Title
Alejandrino vs. Quezon
Case
G.R. No. 22041
Decision Date
Sep 11, 1924
Senator Alejandrino challenged Senate resolution disciplining him; Supreme Court dismissed, citing separation of powers and non-interference in legislative affairs.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 22041)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties
    • Petitioner: Jose Alejandrino, appointed Senator by the Governor-General to represent the Twelfth Senatorial District.
    • Respondents: Manuel L. Quezon (President of the Philippine Senate), members of the Philippine Senate (Isabelo de los Reyes, Santiago Fonacier, Alejo Mabanag, Bernabe de Guzman, Ramon Fernandez, Emiliano T. Tirona, Antero Soriano, Juan B. Alegre, Vicente de Vera, Jose Ma. Arroyo, Francisco Enage, Tomas Gomez, Sergio Osmeña, Celestino Rodriguez, Francisco Soriano, Jose A. Clarin, Hadji Butu, Espiridion Guanco, Hermenegildo Villanueva, Jose Hontiveros, Teodoro Sandiko, Santiago Lucero), and Senate officers (Secretary Faustino Aguilar, Sergeant-at-Arms Bernabe Bustamante, Paymaster Francisco Dayaw).
  • Senate Resolution
    • Date & substance: February 5, 1924, resolution finding Senator Alejandrino “guilty of disorderly conduct and flagrant violation of the privileges of the Senate” for an alleged assault on Senator Vicente de Vera.
    • Penalty imposed: Deprivation of “all his prerogatives, privileges and emoluments” as Senator for one year from January 1, 1924.
    • Notice: Copy of resolution furnished to the Governor-General.
  • Proceedings in the Supreme Court
    • Petition: Alejandrino seeks (a) preliminary injunction barring execution of the resolution, (b) declaration of the resolution’s nullity, and (c) final writ of mandamus and injunction compelling recognition of his senatorial rights and emoluments.
    • Defense: Government’s Attorney-General appears specially and demurs, contesting the Court’s jurisdiction over a coordinate branch (the Senate) and its officers.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction
    • May the Supreme Court issue mandamus or injunction against the Philippine Senate or its officers to compel or restrain the performance of legislative acts?
  • Constitutionality of the Resolution
    • Does the Senate possess power under the Organic Act (Jones Law) to suspend or remove an appointive Senator?
  • Available Remedy
    • If the resolution is void, can the Court compel reinstatement of the Senator and payment of his emoluments through mandamus or injunction?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.