SANGGUNIAN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA

PAARALANG LOYOLA NG ATENEO DE MANILA

STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Petitioner
v.
ATENEO COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY
LOYOLA SCHOOLS CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Respondents
Case No. 2016 c. 2
Court

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

JACINTO, ORIBELLO, VINUYA MM.

Promulgated : April 29, 2016

Citation
: 2016 SJC 2
* Inhibited from deliberations

RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM
THE CASE
[1]

This is a petition instituted by the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (hereinafter

referred to as Petitioner for brevity) against the ATENEO COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS (hereinafter referred to as Respondent 1 for brevity) and ATENEO DE
MANILA UNIVERSITY LOYOLA SCHOOLS CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
(hereinafter referred to as Respondent 2 for brevity) seeking the issuance of an Injunction.
The petition was accepted on 23 April 2016 and subsequently docketed as No. 16-05.
[2]

In the instant petition, the Petitioner brings to this Court the findings of their offices

motu proprio investigation into the events ensuing into the closure of the 2016 Sanggunian
General Elections (hereinafter referred to as Elections for brevity). The Petitioner argues

Decision

2016 SJC 2

that the remaining candidates for the Elections were induced to withdraw, leading to its
eventual closure.
[3]

The Respondents were furnished with a copy of the Petition on April 23, 2016

through their official e-mail addresses, as promoted to the general student populace.
The Court directed the Respondents to file a reply not later than April 25, 2016.
Up to the date of the promulgation of this Decision, no reply has been filed by either of the
Respondents.
RULING
[4]

The Petitioner brings before this Court three reliefs: (1) Order Respondent 1

to conduct Special Elections during the First Semester of Academic Year 2016-2017
in the event that the plebiscite fails; (2) Order the Respondents to issue a public apology;
and (3) Grant such other and further reliefs which the Court deems just and appropriate.
[5]

This Court would like to reiterate that it is the mandate of Respondent 1 to conduct

Special Elections during the First Semester of Academic Year 2016-2017, as stated in the
2016 COMELEC Electoral Code, Article X, Section 2.a:
Vacancies that occur in the Central Board and School Boards before the election
of freshman officers, with the exception of the positions of Sanggunian President
and School Board Chairpersons, shall be filled via a special election to be held
simultaneously with the Freshman Year Officers Election
This Court affirms the relief sought by the Petitioner an orders Respondent 1 to ensure the
conduct of Special Elections for the following Academic Year.
[6]

While this Court is appalled at the evidence presented pertaining to the actions

undertaken by agents of both Respondents, this Court is of the opinion that ordering
both Respondents to issue a public apology shall be of no consequence as there is no means
to ensure that genuine regret for the actions committed is present in doing so. This Court
takes judicial notice of statements made that what was done was for the greater good of the
student body and has not recognized these methods as any means an error.

Decision

[7]

2016 SJC 2

While the Court rejects the Petitioners prayer for a public apology, this Court

issues a censure on the Respondents and their agents, reprimanding them for the actions
they committed, both through their agents or as a body, which led to the withdrawal of
the remaining candidates in the Elections.
On the Clarificatory Letter received by the Court
[8]

On April 25, 2016, the Court received a letter from Ms. Shiphrah Gold R. Belonguel,

Constitutional Convention Head, assailing the process of which the fact-finding and the
ensuing case transpired. In her letter, she assailed the legitimacy of the Petitioner and
unequivocally denied the findings of the investigation. She further reiterated that she does not
recognize the validity of the petition and alleged that the Court has not followed due process
in responding to the same. She stated that as soon as she receives a copy of the petition,
she shall convene a meeting in order to formulate a proper response as a body.
[9]

This Court would like to reiterate that Ms. Belonguel is not the Respondent in the case

at hand and as such is not entitled to be furnished a copy through her personal e-mail.
The Court forwarded a copy of the Petition through the official e-mail addresses of the
Respondents, officialateneocomelec@gmail.com and admuconcon@gmail.com, respectively.
The Petition was subsequently posted on the Courts official social media platforms
as a matter of transparency a day after the Petition was filed by the Petitioner and
furnished to the Respondents.
[10]

This Court would like to reaffirm the legal personality of the Petitioner, which has

been assailed. The Office of the Ombudsman is an office under the Student Judicial Court
created through the Courts Code of Internal Procedures under Part 2, Section 9. The validity
of the creation of this office is reaffirmed by the 2005 Constitution of the Undergraduate
Students of the Ateneo De Manila Loyola Schools (hereinafter referred to as Constitution
for brevity), under Article XIII, Section 9. The Court is also mandated by the same
Constitution to appoint prosecuting officers, under Article XIII, Section 8.g. The claim that
the petition is null and void due to the lack of legal personality is unfounded.

Decision

[11]

2016 SJC 2

The concept of motu proprio fact-finding is in need of explanation. The Petitioner,

empowered by the provisions stated above, conducted a fact-finding inquiry into the events
leading to the closure of the Elections on its own. The Petitioner has established probable
cause to pursue a case against the Respondents and has brought it before this Court.
[12]

This Court is of the opinion that what was conducted was merely fact-finding

in nature, and therefore, there was no need for the Petitioner to notify the Respondents.
Once it has established probable cause to indict anybody and elevate the matter to the
proper authorities for possible sanctions, that is the time the Respondents, as a matter of right,
should be informed.
[13]

This Court reiterates that due diligence has been observed in ensuring due process

is afforded to all parties. While Ms. Belonguel stated that a formal reply shall be filed
before this Court, the Court has received no such reply. It is taken to mean that Respondent 2,
which she represents as its head and as she introduces herself in her e-mail, has waived
their right to reply. This Court has processes which it must follow, and a decision must not be
held in abeyance waiting for a reply that has not arrived on the set deadline.
[14]

This Court does not take lightly the allegations that it has been remiss in performing

its duties and affording all parties due process in relation to this case.
On the Denial of a Public Apology
[15]

While this Court is of the opinion that the Respondents must apologize to the

student body,

it proves to be a futile exercise to demand such if the Respondents

do not recognize the error that they have committed.

[16]

At times, it may seem to be a good idea to conveniently forget about the law,

in this case, the Constitution, when in pursuit of another possibility. This shall never be
the case as it is imperative that the law not excuse anyone. It must be followed at all costs,
and willful violation of such, no matter how great you may perceive your cause, shall
never be an acceptable excuse.
[17]

A public apology shall not be arrived at if this sentiment is not fully grasped.

Decision

2016 SJC 2

On the Issuance of a Censure

[18]

While this Court rejects the prayer for a public apology, the Court also is of the

opinion that the actions made should not simply fade into memory.
[19]

A censure is an official reprimand issued condemning sternly an act committed.

The Court has the power and authority to reprimand under Article XIII, Section 8.c.
[20]

This Court censures the Respondents for the act of influencing the candidates

to withdraw from the Elections as it has affected the right of the students in which these
candidates aimed to represent to be represented.
On the Suspending the Conduct of the Plebiscite
[21]

While this Court is of the opinion that the evidence presented by the Petitioner

shows how the Respondents have influenced the outcome of the Elections, righting a wrong
with another wrong should not, and will not, ever be a relief to be given by this Court.
[22]

While the influence on the candidates of the Elections clearly violates the rights

of the students in which these candidates aimed to represent, suspending the plebiscite
in its final stages shall also violate the constitutional rights of the students to enact
a new constitution.
[23]

What has happened in the past can no longer be remedied by this Court as it will

result to another wrong. What the Court can hope for is that the student body may learn
from this case in order not to repeat the same mistakes.
On the Unanimous Decision of the Court
[24]

Decision 2016 SJC 1, in resolution of Case No. 2016 c. 1, has stated the following,

and the Court wants to reiterate:

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. At times,

Decision

2016 SJC 2

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. (2016 SJC 1, 7-8)
[25]

This Court is not beholden to political agendas and it shall remain free from such.

It is duty-bound solely to the present Constitution., whichever constitution is empowered by

the student body.
[26]

The term of the Magistrates of this Court shall end at the end of this school year,

which is less than a month from now. We want to leave this Court with our heads
held high, knowing that we have done what is right and just follow the law and
uphold the rule of law.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
[27]

Wherefore, this Court unanimously rules in favor of the Petitioners prayer

to order Respondent Ateneo COMELEC to conduct Special Elections during the

First Semester of Academic Year 2016-2017 in the event that the plebiscite fails;
[28]

This Court unanimously rules to deny the Petitioners prayer to order Respondent

Ateneo COMELEC and ADMU LS Constitutional Convention to issue a public apology;

[29]

Finally, this Court unanimously rules to issue a censure on Respondents for

the acts they, as a body or through their agents, have undertaken that have influenced
the withdrawal of the candidates in the Elections.
[30]

This Decision shall be final and executory.

SO ORDERED.
(I INHIBITED in the deliberations)

CRISTINE MARIE C. VILLARUEL

Chief Magistrate

EMMANUEL ROY M. AQUINO

Magistrate

Decision

2016 SJC 2

JONNEL R. HERBOSA
Magistrate

GENEROSO IGNACIO S. JACINTO

Magistrate

CARL JOEPET R. ORIBELLO

Magistrate

JOHN RAPHAEL V. VINUYA

Magistrate

CERTIFICATION
[31]

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.

EMMANUEL ROY M. AQUINO

Acting Chief Magistrate