Alejandrino v. Quezon, 309

Decision Date07 June 1926
Docket NumberNo. 309,309
Citation46 S.Ct. 600,271 U.S. 528,70 L.Ed. 1071
PartiesALEJANDRINO v. QUEZON et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Claro M. Recto, of Manila, Phil. Islands, for petitioner.

Messrs. Pablo G. Corinsta, of Washington, D. C., and Guillermo B. Guevara, of Manila, Phil. Islands, for respondents.

Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.1

This cause was brought here by certiorari under section 5 of the Act of September 6, 1916, to amend Judicial Code c. 448, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1225b). That act repealed section 248 of the Judicial Code, re-enacted by section 27 of the so-called Philippine Autonomy Act, c. 416, 39 Stat. 545, 555 (Comp. St. § 1225a), which gave jurisdiction to this court to examine by writ of error the final judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of the Islands in all cases in which the Constitution or any statute, treaty, title or privilege of the United States was involved, or in causes in which the value in controversy exceeded $25,000, and a review of such judgments by writ of certiorari was substituted. The certiorari here was granted because a statute of the United States, to wit, the Autonomy Act, was involved.

This proceeding was an original action in the Supreme Court of the Philippines, brought by Jose Alejandrino, a Senator appointed by the Governor General, seeking a mandamus and an injunction against the 22 elected members of the Senate, including its president, its secretary, its sergeant at arms, and its paymaster. The occasion for the proceeding was a resolution of the Senate, passed February 5, 1924, and reading as follows:

'Resolved, that the Honorable Jose Alejandrino, Senator from the Twelfth district, be, and he is hereby, declared guilty of disorderly conduct and flagrant violation of the privileges of the Senate for having treacherously assaulted the Honorable Vicente de Vera, Senator for the Sixth district, on the occasion of certain phrases being uttered by the latter in the course of the debate regarding the credentials of said Mr. Aleiandrino;

'Resolved, further, that the Honorable Jose Alejandrino be, as he is hereby, deprived of all of his prerogatives, privileges and emoluments as such Senator during one year from the first of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-four;

'And resolved, lastly, that the said Honorable Jose Alejandrino, being a Senator appointed by the Governor General of these Islands, a copy of this resolution be furnished said Governor General for his information.'

The petitioner charged that this resolution was unconstitutional and of no effect and asked a preliminary injunction against the respondents enjoining them from executing the resolution, a judicial declaration that it was null and void, and a final order of mandamus against the respondent ordering them to recognize the rights of the petitioner and his office as Senator, and all of his prerogatives, privileges and emoluments and prohibiting them from carrying the order of suspension into effect. The respondents made a special appearance through the Attorney General and objected on demurrer to the court's jurisdiction. The court held that it was without jurisdiction, sustained the demurrer, and as it did not appear that the petition could be amended so as to state a cause of action, it was dismissed without costs.

Jose Alejandrino was appointed under the Philippine Autonomy Act by the Governor General as Senator to represent the Twelfth district, a district composed of non-Christian tribes in the northern part of Luzon and the Moros in the department of Mindanao and Sulu. At the time he took his seat in the Senate, another Senator, Vicente de Vera, made a speech on the credentials of Senator Alejandrino, in which he said some things which Alejandrino resented. At night, and after the session of the Senate concluded, and away from the Senate chamber, Alejandrino assaulted de Vera because of his remarks made in the Senate. The resolution complained of was because of this assault.

By section 12 of the Autonomy Act (Comp. St. § 3813), the general legislative powers in the Philippines, with certain exceptions, are vested in a Legislture consisting of two Houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate is composed of 24 members from 12 Senate districts; 22 of them are elected, and one, the Twelfth district, already referred to, has 2 Senators appointed by the Governor General. By section 17 (Comp. St. § 3814d), a Senator appointed by the Governor General holds office until removed by the Governor General. Section 18 (Comp. St. § 3814e) provides that the Senate and House respectively shall be the sole judges of the elections, returns and qualifications of their elective members, and each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds expel an elective member. The Senators and Representatives shall receive an annual compensation for their services to be ascertained by law and paid out of the treasury of the Philippine Islands. Senators and Representatives shall in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses and in going to and returning from the same, and for any speech or debate in either house they shall not be questioned in any other place.

It is argued that as the only power of expulsion given to the Senate is in respect of its elected members, no power is conferred on the Senate to expel a member appointed by the Governor General. It is further argued that the power to suspend is only a less power than...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • American Const. Fire Assur. Co. v. O'Malley, 34629.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 25 Febrero 1938
    ...Co. v. Tariff Comm., 274 U.S. 106; Brownlow, Commr., District of Columbia, v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216, 43 Sup. Ct. 263; Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U.S. 528; 2 R.C.L. 169; 27 R.C.L. 82; 1 R.C.L. 317. (2) The Supreme Court of Missouri has held twice that the impounded money in this case was wr......
  • Powell v. Cormack
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 16 Junio 1969
    ...ed. 1966). Despite Powell's obvious and continuing interest in his withheld salary, respondents insist that Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U.S. 528, 46 S.Ct. 600, 70 L.Ed. 1071 (1926), leaves us no choice but to dismiss this litigation as moot. Alejandrino, a duly appointed Senator of the Phili......
  • Page v. Tri–City Healthcare Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 19 Marzo 2012
    ...claims as to Director Horton's exclusion are moot because the censure period is over. (Opp'n 14.) In Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U.S. 528, 534, 46 S.Ct. 600, 70 L.Ed. 1071 (1926), cited by Tri–City in support of this proposition, the Supreme Court deemed a case moot where the Philippine Sena......
  • American Constitution Fire Assur. Co. v. O'Malley
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 25 Febrero 1938
    ... ... County v. Railroad Co., 47 Iowa 66; Washburn County ... v. Thompson, 99 Wis. 585, 75 N.W. 309; Wadsworth v ... Livingston County, 124 N.Y.S. 334. (7) The court may not ... take any action ... Schwartz, ... 261 U.S. 216, 43 S.Ct. 263; Alejandrino v. Quezon, ... 271 U.S. 528; 2 R. C. L. 169; 27 R. C. L. 82; 1 R. C. L. 317 ... (2) The Supreme ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT