I. The Petition Fails to State a cause of action.

Petition for Certiorari and prohibition is a remedy available to the petitioner

under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provides that when any board or
tribunal, in this case, the Board of trustees of SSC, has acted without or in excess
of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess in
jurisdiction. In this case, the Board, has the power to appoint officers, like the
President of the State College. In line with this power is the function to review,
investigate and ascertained the qualifications of a candidate, thereby exercising
discretion and to draw conclusion, as to whether or not a candidate is qualified.
The function of the Board has an element of discretion. Hence, the Board is
exercising quasi-judicial discretion.
The appointment by the Public Respondent without resolving the issue of the
qualification of Dr. Charisma despite the protests, clearly amounts to grave abuse
of discretion.
Anyway your honor we will be presenting documentary evidence to support our
claim that the Respondent Dr. Charisma is not qualified for the Presidency. Thus,
here appointment is in violation of CHED Memorandum Order No. 16 which sets
the Minimum qualifications for presidency.
II. ISSUANCE OF 20 DAYS TRO
The Rule is clear, Section 5 of Rule 58 provides that (to quote): If it shall appear
from facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that great or
irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on
notice, the court to which the application for Preliminary Injunction was made,
may issue a TRO to be effective only for a period of 20 days from service on the
party or person sought to be enjoined.
Furthermore, the issuance of the TRO is an exercise of the Court’s Judicial
Discretion, it is the court exercising its individual opinion, based its appreciation of
the facts and circumstance of this instant petition which is unique and different
from other cases.
Comment on Motion for Inhibition
The issuance of the 20 day TRO does not show the presiding judge’s bias in favor
of the petitioner. The issuance of TRO is an exercise of the court’s Judicial
Discretion. Furthermore your honor, the allegation of the Public Respondent that
the Judge is bias is untenable because it is unsupported by evidence. Mere
allegations unsupported by evidence is not tantamount to proof. Also your honor,
assuming for the sake of argument, the issuance of a Biased TRO is not among the
grounds mentioned under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, which the
Public Respondent cited in their Motion for Inhibition. Hence we pray that the
Honorable Judge will not inhibit herself from hearing the instant case.