SANGGUNIAN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PAARALANG LOYOLA NG ATENEO DE MANILA

STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT

SAJE MIGUEL MOLATO KRISTONI GO EDNA

AFRICA JULIA LI Petitioners

v.

JANN RAILEY E. MONTALAN Respondent

Case No. 2015 c. 3 Court : VILLARUEL C.M., AQUINO, JACINTO, ORIBELLO, VINUYA MM.

Promulgated : August 15, 2015 Citation : 2015 SJC 3

[1] The Petitioners have filed an appeal for a Temporary Restraining Order on the

implementation of the Sanggunian Resolution entitled Resolution to Call for Open

Applications for the Positions of Buklod Atenista Ambassador and Buklod Atenista Trainees

(referred to as “resolution” for brevity). The petition was accepted on 10 August 2015 and

subsequently catalogued as No. 15-08. [2] The Petitioners assail the legitimacy of the resolution and the alleged violations of the

Respondent in relation to the provisions of the 2005 Constitution of the Undergraduate

Students of the Ateneo De Manila Loyola Schools (referred to as “constitution” for brevity).

The Petitioners argue that Article 2, Section 2 and Article 5, Section 10, were violated by the

Respondent in implementing the resolution The majority opinion of CHIEF MAGISTRATE VILLARUEL and MAGISTRATES

AQUINO, ORIBELLO, and VINUYA.

[3] Central to the acceptance or dismissal of any petition filed to the Court is the

appropriateness of the legal relief, as specified by the Petitioners. While the Court finds the

Judgment 2 2015 SJC 3 prospect of a culture of non—consultation within the internal offices of the Sanggunian

daunting, the Court rejects the Petitioners’ argument that the alleged actions of the

Respondent is sufficient reason for the legal remedy of a Temporary Restraining Order.

On the Issue of Appropriate Legal Remedy [4] The Court finds that there is no mention of the Petitioners’ role in the application

process for the new position of Buklod Atenista Ambassador and Buklod Atenista Trainees

in the resolution in question. Rather, the resolution empowers the Incumbent Buklod Atenista

Ambassador and the Central Board to take charge in this matter.

[5] The Court remains unconvinced of the connection between the actions, as stipulated

in the resolution and by the Petitioners. Consequently, the Court then does not rule in favor

of the Petitioners’ main argument that the application and opening of the Buklod Atenista

position is in violation of the Petitioners’ right to participation in the formation and

application of regulations that directly affect their wellbeing.

[6] As such, the Court believes that a Temporary Restraining Order would not be the

legal appropriate remedy for this matter.

On the Issue of Consultation and Transparency

[7] The Petitioners assert that they were effectively excluded from the crafting of the

resolution by the Central Board, through the Respondent.

(1) “We were not invited to any dialogues or joint sessions regarding the approval of

our resolution, and neither was there an official decline of our proposal as to

allow the Central Board to draft a new resolution regarding the matter, effectively

barring us from engaging in any form of discourse and at the very least an

opportunity to defend the provisions of our bill” (15-08, p.3)

[8] The Court finds merit in the Respondent’s foundational assertion that the resolution

passed on July 21, 2015 is not the draft authored by the Petitioners. As such, the Court agrees

that there is no legal obligation for the Central Board to invite the Petitioners to dialogue.

Judgment 3 2015 SJC 3 [9] The Petitioners as members of the Atenean student body, do not err in assuming that

they may participate in any regulations-making activity. However being that all legal sources

point to the Department of External Affairs’ position as an auxiliary committee under the

Central Board’s jurisdiction, the extent of the Department’s autonomy in the determination of

its responsibilities remains unclear to the Court. As such, the Court cannot

[10] As the Grassroots Empowerment Act took effect ante factum this case, the Court

finds no legal error in the Central Board’s process of receiving and deliberating on the

recommendations formerly filed by the Petitioners. Despite the Court’s ruling that the issue

is non-justiciable, the Court heavily contends with the Respondent’s dismissive nature in

assuming accountability for the facilitation of an inclusive democratic arena. The Court notes

that this is indeed a basic obligation of the Sanggunian, of which the Respondent is a part of.

[11] The Court notes that while there is no clear obstacle hindering any person protected

by the constitution from filing a resolution, the Central Board’s actions as alleged by the

Petitioners would perpetuate an exclusive culture of democracy. [12] The Court endeavors that the members of the Central Board to adhere to the

stipulations of the Act with due diligence.

ORDER [13] Wherefore the Court rules against the Petitioners request for a Temporary Restraining

Order on the implementation of the resolution in question; [14] Wherefore the Court rules in favor of the Petitioners request for a mediation between

the Department of External Affairs and the Sanggunian Central Board on a date and time to

be agreed upon by the parties concerned and the Court;

SO ORDERED.

CRISTINE MARIE C. VILLARUEL

Chief Magistrate

See DISSENTING Opinion

EMMANUEL ROY M. AQUINO (sgd)

Magistrate

GENEROSO IGNACIO S. JACINTO (sgd)

Magistrate

CARL JOEPET R. ORIBELLO (sgd)

Magistrate

JOHN RAPHAEL V. VINUYA (sgd)

Magistrate

Judgment 4 2015 SJC 3 The dissenting opinion of MAGISTRATE JACINTO

[14] I maintain my dissent to the majority opinion as it rejects the Petitioners’ appeal to

issue a Temporary Restraining Order on the resolution in question.

[15] Contrary to the majority opinion, I believe that a Temporary Restraining Order

should be issued on the following grounds:

(1) There is a claim by the Petitioners that certain provisions in the Constitution were

violated.

i. ““Every student has the right to participate in the governance of the

school by having a fair and effective representation in its policy-

making bodies with power coming from their ranks. The student

should be able to participate in the formation and application of

regulations affecting them” (15-08, p. 2)”

(2) The Petitioners shall be directly affected by the implementation of the Resolution

in question.

(3) Both sides have conflicting versions of what transpired between the Petitioners

and the Respondent, thus a need to further investigate the matter and restrain the

implementation of the Resolution in question.

i. The failure of both parties to present evidence that will substantiate

their claim is enough reason for the Court to issue a Temporary

Restraining Order in order to further investigate the claims and

reconcile inconsistencies between the sides of both parties.

On the Relevance of Issuing a Temporary Restraining Order [16] A Temporary Restraining Order is issued to prevent injury or damage to a party

seeking it. If a Temporary Restraining Order is not issued and the complained act is carried

out (in this case, the Resolution in question), there is no way of undoing it without causing

injury and damage.

Judgment 5 2015 SJC 3 [17] A Temporary Restraining Order does not stop forever the complained acts – in this

particular case, the Petitioners seek to temporarily stop the application process and request

for a mediation process between the Petitioners, the Respondent, and the Central Board

which the Respondent is a part of. Temporarily stopping the application process until such a

time that a mediation process is conducted shall surely not result in damage or injury to the

Respondent, or the Central Board as a whole, if a Temporary Restraining Order is issued.

On the Mediation Process [18] Although I dissent on the refusal of the Court to issue a Temporary Restraining

Order, I concur with the majority of the Court on the issue of a mediation process being

conducted between the Petitioners, Respondent, and the Central Board, with reservations.

[19] If no Temporary Restraining Order is issued, it will not prevent the Respondent and

the Central Board from implementing the Resolution in question. If they are not restrained

from implementing the Resolution in question, the mediation process may become an

exercise in futility and moot and academic if they continue with the complained act which is

sought to be restrained. Certainly, if the Resolution in question is implemented before the

mediation proceeding is started, an irreparable injury or damage will result affecting any or

all of the parties - the Petitioners, the Respondent and the Central Board, and

to the persons to be appointed to the position of Buklod Atenista Ambassador and Trainees.

Should the questioned act not be temporarily restrained by this Court, and the Respondent, or

the Central Board, continue with the process, the persons who are selected or appointed but

whose selection or appointment is subsequently revoked or recalled, will suffer undue

humiliation before their peers. This can be prevented by issuing a Temporary Restraining

Order, to be effective immediately and until the mediation proceeding is started and

completed. [20] Certainly, this is not what the Petitioners had in mind in requesting for a mediation

process, given the wordings of their Prayer.

(1) “…be issued a Temporary Restraining Order until all issues are resolved through

a joint session evaluation and clarification with regards to all the violations

Judgment 6 2015 SJC 3

aforementioned in this petition, as well as the provisions of our initial proposal”

(15-08, p. 3) [21] There will be no need for a joint session evaluation and clarification meeting with

regards to the Resolution if all aspects of the Resolution are already in full effect.

On the Arguments Presented [22] The Respondent, in his reply to the petition, stated that there was no need for the

consent of the Department of External Affairs and/or the Chairperson regarding the new

Resolution. This is contrary to the ideal of participation in the formation and application of

regulations affecting them. The mere fact that the Petitioners started an initiative to create a

legitimate and functioning Office of the Buklod Atenista Ambassador under their department,

which is part of their mandate, necessitates that they be consulted in policies that will affect

them. [23] Furthermore, the Respondent’s claim that “the Central Board would relay

developments regarding the new Resolution” does not equate to posting a draft on Dropbox

for “collaborative viewing and editing by the rest of the Central Board”. Regardless of

whether the Department of External Affairs Chairperson had access to the file during the

period of “collaborative viewing and editing”, in the spirit of transparency and consultation,

he should have been informed that the file was available on-line, given that technology is not

foolproof and that there is a possibility that the file cannot be accessed readily. [24] It is a fact that the Central Board is composed of other members other than the

Respondent and the other authors of the Resolution in question. The Petitioners’ claim that

the Central Board had made a “collective decision” without presenting to this Court an actual

document indicating the valid adoption of such a decision, therefore questioning the

legitimacy of the decision, is sound in nature. The Respondent’s admittance that such a

decision was arrived at, and his defense that it being a verbal acknowledgment, thus not

having a written documentation of this decision, holds the decision as questionable until such

a time that the Court can conduct an investigation into the matter.

Judgment 7 2015 SJC 3 [25] Lastly, the Respondent’s claim that the Central Board was not obligated to invite the

Petitioners into dialogues regarding the matter since their proposed Resolution was not used

goes against the right of the Petitioners to be consulted, as the Resolution in question has a

direct impact to their work as part of the Department of External Affairs.

On the Majority Opinion of the Court [26] The reluctance of the majority of the Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order

but at the same time its acquiescence to the mediation process is very difficult to reconcile

given the circumstances. [27] The majority of the Court should have taken judicial notice of the second Resolution

issued by the Central Board, A Resolution to Commission the Incumbent Buklod Atenista

Ambassador and the Department of External Affairs in Training the Succeeding Ambassador

and Trainees (referred to as “second resolution” for brevity), as posted in the Scribd Account

of the Sanggunian Secretary General. This second Resolution contradicts the Respondent’s

claim that there was no need for the Petitioners to be consulted.

(1) “Whereas, the Sanggunian recognizes the Department of External Affairs is

accountable for training and sending Sanggunian delegates to external functions

outside of the Loyola Schools” (second resolution, p. 1)

[28] This admission in their own Resolution puts the Petitioners, who are part of the

Department of External Affairs, under the qualified jurisdiction of both Resolutions, directly

involving them and thus granting them the right to be consulted since the Resolutions both

directly affect them. [29] It is with these points that I dissent from the majority opinion of the Court.

Judgment 7 2015 SJC 3 The Concurring opinion of MAGISTRATE AQUINO

ON THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

[1] Recalling that the Petitioners are calling for a Temporary Restraining Order on the effect of a Sanggunian resolution titled “Resolution to Call for Open Applications for the Positions of Buklod Atenista Ambassadors and Buklod Atenista Trainees” published 22 July 2015, all legal actions must be taken within this context only. [2] Further recalling that the erroneously cited Article II, Section 13 of the Constitution of the Undergraduate Students of the Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools as Article 2, Section 2 from the Petitioners’ argument:

“Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution of the Undergraduate Students of the Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools, under Article 5 of the Declaration of Principles, Purposes, and Policies of the Sanggunian, Section 10 which states that “ The Sanggunian shall uphold the Magna Carta of Undergraduate Student Rights of the Ateneo Community”, states that “Every student has the right to participate in the governance of the school by having a fair and effective representation in its policymaking bodies with power coming from their ranks. The student should be able to participate in the formation and application of regulations affecting them” (15-08, p. 2)” [Bold for emphasis, mine]

Another context aside from the previous one should be made within the designation and recognition of a policy-making body, in this case the Department of External Affairs (DEA for brevity), and its supposed enjoined participation for the crafting of regulations affecting it.

[3] From these points did I arrive at a separate conclusion that the Petitioners regard the Department of External Affairs as a duly “policymaking body” afforded with “power” that should have been consulted as argued but grossly neglected by the Respondent in crafting the resolution to open applications, hence this case. On the other hand the Respondent’s argument serves not just to wholly rebut the Petitioners’ arguments but to also effectively claim that the Department of External Affairs has no such standing as the Petitioners perceive it to be. [4] Noting however that no legal documents from the official Scribd accound of the Sanggunian can be found detailing (1) the definition, powers, and responsibility of the Department of External Affairs, (2) the recognition or any such measure recognizing the Department of External Affairs as a policy-making body, and (3) the structural and hierarchical relationship of the Department of External Affairs vis-à-vis the Sanggunian Central Board, there is therefore a legal ambiguity that prevents the development of this case any further. [5] This ambiguity not only hampers the case from fruition but also serves to critically undermine the arguments of both the Petitioners and the Respondent as there is a lack of claims to be substantiated with proper documents for perusal of the court.

Judgment 7 2015 SJC 3 ON THE MAJORITY COURT DECISION AND ORDER

[6] In light of such matters the court should exercise restraint in forwarding legal remedies as it may cause an unjust err on either side. [7] Recognizing however that the fundamental issue between the Petitioners and the Respondent would still inevitably exist and can arise as another conflict, mediation through the court or any other competent figure should be sought as an alternative. [8] It is thus on these abovementioned grounds do I yield to concur on the order of the majority decision of Chief Magistrate Villaruel et al.