Alejandrino v. Quezon, 46 Phil.

83 (1924)

Facts: The petitioner in this original petition for mandamus and injunction is Jose Alejandrino, a Senator
appointed by the Governor General. to represent the 12th Senatorial District. The casus belli is a
resolution adopted by the Philippine Senate composed of the respondent Senators, On February
5,1924,depriving Alejandrino of all the prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments of his office for the
period of 1 yr from 1/24 having been declared guilty of disorderly conduct and flagrant violation of the
privileges of the Senate for having treacherously assaulted Sen. de Vera on the occasion of certain
phrases being uttered by the latter in the course of the debate regarding the credentials of Mr.
Alejandrino. The burden of petitioner’s complaint is that the resolution is unconstitutional and entirely
of no effect.

Issue: WON the Supreme Court by mandamus and injunction may annul the suspension of Senator
Alexandrina and compel the Philippine Senate to reinstate him in his official position?

Held: The general rule is that the writ will not lie from one branch of the gov't to a coordinate branch,
for the very obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other. Mandamus will not lie against the
legislative body, its members, or its officers, to compel the performance of duties purely legislative in
their character w/c therefore pertains to their legislative functions and over w/c they have exclusive
control. The courts cannot dictate action in this respect without a gross usurpation of power. Precedents
have held that where a member has been expelled by the legislative body, the courts have no power,
irrespective of whether the expulsion was right or wrong, to issue a mandate to compel his
reinstatement
Osmena vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil. 863 (1960)

Facts:Then Congressman Osmeña Jr filed a verified petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and
certiorari with preliminary injunction against Congressman Pendatun and others in their capacity as
members of the Special Committee created by House Resolution 59. He asked for the annulment of the
resolution on the ground of infringement upon his parliamentary immunity. He further asked that the
respondents should not require him to substantiate his charges against the president with the
admonition that if he failed to do so he must show cause why the House should not punish him. Said
charges emanated from his one-hour privileged speech entitled “A Message to Garcia”, which
constituted a serious assault upon the dignity of Garcia as the then President.

ISSUE: Whether or not Osmeña’s immunity has been violated?

HELD: Section 15, Article 6 of the 1935 Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity upon member s
of the legislature which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every parliament in a democratic world.
It guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in
criminal or civil actions before the courts or any other forum outside the Hall of Congress. However, it
does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body whenever his words and conduct
are considered disorderly or unbecoming of a member therein. Therefore, Osmeña’s petition is
dismissed.
Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 126055, April 19, 2001

G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001

FACTS:

A group of employees of the Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) filed a complaint for
violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against then CID Commissioner Miriam Defensor-
Santiago. It was alleged that petitioner, with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in the exercise of
her official functions, approved the application for legalization of the stay of several disqualified aliens.
The Sandigan bayan then issued an order for her suspension effective for 90 days.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has authority to decree a 90-day preventive suspension against a
Senator of the Republic of the Philippines

RULING

The authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the preventive suspension of an incumbent public official
charged with violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 3019 has both legal and jurisprudential
support.It would appear, indeed, to be a ministerial duty of the court to issue an order of suspension
upon determination of the validity of the information filed before it. Once the information is found to be
sufficient in form and substance, the court is bound to issue an order of suspension as a matter of
course, and there seems to be “no ifs and buts about it.” Explaining the nature of the preventive
suspension, the Court in the case of Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan observed:“ It is not a penalty because it is
not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. In fact, if acquitted, the official concerned shall be
entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during
suspension.”In issuing the preventive suspension of petitioner, the Sandiganbayan merely adhered to
the clear an unequivocal mandate of the law, as well as the jurisprudence in which the Court has, more
than once, upheld Sandiganbayan’s authority to decree the suspension of public officials and employees
indicted before it.Power of Sandiganbayan to Decree Preventive Suspension vis-à-vis Congress’
Prerogative to Discipline its MembersThe pronouncement, upholding the validity of the information
filed against petitioner, behooved Sandiganbayan to discharge its mandated duty to forthwith issue the
order of preventive suspension.The order of suspension prescribed by Republic Act No. 3019 is distinct
from the power of Congress to discipline its own ranks under the Constitution which provides that
each-“ house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior,
and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of
suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.”The suspension contemplated in the above
constitutional provision is a punitive measure that is imposed upon determination by the Senate or the
house of Representatives, as the case may be, upon an erring member.Republic Act No. 3019 does not
exclude from its coverage the members of Congress and that, therefore, the Sandiganbayan did not err
in thus decreeing the assailed preventive suspension order