ateneo student ombudsman petition vs ateneo comelec (2016 04 24)

8/18/2019 Ateneo Student Ombudsman Petition vs Ateneo Comelec (2016 04 24)

1/25

Ateneo Student Judicial Court

Ateneo de Manila University – Loyola SchoolsBarangay Loyola Heights, Quezon City

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMANPetitioner

versus

ATENEO COMELEC ATENEO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONRespondents

PETITION FOR INJUNCTION

The Office of the Ombudsman hereby files a petition for injunction against the Ateneo

COMELEC and the Ateneo Constitutional Convention with regards to the cancellation of the2016 General Elections, and in support thereof avers the following:

A. The Parties

The Office of the Ombudsman (from here on referred to as “petitioner” for brevity is theinvestigative body of the Student Judicial Court, and is tasked to conduct investigations

regarding the constitutionality of the actions of the Sanggunian and other bodies connected to it.

The Ateneo COMELEC and the Ateneo Constitutional Convention (from here on

referred to as “respondents” for br evity) are bodies related to the Sanggunian. COMELEC serves

as the electoral arm of the student government and is charged with the administration andfacilitation of elections and plebiscites, while the Ateneo Constitutional Convention is tasked to

create a new Undergraduates’ Constitution for the students of the Ateneo de Manila University to

use.

B. Context of the Case

For years, the Sanggunian has been faced with consistent failures of elections for various positions, leaving a large number of offices unoccupied. This phenomenon has made the

impression that the Sanggunian is no longer relevant, and this is because of the 2005

Undergraduate Students’ Constitution being too outdated for the circumstances of the studentstoday. This dilemma paved the road for the Constitutional Convention to be assembled during

the first semester of A.Y. 2015-2016.


2/25

The new constitution was then drafted during the second semester of A.Y. 2015-2016.

After three readings, the drafted constitution is set to be voted upon by the student body on April25, 2016 through a plebiscite.

However, the current constitution states that officials should be elected not later than 30days before the end of the second semester. Because of this, COMELEC decided on setting theelection date from April 13-15. They proceeded to posting the promotional materials for

prospective candidates on the last week of March. 11 prospective candidates then attended the

General Assembly on April 1.

In the end, only three people pursued their candidacy for positions in the Sanggunian.

And on the night before elections, April 12, they submitted a notice to COMELEC informing the

latter of their withdrawal from the elections. Due to having no candidates running for office,COMELEC decided to cancel the General Elections and to also not proceed with Special

Elections on the first semester A.Y. 2016-2017.

C. Main Arguments of the Case

In this petition, the Petitioners aim to prove the following points:

1. Two out of the three remaining candidates, namely Mr. Francisco Vista andMr. Karlo Lovenia were induced by the Respondents to withdraw their

respective candidacies.

2. The Respondents used fraud or negligence, and inequitable conduct to persuade the two candidates to rescind their candidacy.

3. The three candidates would have pursued with running for office if the

fraudulent machinations were not uttered by the Respondents.

4. The actions of the Respondents is a violation of the Constitution, and is aviolation of student rights.

D. Facts of the Case

The candidates were induced by the Respondents to withdraw their respective candidacies

The three candidates underwent the due process for those running for office, which

includes an orientation for the candidates. According to both Mr. Vista and Mr. Lovenia, 11- 15

people attended this orientation. A speaker then talked about the current state of the Sanggunian.

Then, the Chief Commissioner of COMELEC, gave a speech about how whoever gets elected

will be in charge of the whole body and shoulder all responsibilities. She also stated that

some of the members of the Sanggunian opted not to run because they wanted to help with

the new constitution instead. Aside from this, she also stated that if the plebiscite pushes

through, then any elections made before that will be void. Despite these warnings, the twocandidates were still keen on pursuing their candidacy. They were surprised upon finding that

there were only three of them, and were starting to feel hesitant about running for office. Mr.

Lovenia and Mr. Vista independently decided to only rescind their candidacy if the other

two would withdraw as well.


3/25

Days after the list of candidates was released, the head of the Constitutional Convention,

Ms. Shiphrah Belonguel, messaged all of the candidates in Facebook. She introduced herself asthe head of the Constitutional Convention, and she asked them if they were available for a

meeting. Mr. Vista had already gone home by the time he saw the message, so Ms. Belonguel

then proceeded to asking him if he was open to the idea of withdrawing from the elections. Herarguments were similar to that presented by COMELEC during the orientation, and she alsoreasoned out that with only three of them in the Sanggunian in case the plebiscite fails to be

passed, they will not be able to efficiently meet the students’ needs. She stated that the political

parties chose to boycott the elections in order to support the new constitution instead. In Mr.Lovenia’s case, he was able to meet with Ms. Belonguel personally. She used the same

arguments. After the talk, Mr. Vista then proceeded to withdrawing his candidacy.

Mr. Lovenia’s rescission of candidacy; however, is more different. He was still unsureabout how he should withdraw, and he did not have any plans to pass a notice. To his surprise,

on the evening of April 12, a day before the elections, a member of COMELEC messaged him

on Facebook regarding the notice of withdrawal that he had submitted. He was shocked,because he never passed anything or even talked about rescinding his candidacy to anyone .

Ms. Belonguel then messaged him that night, reminding him to pass a notice of withdrawal to

COMELEC. In the heat of the moment, he then chose to send an email to COMELEC to notify

them of his withdrawal.

Regarding COMELEC’s hand regarding the rescission of the two remaining candidacies,

one would only need to observe the words uttered by the Chief Commissioner during theorientation. The words give a sense of gravity, since they are a warning to the next Sanggunian

that they alone will shoulder all the responsibilities of a whole student government. While it can

be argued that COMELEC may have only been stating the facts so that the candidates know what

they are about to face during their term, it is notable that the candidates interpreted this as a wayof dissuading them to run for office. Also, their statement about current Sanggunian officials

helping the new constitution instead of running was a subtle hint that those who are plan to file

their Certificate of Candidacies would help the student government more by volunteering for theConstitutional Convention.

On the other hand, the main player in this case that led to the withdrawal of the remainingcandidates is Ms. Shiphrah Belonguel. An important detail to take notice is that when she

messaged the candidates on Facebook, she introduced herself as the head of the Convention. It

can be inferred from this action that she was acting within her official capacity as the Head of

the Constitutional Convention. Aside from this, Mr. Vista and Mr. Lovenia both stated that

had Ms. Belonguel not discussed with them the repercussions of running for office, the

former would have pushed through with their candidacies unless as stated in this document

earlier, the condition that the other two candidates will back out of the elections takes

place.

In the case of Mr. Lovenia, he was not entirely sure about how he should withdraw, until

the message about his withdrawal arrived at 11:31 PM. It was also around this time when Ms.Belonguel reminded him about passing a withdrawal notice to COMELEC. Due to the sudden


4/25

turn of events, Mr. Lovenia felt that he was “bound by time constraints” and proceeded to

immediately submitting his withdrawal notice at 11:53 PM. He stated that without these events,

he would have had more time to think about how he will withdraw and what he could do aboutthe situation. It can be inferred from this event that someone else must have informed

COMELEC that Mr. Lovenia was withdrawing even before the latter came to that decision, and

Ms. Belonguel’s reminder to pass a withdrawal notice appears to be a plea to rescind candidacy. In light of these facts provided by the candidates, the Petitioners believe that it is clear that thecandidates withdrew from participating in the elections because of the words of COMELEC and

Ms. Belonguel.

The Respondents used fraud or negligence, and inequitable conduct to persuade the two

candidates to rescind their candidacy

To expedite the discussion on this point, the legal terms will be given due definition before being discussed in more depth. Fraud is defined as “the voluntary execution of a wrongful

act, or a willful omission, knowing and intending the effects which naturally and necessarily

arise from such act or omission.”[1] In shor t, there is malicious intent to cause damage to another party. Fraud is also present when through the insidious words or machinations of one of the

contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he would

not have agreed to[2]. A form of fraud is inequitable conduct, or “withholding or misrepresenting

important information.”[3] Lastly, negligence, on the other hand, is the “failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which

the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.”[4]

The Respondents can be said to have entered into an agreement or contract with the two

candidates. A contract does not need to be on print, because it is merely a “meeting of minds

between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or

to render some service.”[5] In order for the agreement to be entered into, in this case therescission of candidacy, the Respondents made use of three main arguments, namely (1)

Assuming that the plebiscite fails, whoever gets elected will be in charge of the whole body

and shoulder all responsibilities, (2) Following the first argument, Sanggunian will be very

inefficient with only three officials serving the student body, and (3) Assuming the

plebiscite pushes through, then any elections made before that will be void.

Observing the state of the Sanggunian today, there are very few positions filled out of the

top 54 positions of the student government. On the other hand, despite the lack of officials, the

people present are not tasked to take on the responsibilities of the vacant positions. The

Constitution is also quiet about vacancies, aside from the remedy of Special Elections. In short,there is no legal basis for any elected official to do any more than what he or she is elected

for. The elected officials cannot be forced to do work that is beyond their assignedresponsibilities. Those who do so now accept the duty voluntarily. The Respondents’ second

argument may be considered true due to the very little manpower available compared to theamount of workload assigned by the current Constitution to the Sanggunian. In short, in case the

plebiscite fails and the three candidates are elected, they will not do too much work due to the

lack of manpower, but they will not be forced to compensate for the vacancies by working to produce as much output as 54 people would.


5/25

The third argument appears to be common sense at first, but this idea ignores an

important element of Philippine law: Lex prospicit, non respicit, or “The law looks forward, not

backward.” Laws are always prospective, and not retrospective[6]. This means that new laws

will only affect the future, not what is past. A law is never made effective as of a date prior to

enactment, promulgation, or imposition. In short, the legal principle means that in the scenario

that the plebiscite passes, the new constitution cannot affect actions and policies done in the past.Whoever is to be elected in the General Elections cannot be removed from office by the new

constitution, because the new laws only affect everything else that occurs after the

promulgation of the latter.

Clearly, out of the three main arguments, only one is correct. The next question that has

to be addressed is whether the Respondents acted out of fraud. The petitioners have reason to

believe that fraud was committed by the Respondents because they were intrinsically connected

to the new constitution. They should be aware of what will happen upon the enactment of thenew constitution, and how this will affect the current status quo. The Constitutional Convention,

especially its head, should be the most knowledgeable not just about what the changes they are

making are, but also how will they implement these changes in order to improve the studentgovernment in the university. Seeing as they are in the position of knowledge, they clearly

withheld this important information from the candidates, which led to the latter rescinding their

candidacies. Aside from this, as stated earlier in the discussion, without talking to Ms.

Belonguel, the candidates would have pursued participating in the elections. None of thecandidates knew that the arguments were incorrect, so they felt as if they were deceived into

withdrawing their candidacies. This occurrence of fraud could be considered serious, because it

successful lead two prudent people into error[7]. Because of this case of fraud, consent, which isone of the essential elements of a contract, is questionable. This defective consent then makes the

agreement voidable. In the scenario that the Respondents definitely did not know about the

falsity of their statements, they were still negligent because they failed to practice proper

diligence. They could have known about this information if they dedicated some time toresearching. Their mistake still makes the agreement with the three candidates voidable[8],

because in the absence of the mistake, the candidates still would not have agreed and rescinded

their candidacy.

The two candidates would have pursued with running for office if the fraudulent machinations

were not uttered by the Respondents.

To clarify that it wasn’t the initial decision of the candidates to withdraw their candidacy

before being contacted by Ms. Belonguel, the circumstances of Mr. Francisco Vista III and Mr.

Karlo Lovenia will be stated. Mr. Francisco Vista III stated no bureaucratic obstacles, ordifficulty acquiring the mandate of his block throughout the candidacy proper. This reveals that

processes and his chances of winning in the elections were not a reason for him to withdraw his

candidacy. He further states that his withdrawal condition was if he was the last remaining

candidate running. Next, on the case of Mr. Karlo Lovenia, he also states that his withdrawalcondition was if he was the last remaining candidate running. Both Mr. Francisco Vista III and

Mr. Karlo Lovenia showed personal conviction to represent their block.

Given these initial conditions, the trajectory of the decisions of the candidates would havedirected them to continue running. They themselves admit that that they would have continued


6/25

running if they weren’t approached by Ms. Belonguel. It was even at the exact point in which the

conversation between Ms. Belonguel and Mr. Francisco Vista III, that he decided to withdraw.

The actions of the Respondents is a violation of the Constitution, and is a violation of studentrights.

The fourth argument is that these actions committed by COMELEC and ConstitutionConvention are a violation not only the student’s right to vie for political positions within the

Loyola schools. According to Article II Sec. 13 of the 2005 Undergraduate Constitution of the

Loyola Schools,

“Students have the right to participate in the governance of the

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

bodies with voting power coming from their ranks. The student bodyshould be able to participate in the formation and application of

regulations affecting them.”

Article II Sec. 15b also states that:

“All members of the student body, regardless of academic standing, have the right to run

for elective positions in the Sanggunian; provided, however, that they fulfill the

requirements prescribed in this Constitution.”

This means that students have the right to run for positions within the Sanggunian. When

the respondents induced the candidates into withdrawing their candidacy, they denied the twocandidates’ right to pursue a political career within the Sanggunian, and have their block

represented. Furthermore, these actions also encroach upon the rights of the student body.

According to Section 15, a, “All members of the student body have the right to vote.” The mere

fact that the actions done by the Constitution Convention and the COMELEC paved the way forleaving the student body without any candidates to run for positions despite the willingness ofthese said candidates , violates their right to vote and be properly represented within the Ateneo

de Manila Loyola Schools.

E. Reliefs

Wherefore, the Petitioners humbly request that this Honorable Court grants the following

reliefs:

1. Order that COMELEC hold Special Elections during the first semester of A.Y. 2016-

2017 in the case that the plebiscite fails.2. Order both COMELEC and the Constitutional Convention to issue a public apology.

3. Grant such other and further relief which the Court deems just and appropriate.

The Petitioners would like to clarify that they do not have any political desire such as

impeding the progress of the Constitutional Convention. The only desire present is to ensure thatthe change being promised by the Convention comes in a legal manner without violating the

sanctity of the rights of the students, the very ones whose welfare they seek to uphold, protect,

and improve.


7/25

Sgd:

Ma. Ayesha Nicole I. Del Rosario

OmbudsmanAteneo Student Judicial Court-

Office of the Ombudsman

[1] The International Corporate Bank vs Spouses Gueco, G.R. 141968, February 12, 2001. [2] Article 1338, Civil Code of the Philippines. [3] Therasense Inc v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 649 F.3d 1276, May 25, 2011. [4] Layugan vs Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. N. 73998, November 14, 1998. [5] Article 1305, Civil Code of the Philippines. [6] Article 4, Civil Code of the Philippines.

[7] Tolentino, Commentaries on the Civil Code 1991, Vol. 4, p. 508, 514. [8] Article 1390, Civil Code of the Philippines.


8/25

Contents

Exhibit A. Judicial Affidavit of Mr. Francisco Vista III .................................................................................. 9

Exhibit B. Judicial Affidavit of Mr. Karlo Lovenia ...................................................................................... 12

Exhibit C. Transcript of the Conversation Between Ms. Belonguel and Mr. Vista ................................... 15

Exhibit D. Screenshot of Message from COMELEC member to Mr. Lovenia ............................................ 22

Exhibit E. Screenshot of Withdrawal Notice Sent by Mr. Lovenia to COMELEC ...................................... 24


9/25

Exhibit A Judicial Affidavit of Mr

Francisco Vista III


10/25


11/25


12/25

Exhibit B Judicial Affidavit of Mr Karlo

Lovenia


13/25


14/25


15/25

Exhibit C Transcript of the Conversation

Between Ms Belonguel and Mr Vista


16/25


17/25


18/25


19/25


20/25


21/25


22/25

Exhibit D Screenshot of Message from

COMELEC member to Mr Lovenia


23/25


24/25

Exhibit E Screenshot of Withdrawal

Notice Sent by Mr Lovenia to COMELEC


25/25

ateneo student ombudsman petition vs ateneo comelec (2016 04 24)

Documents