislative sessions is not absolute and yields when the absence is due to a lawful cause, such as valid incarceration. The Court balanced the legislative function against the state’s police power and the administration of justice, ruling that the latter prevails under these circumstances. Jalosjos’s confinement was a legitimate restraint, and his release to attend sessions would create a dangerous precedent placing legislators above the law.