Alejandrino vs Quezon Case Digest – G.R. No. 22041 September 11, 1924

Alejandrino vs Quezon Case Digest

Alejandrino vs Quezon Case Digest

The petitioner in this original proceeding in mandamus and injunction is Jose Alejandrino, a Senator appointed by the Governor-General to represent the Twelfth Senatorial District. The respondents are Manuel L. Quezon, President 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, and Santiago Lucero, all members of the Philippine Senate; Faustino Aguilar, Secretary of the Philippine Senate; Bernabe Bustamante, Sergeant-at-arms of the Philippine Senate, and Francisco Dayaw, Paymaster of the Philippine Senate.




Senator Jose Alejandrino was declared guilty of disorderly conduct and flagrant violation of the privileges of the Senate for having treacherously assaulted Senator Vicente de Vera.

He was deprived of all of his prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments of being a senator.

He filed a mandamus and injunction against respondent Senate President Manuel Quezon from executing the said resolution and declare the said resolution null and void.


Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition prayed for.


The judiciary is not the repository of all wisdom and all power. It would hardly be becoming for the judiciary to assume the role of either a credulous inquisitor, a querulous censor, or a jaunty knight, who passes down the halls of legislation and of administration.

 It must be dismissed without costs. Such is the judgment of the court. So ordered.

We rule that neither the Philippine Legislature nor a branch thereof can be directly controlled in the exercise of their legislative powers by any judicial process. The court accordingly lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition and the demurrer must be sustained. As it is unlikely that the petition could be amended to state a cause of action, it must be dismissed without costs. Such is the judgment of the court.

Alejandrino vs Quezon Case Digest

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts