PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 132875-76
February 3, 2000
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
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. Jalosjos’ primary argument is the "mandate of sovereign will." He states that the
sovereign electorate of the First District of Zamboanga del Norte chose him as their
representative in Congress. Having been re-elected by his constituents, he has the duty to
perform the functions of a Congressman. He calls this a covenant with his constituents made
possible by the intervention of the State. He adds that it cannot be defeated by insuperable
procedural restraints arising from pending criminal cases. Jalosjos further argues that on several
occasions, the Regional Trial Court of Makati granted several motions to temporarily leave his
cell at the Makati City Jail, for official or medical reasons. Jalosjos avers that his constituents in
the First District of Zamboanga del Norte want their voices to be heard and that since he is
treated as bona fide member of the House of Representatives, the latter urges a co-equal branch
of government to respect his mandate.
Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant should be allowed to discharge mandate as member of
House of Representatives and to leave his cell.
Rulling: To allow accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and committee meetings
will virtually make him a free man. When the voters of his district elected the accused-appellant
to Congress, they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action. They did
so with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could
accomplish within the confines of prison. To give a more drastic illustration, if voters elect a
person with full knowledge that he is suffering from a terminal illness, they do so knowing that
at any time, he may no longer serve his full term in office. 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. In the ultimate analysis, the issue before us boils down to
a question of constitutional equal protection. The Constitution guarantees: "x x x nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of laws." This simply means that all persons similarly
situated shall be treated alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. The organs of
government may not show any undue favoritism or hostility to any person. Neither partiality nor
prejudice shall be displayed. Does being an elective official result in a substantial distinction that
allows different treatment? Is being a Congressman a substantial differentiation which removes
the accused-appellant as a prisoner from the same class as all persons validly confined under
law? The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been
an excuse to free a person validly in prison. The Court 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. We,
therefore, find 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.
