Alejandrino vs. Quezon [September 11, 1924]
Original Action in the Supreme Court
The Petitioner in this original proceeding in mandamus and injunction is JoseAlejandrino, a Senator appointed by the Governor-General to represent the 12
February 5, 1924 – A resolution was adopted by the Philippine Senate deprivingsenator Alejandrino of all the prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments of hisoffice for the period of one year from January1, 1924 having been declaredguilty of disorderly conduct and flagrant violation of the privileges of the Senatefor having treacherously assaulted Senator de Vera on the occasion of certainphrases being uttered by the latter in the course of the debate regarding thecredential of Mr. Alejandrino.Issues:1.WON a Mandamus and injunction can be issued to the respondent to recognizethe rights of the petitioner to exercise his rights as a Senator2.WON the Senate can suspend its members for a period of one year.Ratio1.No
General Rule: the writ of mandamus will not lie from one branch of thegovernment to a coordinate branch, for the very obvious reason thatneither is inferior to the other.
Mandamus will not lie against the legislative body, its members or itsofficers, to compel the performance of duties purely legislative in theircharacter which therefore pertains to their legislative functions and overwhich they have exclusive control.2.No
Organic Act authorizes the Governor-General to appoint 2 senators and 9representatives to represent the non-Christian regions in the Legislature.These senators and representatives hold office until removed by theGovernor-General. They may not be removed by the legislature.
The Senate and House of Representatives is granted the power to punishits members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of 2/3,expel an elective member.
The Constitution has purposely withheld from the Senate and House of Representatives and the Governor-General the power to suspend anappointive member.
Punishment by way of reprimand or fine vindicates the outraged dignity of the House without depriving the constituency of representation.
Expulsion when permissible vindicates the honor of the legislative bodywhile giving to the constituency an opportunity to elect anew.
Suspension deprives the electoral district of representation without thatdistrict being afforded any means by which to fill the vacancy. Bysuspension, the seat remains filed but the occupant is silenced.
Suspension for 1 year is equivalent to qualified expulsion or removalNote: Writ of mandamus cannot be issued because the SC does not possess thepower of coercion to make the Philippine Senate take any particular action.
Paredes vs. SandiganbayanCASCO Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. vs. GIMENEZ (February 28, 1963)
Petition for review of a decision of the Auditor General denying a claim forrefund of petitioner Casco.
Pursuant to RA 2609 “Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law”, the Central Bank of Phil. (CBP) issued on July 1, 1959 Circular No. 95 fixing a uniform margin fee of 25% on foreign exchange transactions.
Many times between Nov & Dec 1959, Casco, (which is engaged in themanufacture of synthetic resin glues, used in bonding lumber & veneer byplywood & hardwood producers) – bought foreign exchange for the importationof urea and formaldehyde & paid the margin fee of P33, 765.42.
In May 1960, Casco made another purchase of foreign exchange & paidP6,345.72 as margin fee.
Prior thereto, petitioner had sought the refund of the first sum of P33,765.42,relying upon Resolution No. 1529 of the Monetary Board (MB) of said Bankdated Nov. 3, 1959, declaring that the
separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is exempt
from said fee. Petitioner made a similar request forrefund of the sum of P6,345.72.
Although CBP issued the margin fee vouchers for the refund of said amounts,the Auditor of the Bank refused to pass in audit and approve said vouchersupon the ground that the
by the MB
separateimportations of urea and formaldehyde
is not in accord with the provisions of Sec. 2, par. XVIII of RA 2609.
On appeal by petitioner, Auditor General affirmed said action of the Auditor of the Bank. Hence this appeal.ISSUE: WON “urea” and “formaldehyde” are exempt by law from the payment of the aforesaid margin fee.HELD: NO, decision appealed from is affirmed.RATIO:
Sec. 2, RA 2609: “The margin established by the MB pursuant to the provisionof Sec.1 hereof shall not be imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for theimportation of the ff: ….XVIII.
for the manufacture of plywood & hardboard when imported by and for the exclusive use of end-users.”
PETITIONER: “urea formaldehyde” should be construed as “urea”
However, whereas, urea & formaldehyde are the principal raw materials in themanufacture of synthetic resin glues, the Commissioner of Nat’l Institute of Science & Tech said: “Urea formaldehyde…is the synthetic resin formed as acondensation product from definite proportions of urea and formaldehyde…”