Alejandrino v. Quezon

Citations: 271 U.S. 528; 46 S. Ct. 600; 70 L. Ed. 1071; 1926 U.S. LEXIS 643Docket: 309

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; June 7, 1926; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case of Alejandrino v. Quezon revolves around an original action in the Supreme Court of the Philippines initiated by Jose Alejandrino, a senator appointed by the Governor General. He sought a mandamus and an injunction against 22 elected Senate members following a resolution passed on February 5, 1924, which declared him guilty of disorderly conduct for assaulting Senator Vicente de Vera after remarks made during a Senate debate regarding Alejandrino’s credentials. The Senate resolution deprived Alejandrino of all privileges and emoluments for one year, and informed the Governor General of the action taken against him.

Alejandrino contended that the resolution was unconstitutional and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent its execution, a declaration of its nullity, and a mandamus to affirm his rights as a senator. The respondents, represented by the Attorney General, challenged the court's jurisdiction through a demurrer. The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction, upheld the demurrer, and dismissed the case without costs, stating that the petition could not be amended to establish a cause of action. Alejandrino was appointed under the Philippine Autonomy Act, which vests legislative powers in a bicameral legislature, comprising the Senate and House of Representatives, with specific exceptions.

The Senate consists of 24 members, with 22 elected and 2 appointed by the Governor General from the Twelfth district. An appointed Senator serves at the Governor General's discretion until removal. The Senate and House of Representatives have the authority to judge the elections, returns, and qualifications of their members, establish their procedural rules, and expel members with a two-thirds vote. Members are compensated from the Philippine Islands treasury and enjoy immunity from arrest during legislative sessions, except for serious crimes. 

Concerns were raised regarding the Senate's ability to expel or suspend an appointed Senator, arguing that the Senate's expulsion power is limited to elected members. The court refrains from ruling on the suspension issue, as the suspension period has ended and the Senator in question, Alejandrino, has resumed his duties. Thus, the matter of whether the Senate could suspend him is moot. 

The court also questions its jurisdiction to compel the Senate to rescind its resolution regarding Alejandrino’s status. Although the suspension has lapsed, there is a potential claim for recovery of withheld emoluments during the suspension, particularly his salary for January 1924. However, the petition lacks specific details on the emoluments or the procedural rules governing Senators' salary payments. The petition mentions that some defendants are Senators and part of the committee responsible for approving such payments, but the court finds it challenging to address this incidental issue without further information.

Defendants are accused of enforcing a suspension against the plaintiff, a Senator, preventing him from exercising his office and receiving associated privileges and emoluments. The defendants, including the Senate President and other officials, allegedly ordered Senate employees to disregard the plaintiff's status as a Senator. The plaintiff is also required to refund previously received emoluments and denied future payments.

The document notes that under the Autonomy Act, Senators are entitled to a fixed annual salary, and there exists an official responsible for disbursing these payments, against whom the plaintiff could seek a mandamus to compel payment. However, the petition lacks clarity regarding the identity of this official, complicating the plaintiff's legal recourse. The court suggests that if the appropriate official refuses payment based on a Senate resolution, the validity of that resolution could be a judicial matter, but would not necessitate the Senate's involvement in the case.

The main issue of the plaintiff's suspension is deemed moot, and the court determines that any claims regarding the recovery of withheld emoluments should be pursued separately against the relevant executive officer(s). As the petition does not provide sufficient grounds for further action, the court vacates the lower judgment and remands the case with directions to dismiss the petition without costs to either party. The opinion was delivered by Justice Holmes in the Chief Justice's absence.