GR Nos.

132875-76, February 3, 2000

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-appellee

vs.
Romeo G. Jalosjos, Accused-appellant

Facts:

Romeo G. Jalosjos is a full-fledged member of Congress who is now confined at the national
penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and acts of lasciviousness on six
counts is pending appeal. Jalosjos, filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge his
duties of a Congressman including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings
despite his having convicted in the first instance including of a non-bailable offense.

Jalosjos argument is the mandate of sovereign will which he states that he was re-elected as
Congressman of Firs District of Zamboanga del Norte by his constituents in order that their voices
will be heard and since the accused-appellant is treated as bona fide member of the House of
Representatives, the latter urges co-equal branch of government to respect his mandate.

Issue:

Whether or not accused-appellant, Romeo G. Jalosjos, be allowed to discharge his mandate as

member of the House of Representatives.

Held/Ruling:

No. The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators or members of the House of Representatives
arises from a provision of the Constitution and shows that this privilege has always been granted in a
restrictive sense.

It is true, that election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. However, the rights
and privileges from being elected as public official may be restricted by law. Privilege has to be
granted by law, not inferred from the duties of a position, the higher the rank the greater the
requirement of obedience rather that exemption.

The accused-appellant Romeo Jalosjos has not given any reason why he should be exempted from
the operation of Section 11 Article VI of the Constitution. The members of Congress cannot compel
absent members to attend sessions if the reason for the abuse is a legitimate one. The confinement
of a Congressman with a crime punishable imprisonment by more than six (6) months is not merely
authorized by law, has constitutional foundations. Allowing Jalosjos to attend in Congressional
sessions and meetings for five (5) days in a week which will make him a free man with all the
privileges and would make his status to that of a special class, it also would be a making of the
purpose of the correction system.
G.R. No. 190529. April 29, 2010

PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC. (PGBI) represented by its Secretary General

George “FGBF George” Duldulao, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS: For the upcoming May 2010 elections, the COMELEC en Banc issued on October 13, 2009
Resolution No. 8679 deleting several party-list groups or organizations from the list of registered
national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions. Among the party-list organizations
affected was PGBI; it was delisted because it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in 2004 and it did not
participate in the 2007 elections. PGBI filed its Opposition to Resolution No. 8679, but likewise
sought, through its pleading, the admission ad cautelam of its petition for accreditation as a party-list
organization under the Party-List System Act. The COMELEC denied PGBIs motion/opposition for
lack of merit.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is legal basis for delisting PGBI.

HELD: NO. COMELEC's decision is annulled.

The law is clear the COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party,
remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral
party, organization or coalition if it: (a)fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections;
or(b)fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the
two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.

The word or is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of one thing from the
other things enumerated; it should, as a rule, be construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies,
as a disjunctive word. Thus, the plain, clear and unmistakable language of the law provides for two
(2) separate reasons for delisting.

To reiterate, (a) Section 6(8) of RA 7941 provides for two separate grounds for delisting; these
grounds cannot be mixed or combined to support delisting; and (b) the disqualification for failure to
garner 2% party-list votes in two preceding elections should now be understood to mean failure to
qualify for a party-list seat in two preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.

This is how Section 6(8) of RA 7941 should be understood and applied. PGBIs situation a party list
group or organization that failed to garner 2% in a prior election and immediately thereafter did not
participate in the preceding election is something that is not covered by Section 6(8) of RA
7941.From this perspective, it may be an unintended gap in the law and as such is a matter for
Congress to address. The Court cannot and do not address matters over which full discretionary
authority is given by the Constitution to the legislature; to do so will offend the principle of separation
of powers. If a gap indeed exists, then the present case should bring this concern to the legislatures
notice.
Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, July 18, 1950

FACTS: The Senate investigated the purchase by the government of two parcels of land, known as
Buenavista and Tambobong estates. An intriguing question that the Senate sought to resolve was
the apparent irregularity of the government’s payment to one Ernest Burt, a non-resident American
citizen, of the total sum of Php1.5 million for his alleged interest in the two estates that only
amounted to Php20,000.00, which he seemed to have forfeited anyway long before. The Senate
sought to determine who were responsible for and who benefited from the transaction at the
expense of the government.

Petitioner Jean Arnault, who acted as agent of Ernest Burt in the subject transactions, was one of
the witnesses summoned by the Senate to its hearings. In the course of the investigation, the
petitioner repeatedly refused to divulge the name of the person to whom he gave the amount of
Php440,000.00, which he withdrew from the Php1.5 million proceeds pertaining to Ernest Burt.

Arnault was therefore cited in contempt by the Senate and was committed to the custody of the
Senate Sergeant-at-Arms for imprisonment until he answers the questions. He thereafter filed a
petition for habeas corpus directly with the Supreme Court questioning the validity of his detention.

ISSUES:

1. WON the Senate has the power to punish Arnault for contempt for refusing to reveal the name of
the person to whom he gave the P440,000.
2. WON the Senate lacks authority to commit him for contempt for a term beyond its period of
legislative session, which ended on May 18, 1950.

HELD:

1. YES. Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative body to
make, the investigating committee has the power to require a witness to answer any question
pertinent to that inquiry, subject of course to his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The
inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative body to make, must be material or necessary to
the exercise of a power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to legislate, or to expel a Member;
and every question which the investigator is empowered to coerce a witness to answer must be
material or pertinent to the subject of the inquiry or investigation. The materiality of the question must
be determined by its direct relation to the subject of the inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any
proposed or possible legislation. The reason is, that the necessity or lack of necessity for legislative
action and the form and character of the action itself are determined by the sum total of the
information to be gathered as a result of the investigation, and not by a fraction of such information
elicited from a single question.

2. NO. Senate is a continuing body and which does not cease to exist upon the periodical dissolution
of the Congress or of the House of Representatives. There is no limit as to time to the Senate’s
power to punish for contempt in cases where that power may constitutionally be exerted as in the
present case. Senate will not be disposed to exert the power beyond its proper bounds, i.e. abuse
their power and keep the witness in prison for life. If proper limitations are disregarded, Court
isalways open to those whose rights might thus be transgressed.
G.R. No. 189466 and G.R. No. 189506
Abayon vs. HRET

FACTS: These two cases are about the authority of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET) to pass upon the eligibilities of the nominees of the party-list groups that won seats in the
lower house of Congress.

Plaintiffs Abayon and Palparan are first nominees of the the party-list groups
Aangat Tayo and Bantay, respectively, both of which won a seat in the House of Representatives in t
he 2007 elections. The defendant questioned the eligibility and qualification of the plaintiffs to sit as
representatives since both did not belong to the sectors in which the respective party-list groups
represent. According to Abayon, it was Aangat Tayo that was taking a seat in the House of
Representatives, and not Abayon who was just its nominee. All questions involving her eligibility as
first nominee, said Abayon, were internal concerns of Aangat Tayo.

The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) issued an order, dismissing the petition as
against Aangat Tayo and Bantay but upholding its jurisdiction over the qualifications of petitioners
Abayon and Palparan.

Petitioner Palparan countered that the HRET had no jurisdiction over his person since it was actually
the party-list Bantay, not he, that was elected to and assumed membership in the House of
Representatives. Palparan claimed that he was just Bantay’s nominee. Consequently, any question
involving his eligibility as first nominee was an internal concern of Bantay. Such question must be
brought, he said, before that party-list group, not before the HRET.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent HRET has jurisdiction over the question of qualifications of
petitioners Abayon and Palparan.

HELD: YES. Although it is the party-list organization that is voted for in the elections, it is not the
organization that sits as and becomes a member of the House of Representatives. Section 5, Article
VI of the Constitution identifies who the “members” of that House are:

Sec. 5. (1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and
fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative
districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance
with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive
ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a partylist system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. (Underscoring supplied)

Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution9 provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to, among other things, the qualifications of the members of the House of
Representatives. Since, as pointed out above, party-list nominees are “elected members” of the
House of Representatives no less than the district representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to
hear and pass upon their qualifications. By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once
the party or organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken
his oath and assumed office as member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRET’s own jurisdiction
begins.10

The Court holds that respondent HRET did not gravely abuse its discretion when it dismissed the
petitions for quo warranto against Aangat Tayo party-list and Bantay party-list but upheld its
jurisdiction over the question of the qualifications of petitioners Abayon and Palparan.