Case Summary (G.R. No. 22041)
Factual Background and Resolution
On February 5, 1924, the Senate adopted a resolution declaring Senator Alejandrino guilty of disorderly conduct for an altercation with Senator Vicente de Vera, and “deprived” him of all prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments of his office for one year, effective January 1, 1924, with a copy forwarded to the Governor-General.
Petitioner’s Relief Sought
Alejandrino filed an original petition for mandamus and injunction: (1) preliminarily to enjoin enforcement of the Senate’s resolution; (2) to declare the resolution null and void; (3) finally to compel the Senate and its officers to restore him to full senatorial rights, privileges, and salary.
Respondents’ Jurisdictional Objection
By special appearance and demurrer, respondents (through the Attorney-General) challenged the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, asserting that courts may not control or reverse purely legislative acts by mandamus or injunction.
Separation of Powers and Judicial Review
The Court acknowledged the fundamental doctrine that each department (legislative, executive, judicial) is coequal and independent. Nevertheless, it is the judiciary’s duty to say what the law is and to determine whether legislative bodies have exceeded their constitutional powers.
Rule on Mandamus Against Legislative Body
As a general rule, a writ of mandamus will not lie against a coordinate branch to compel performance of duties that are legislative in character. Courts will not reinstate an expelled member nor dictate internal legislative action without usurping power.
Leading Precedents on Non-Interference
U.S. Supreme Court: Mississippi v. Johnson (4 Wall. 475), Sutherland v. Governor (29 Mich. 320).
Philippine Islands: Severino v. Governor-General (16 Phil. 366), Abueva v. Wood (45 Phil. 612), Perfecto v. Wood (R.G. No. 20867).
These hold that courts lack jurisdiction to control discretionary or legislative functions of other departments.
Organic Act’s Provisions on Punishment and Removal
Section 17: Appointive senators hold office “until removed by the Governor-General.”
Section 18: Each House may punish members for disorderly behavior and, with two-thirds concurrence, expel an elective member. No power to expel or suspend appointive members is conferred on the Legislature.
Impact of Suspension on Representation
Suspension for one year silences the senator’s voice and deprives the district (about one million inhabitants) of representation without vacancy-filling procedures. This renders suspension tantamount to an unlawful removal or expulsion for appointive members.
Court’s Holding on Jurisdiction and Mandamus
Although conceding the Senate lacked constitutional authority to suspend an appointive senator, the Court held it has no power to issue mandamus or injunction compelling the Senate to rescind its resolution. Courts cannot coerce a coordinate branch.
Judgment
Demurrer sustained for want of jurisdiction; petition dismissed without costs.
Concurring Opinion
Justice Avancena agreed that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to review Senate proceedings. He objected, however, to the majority’s needless characterization of the resolution as “illegal” in light of that jurisdictional ruling.
Dissenting Opinion—
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 22041)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Original proceeding in mandamus and injunction filed by Jose Alejandrino, an appointive Senator
- Petition challenges a February 5, 1924 Philippine Senate resolution suspending Alejandrino’s privileges for one year
- Petitioner’s prayers:
• Preliminary injunction to enjoin execution of the Senate resolution
• Declaration that the resolution is null and void
• Final writ of mandamus and injunction compelling respondents to recognize and restore his senatorial prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments - Attorney-General appears specially, demurs and objects to court’s jurisdiction
Parties
- Petitioner: Jose Alejandrino, Senator for the Twelfth Senatorial District, appointed by the Governor-General
- Respondents include:
• Manuel L. Quezon (President of the Senate) and 22 other Philippine Senators
• Faustino Aguilar (Secretary of the Senate)
• Bernabe Bustamante (Sergeant-at-Arms)
• Francisco Dayaw (Paymaster)
Factual Background
- Alejandrino appointed under Sections 16–17 of the Jones Law
- Dispute arose over Senate debate on his credentials, during which he “treacherously assaulted” Senator Vicente de Vera outside the Senate chamber
- Senate resolution of February 5, 1924:
• Declared Alejandrino guilty of disorderly conduct and flagrant violation of Senate privileges
• Deprived him of all prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments for one year from January 1, 1924
• Ordered copy of resolution sent to the Governor-General
Petitioner’s Grounds for Relief
- The Senate resolution is unconstitutional and void for five reasons (not all enumerated in text)
- Relief required to protect his office tenure, prerogatives, and to vindicate constituency’s right to representation
- Alleged lack of power in the Senate to suspend or remove an appointive member under the Organic Act
Respondents’ Jurisdictional Objection
- By special appearance, Attorney-General argues court lacks jurisdiction over Senate and its members in matters of purely legislative functions
- Asserts mandamus will not lie against a coordinate branch of governm