SANGGUNIAN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA

PAARALANG LOYOLA NG ATENEO DE MANILA

STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT

GIAN PAULO ALBERTO V. SOLIMAN

Petitioner
v.
ATENEO COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Respondent

Case No. 2016 c. 1

Court : VILLARUEL C.M., AQUINO, HERBOSA,

JACINTO, ORIBELLO, VINUYA MM.

Promulgated : April 12, 2016

Citation : 2016 SJC 1

DECISION

The opinion of the Court is delivered by MAGISTRATE JACINTO.

THE CASE

[1] This is a petition instituted by GIAN PAULO ALBERTO V. SOLIMAN (hereinafter

referred to as “Petitioner” for brevity) against the ATENEO COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent” for brevity) seeking the issuance of
an Injunction to stop all operations and electoral exercises pertaining to the 2016 Sanggunian
General Elections (hereinafter referred to as “Elections” for brevity). Pending resolution of
the same, the petitioner prays for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. The
petition was accepted on 8 April 2016 and subsequently docketed as No. 16-01.

[2] In the instant petition, the Petitioner brings to this Court a speculation on the risk of
misrepresentation of the general student body should the elections push through as scheduled.
The Petitioner argues that the conduct of elections has sufficiently damaging effects,
meriting the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order.
Decision 2 2016 SJC 1

[3] Respondent COMELEC has filed with this Court its Reply to the Petition relative to
the prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court has taken note of
the points raised by the Respondent and has taken the same in consideration in this
Resolution. The Reply was accepted on 10 April 2016 and subsequently docketed as
No. 16-02.

[4] This Court issued Resolution 2016-1 rejecting the Petitioner’s prayer for the issuance
of a Temporary Restraining Order on 11 April 2016. Pursuant to the same resolution, this
Court sat en banc to deliberate on the Petitioner’s prayer for the issuance of an Injunction.

[5] Respondent, through their Chief Commissioner, has filed with this Court two (2)
Comments to the Petition relative to the prayer for the issuance of an Injunction. The Court
has taken note of the points raised by the Respondent and has taken the same in consideration
in this Decision. The Comments were accepted on 11 April 2016 and subsequently docketed
as No. 16-03 and 16-04.

RULING

[6] While the two (2) Comments filed by the Respondent are not entirely consistent with
each other, one thing is definite: Respondent manifested that it is ready to proceed with the
Elections as scheduled. There is therefore no doubt that the Respondent is ready and able to
perform its mandated constitutional responsibility in relation to the conduct of the Elections.

[7] An Injunction will be issued by this Court if the petitioner “requires a relief due to the
presence of any act or resolution that, whether directly or indirectly, affects his rights and
well-being” (Title III, Section 12.2.b, Rules of Court, Ateneo Student Judicial Court). An
Injunction is further defined as “an order granted at any stage of an action requiring a person
to refrain from a particular act or to require the performance of a particular act” (Rule 38,
Section 1, Rules of Court, Supreme Court of the Philippines).

[8] While the Court takes note of the arguments presented by the Petitioner, this Court
maintains that unless these actions take place, these are mere speculations which do not hold
sway on the upholding of the Constitution, which is the primordial task of this Court. It is
Decision 3 2016 SJC 1

therefore on this ground that the majority rejects the Petitioner’s argument that the issuance
of an Injunction is necessary.

On the Mandate to Conduct Elections

[9] The Respondent is described by The 2005 Constitution of the Undergraduate Students
of the Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools (hereinafter referred to as “Constitution” for
brevity) as:

(1) “an independent body serving as the electoral arm of the Sanggunian, charged
with the administration and facilitation of Sanggunian elections, plebiscites, and
referenda” (Article XIV Section 1, Constitution).

[10] In the matter of the petition, the Constitution is clear. The Respondent is mandated by
the Constitution to conduct the Elections on a specified date:

(1) “The Central Board and School Boards, with the exception of the Freshman
Officers, shall be elected by the student body not earlier than sixty days and not
later than thirty days before the end of the school year” (Article XV Section 3.a,
Constitution).

[11] This Court takes judicial notice of the Memorandum promulgated by the Respondent
entitled Revised Dates of the 2016 Sanggunian General Elections (COMELEC MEMO No.
201640). The stipulated dates for the Elections are April 13 to 15, 2016.

[12] Given the mandate of the Constitution, this Court takes note that the dates scheduled
by the Respondent maximizes the prescribed date for the conduct of the Elections. It is
therefore incumbent that they conduct the Elections with due diligence unless restrained by
this Court.

[13] It is the opinion of this Court that the Respondent did not commit any abuse of power
or discretion. Rather, it just did what it was mandated to do. If it failed to schedule the
Elections, it will be a gross violation of the Constitution. If this Court will allow such a
violation, then this Court would be remiss in its duty to protect and uphold the Constitution.
Decision 4 2016 SJC 1

[14] This Court wants to emphasize that even if the Elections is held as scheduled by the
Respondent, and the candidates are elected, the Respondent has the power to call for Special
Elections. The Petitioner’s fear that the elected Block Representatives who will constitute the
Sanggunian will be misrepresenting the student body is unfounded. If at all, the elected Block
Representatives will be the interim Sanggunian, functioning as an acting Sanggunian. Once
the Special Elections is held, the elected officers will assume the positions they were elected.

On the Matter of Misrepresentation

[15] The Petitioner wants to impress to this Court the scenario that if the Elections will be
allowed to proceed as scheduled, and that the candidates for Block Representatives of three
different Blocks will be elected, a situation will arise that these elected Block Representatives
will constitute the Sanggunian. The Petitioner believes that this will result in these Block
Representatives misrepresenting the student body.

[16] The majority of this Court agrees that the argument of misrepresentation presented by
both the Petitioner and Respondent is merely a speculation of an unproven risk which does
not have any solid grounding on any document which this Court takes into consideration in
deliberating cases. There is no substantial evidence that would prove to create harm to the
petitioner if the Elections push through.

[17] This Court expounds on the fact that the block representative position does not hold
abilities for succession prior to Special Elections. Although previous practices of the
Sanggunian shows that vacancies are filled up by Officers-in-Charge until such a time
Special Elections are conducted, this is not taken to be the norm.

[18] The candidates, if all elected, will not be misrepresenting the student body. It is not
their fault that no other student filed their Certificates of Candidacy. This Court takes judicial
notice that the two established political parties – IgNITE and CRUSADA – did not field any
candidate. Their action or decision not to field any candidate, which can be considered and is
aptly publicized by the ADMU Constitutional Convention as a boycott of the Elections in
favor of a plebiscite, should not adversely affect other students from exercising their right to
be represented.
Decision 5 2016 SJC 1

[19] The refusal of IgNITE and CRUSADA to field candidates in all positions led to the
present situation. When these political parties decided not to participate in the Elections, they
are deemed to have waived their right to question its holding. And certainly, their decision
should not prevail on the constitutional provision on the conduct of the Elections.

[20] Should this Court rule to issue an Injunction, this Court shall also be guilty of
hampering the constitutional right of the students in which candidates are present to be
represented.

[21] This Court emphasizes that the lack of candidates in the Elections is not caused by the
actions of the Respondent.

On the Conduct of Plebiscite

[22] This Court takes judicial notice of the opinion of the Respondent that there may be a
need to suspend the Elections in favor of the Constitutional Convention Plebiscite.

[23] This Court would like to reiterate that the possibility of the conduct of a plebiscite
should not and must not hold sway on the full implementation of the current Constitution.
Although it may be argued that the plebiscite aims to ratify a constitution that shall replace
the Constitution, this does not change the fact that the Constitution is still in effect and must
be favored over the ratification of a document that is perceived to replace it.

[24] It is not the Respondent’s call to deviate from their mandate on the basis of the loss of
electoral positions in the new constitution, which is the subject of the plebiscite. This Court
maintains that until ratified, the Constitution is still in full effect, and it is this single
document that must be upheld. And as is in all laws, laws are prospective – they cannot have
a retroactive effect. Elected officers under the original set-up, therefore, shall not be affected
by the new constitution should it be ratified.

On the Majority Decision of the Court

[25] The Court is the vanguard and protector of the Constitution. As such, it is duty-bound
to interpret the Constitution as it is worded. Only in such cases where the provision of the
Constitution is ambiguous can it make its interpretation thereof.
Decision 6 2016 SJC 1

[26] At times, the decision of this Court may be unpopular, but it has to make such ruling
in order to uphold the law and the rule of law. The instant case is one such situation, in which
the majority chooses to uphold the Constitution.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

[27] Wherefore, this Court rules to deny Petitioner’s prayer for the issuance of an
Injunction to stop Respondent Ateneo COMELEC from continuing all operations and
electoral exercises pertaining to the Elections;

[28] Respondent Ateneo COMELEC is hereby directed to proceed with the Elections set on
April 13 to 15, 2016.

[29] This Decision is final and executory.

SO ORDERED.

JONNEL R. HERBOSA
Magistrate

GENEROSO IGNACIO S. JACINTO

Magistrate

CARL JOEPET R. ORIBELLO

Magistrate

JOHN RAPHAEL V. VINUYA

Magistrate

WE CONCUR:

(See my DISSENTING Opinion)

CRISTINE MARIE C. VILLARUEL

Chief Magistrate
Decision 7 2016 SJC 1

(See my DISSENTING Opinion)

EMMANUEL ROY M. AQUINO

Magistrate

CERTIFICATION

[30] Pursuant to the Rules of Court, I hereby certify that the conclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in consultation with the rest of the Magistrates before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

CRISTINE MARIE C. VILLARUEL

Chief Magistrate

The dissenting opinion of CHIEF MAGISTRATE VILLARUEL

[31] I dissent from the majority opinion.

On the Petitioner’s Argument of Misrepresentation;

[32] The petitioner and respondent agree on the probable risk of damage should the
General Elections result in at least one block representative position being occupied. The
Petitioner and the Respondent diverge on the substantiation of this claim.

[33] The Petitioner’s argument is centered upon both just representation and the
limitations of the block representative’s mandate. Should the General Elections result in
winners who are subsequently inducted into office, the petitioner asserts that a possible block
representative’s duties will unjustly balloon to include responsibilities of the vacant
Sanggunian positions. As quoted;

Whether the silence of the Constitution on matters of when there are no Central Board
officers present between the period of General and Special Elections can be used as
grounds for these representatives to assume, whether in part or in full, powers and
Decision 8 2016 SJC 1

responsibilities that are not originally under their jurisdiction because of their limited
mandate. (16-01)

[34] I do not find merit in the premise that the assumption of the special powers afforded
to the Central Board by elected officials is a subsequent result of vacancies in any of the
Sanggunian positions, because legal processes exist to remedy issues emerging from such
circumstances.

[35] In Case 2013-001, the Undergraduate Students of Loyola versus School of Social
Science Secretary-Treasurer, the Court ruled that the Constitution and the Sanggunian Code
of Internal Procedures had sufficient provisions to point that any original power afforded to
both Central Board and School Boards lie only with the same.

[36] As such, the assumption of powers and privileges beyond their mandate by elected
block representatives in this year’s General Election would be on pain of sanctions and
possible impeachment.

[37] On the issue of authority and mandate to represent the whole student body, Article
V Section 2 of the 2005 Constitution states that

The Sanggunian is founded on the principles of representation, participatory

democracy, accountability, decentralization, consultation, and efficient and
effective service towards the holistic formation of the Atenean. Its delegates shall
represent the student body, together with the other sectors of the institution, in all
policy and decision-making University bodies and other associations, which affect
the students’ rights and welfare. (emphasis mine)

[38] Here, onus is placed on both the individual official and the Sanggunian institution to
represent the student body in all entities that affect students’ rights and welfare. On the issue
of legality of the few representing the many, I believe the mandate to ensure representation at
all cost is more significant than a pre-emptive strike on the risk of falsity.
Decision 9 2016 SJC 1

[39] The larger issue in question is not of the misleading image of a few officials’
performing functions beyond their position’s set of defined responsibilities but of effective
representation for the student body at large and their constituency.

[40] In conjunction with the previously cited passage, the Article II, Section 13 of the 2005
Sanggunian Constitution states that;

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 body should be able to participate in the formation and
application of regulations affecting them. (emphasis mine)

[41] I agree with the Petitioner’s secondary argument that apart from the blocks with
fielded block representative candidates, every other student’s right to fair and effective
representation has been violated. Should any of these candidates be sworn into the
Sanggunian, the representation function of the Sanggunian would legally legitimate.
However, the risk of ineffective representation would be extreme as there is an inordinate
discrepancy between the critical policy-making entities that Sanggunian currently represents
students’ voices in and the maximum number of possible elected officials from this General
Elections.

[42] Furthermore I concede to the compelling evidence absent in the Petitioner’s

arguments that any result of the General Elections will result in the incapacitation of any of
the candidates to fulfill his duties to his constituency.

[43] The primary duty of a block representative is to actively represent his constituency’s
concerns to the student government’s legislative bodies. Assuming a candidate in this year’s
General Election becomes an official, his true focus is hampered by the larger burden of
school-wide affairs representation. His constituent’s right to effective representation of their
context and nuances is then violated.
Decision 10 2016 SJC 1

On the Respondent’s Argument of Voter’s Fatigue, Confusion, and Transitory Provisions

[44] In a second response to the Petitioner’s Motion for Injunction, the COMELEC
stated that confusion would ensue from the simultaneous holding of General Elections and
plebiscite exercises for a constitution draft with a student government structure that is
remarkably different than the one addressed in the incumbent constitution.

[45] While it can be argued that historically plebiscites have been held simultaneous to
General Elections, I defer to the COMELEC’s authority on the voter behavior in their reading
that circumstances would result in such confusion.

[46] Indeed, major stakeholders in electoral exercises have come to the erroneous
conclusion that the passing of a plebiscite would leave elected Sanggunian officials hanging.
A cursory glance at the transitory provisions of the incumbent constitution and the current
plebiscite draft’s version shows concordant transitional strategy of powers that renders this
imagined scenario largely inconsequential.

On the Majority Decision

[47] While allowing decision-making University bodies to rely on unelected members of

the informal Ateneo student leader community would be the true source of misrepresentation,
I cannot conscientiously permit the proceeding of an elections that will place willing servant
leaders in a position of debilitation.

[48] I unwaveringly believe that the lack of fielded candidates for the General Elections
was in no way a result of negligence on the part of the Ateneo Comelec but rather a
conscious effort by many entities to conclusively establish a narrative of debilitation in the
eyes of the public.

[49] While I may only surmise reasons for such an action, let it be known that the state of
the General Elections will result in no true effective source of vote power representation in
any affair directly relating to the student body, until a success in the next student wide
electoral exercise.
Decision 11 2016 SJC 1

[50] I as Chief Magistrate vote in favour of an injunction order on the General Elections
pursuant to the appeal forwarded by the Petitioner and the statements of the Respondent.

The dissenting opinion of MAGISTRATE AQUINO

[51] Magistrate Aquino dissents from the majority opinion of the Court.

[52] It is the belief of this magistrate that the Court is not just a vehicle of constitutional
interpretation but also that of facilitating justice within the student body. While Respondent
Ateneo COMELEC It is the belief of this magistrate that the court is not just a vehicle of
constitutional interpretation but also that of facilitating justice within the student body. While
Ateneo COMELEC should, and did so, perform their constitutional responsibilities despite
grim circumstances of only having three candidates campaigning, boycotting movements,
etc., on pain of incurring gross negligence of their duties, it has been noted that Ateneo
COMELEC themselves concede with the arguments of the Petitioner for fear that a greater
injury against the student body it serves may arise in the future; this magistrate agrees.

[53] Recalling Article II, Section 13 of the 2005 Sanggunian Constitution:

Section 13. 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 body should be able to participate in the
formation and application of regulations affecting them. (Constitution, p. 8)

[54] It is the belief of this magistrate that proceeding with the General Elections would
cause great damage against the whole student body should at least one of the candidates for
block representative win as it would violate the rights of other students not represented by the
possible block representative elected - as argued by the Petitioner. It is already foreseeable to
have a Sanggunian, at best, be a triumvirate “dictatorship” of block representatives who, due
to factors that have forced this unfortunate situation, would carry out greater responsibilities
beyond what has been originally envisioned in the constitution and perform duties in behalf
of a student body majority that did not elect them nor did not even had the legal opportunity
to do so. “Effective representation” as a student right is therefore violated.
Decision 12 2016 SJC 1

[55] In conjunction to the abovementioned clause, Article VIII, Section 2, E of the 2005
Sanggunian Constitution states:
E. Course/Block Representatives
(a) To represent and actively communicate their constituents' concerns to the
Sanggunian;
(b) To serve as the consultative arm of the Central Board Representatives and the
School Board;
(c) To serve as the communication and mobilization arm of the Executive Officers;
and
(d) To perform such other functions as the School Board may so direct.
(Constitution, p. 27)

[56] Aside from these, block representatives are also provided powers and responsibilities
over the Batch Coordinating Assemblies mentioned in Article X (p. 29) and is
constitutionally able to replace vacancies as mentioned in Article XV, Section 4 (c), (p. 42).
These however only corroborate the arguments presented immediately before and shows the
limits of up to what extent a block representative can possibly do to exercise effective
representation before going past the constitutionally legal threshold. It posits again the
problem of possible damage to the student body due to an expected impotence of the
Sanggunian.

[57] This magistrate sees no fault in Ateneo COMELEC nor on the candidates’ part but
rather on the present circumstances surrounding the current General Elections that is, a severe
lack of candidates.

[58] Magistrate Aquino believes that the Sanggunian should be supported by the student
body which is reflected by its representatives acting in official capacity and enjoying popular
mandate validated through elections. The opposite of such, a Sanggunian composed of
representatives without mandate of the student body is therefore a contradiction of its very
nature.

[59] This magistrate concedes that it is perhaps the will of the constituents to not field their
own candidates to represent them either by deliberate effort or total absence of care at all.
Magistrate Aquino opines that whatever the underlying causes are, the result is still the same
Decision 13 2016 SJC 1

in that “effective representation” could not be carried out. Therefore, with or without block
representatives successfully elected, the Sanggunian, the very institution that is supposed to
be the epitome and foundation of student representation in the Ateneo, is considered nothing
but defunct at least until either successful special and freshmen elections occur under the
current constitution or a new constitution passes.

[60] It is with these points that Magistrate Aquino favour an injunction order on the
General Elections pursuant to the appeal forwarded by the Petitioner and the statements of
the Respondent.