ATENEO STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT

MVP 221, Ateneo

Katipunan Ave., Loyola Heights, Quezon City
Student Judicial Court
ABELARDO G. HERNANDEZ,
Premier & ANDRE MIKO
ALAZAS, Solicitor-General
Christian Union for Socialist and
Democratic Advancement
(CRUSADA),
Appellants

CC: MARIA ALEXANDRA D.
TANJANGCO, JGSOM Chairperson,
Petitioner

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision on the Motion For Reconsideration
SEGISMUNDO, M.:
On appeal before the Court is the Declaratory Relief it issued on July 6, 2014
as a decision to the Petition for Declaratory Relief (hereinafter referred to as
petition) filed by Maria Alexandra D. Tanjangco (hereinafter referred to as
Petitioner). The Petitioner requested for a clarification of Art. XV, Sec. 4(a) of the
Constitution regarding the question of who are allowed to run for the immediately
upcoming special elections simultaneous with the freshman elections. On July 6,
2014 the Court issued the said Declaratory Relief ordering the Commission on
Elections to proceed with the immediately upcoming special elections simultaneous
with the freshman elections witho
granting the same Commission the discretion of whether a special elections for the
position of president and chairperson may be held on a different date from the
immediately upcoming freshman elections and
general elections.


ATENEO STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT
MVP 221, Ateneo de Manila University Loyola Schools
Katipunan Ave., Loyola Heights, Quezon City


1
ABELARDO G. HERNANDEZ,
B.
General.
Christian Union for Socialist and
MARIA ALEXANDRA D.
, JGSOM Chairperson,
Case No. 14-2

Present:
PEPITO, C.M.,
GAITE,
PINEDA,
SEGISMUNDO,
STA. ISABEL, and
VILLARUEL, MM.

Promulgated:
July 15, 2014
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision on the Motion For Reconsideration


I. Statement of the Case

On appeal before the Court is the Declaratory Relief it issued on July 6, 2014
as a decision to the Petition for Declaratory Relief (hereinafter referred to as
) filed by Maria Alexandra D. Tanjangco (hereinafter referred to as
Petitioner). The Petitioner requested for a clarification of Art. XV, Sec. 4(a) of the
Constitution regarding the question of who are allowed to run for the immediately
elections simultaneous with the freshman elections. On July 6,
2014 the Court issued the said Declaratory Relief ordering the Commission on
Elections to proceed with the immediately upcoming special elections simultaneous
with the freshman elections without the positions of president and chairperson but
granting the same Commission the discretion of whether a special elections for the
position of president and chairperson may be held on a different date from the
immediately upcoming freshman elections and ahead of the immediately upcoming
ATENEO STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT
[14-2]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
On appeal before the Court is the Declaratory Relief it issued on July 6, 2014
as a decision to the Petition for Declaratory Relief (hereinafter referred to as
) filed by Maria Alexandra D. Tanjangco (hereinafter referred to as
Petitioner). The Petitioner requested for a clarification of Art. XV, Sec. 4(a) of the
Constitution regarding the question of who are allowed to run for the immediately
elections simultaneous with the freshman elections. On July 6,
2014 the Court issued the said Declaratory Relief ordering the Commission on
Elections to proceed with the immediately upcoming special elections simultaneous
ut the positions of president and chairperson but
granting the same Commission the discretion of whether a special elections for the
position of president and chairperson may be held on a different date from the
ahead of the immediately upcoming
Student Judicial Court 2 Decision (July 15, 2014)

On July 8, 2014 CRUSADA Premier Abelardo G. Hernandez and Solicitor-
General Andre Miko B. Alazas (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants) filed a
Motion for Reconsideration (hereinafter referred to as motion) respectfully
requesting the Court to reconsider its recent Declaratory Relief and asking for any
such other relief as may be just and equitable.

II. Discussion

On the propriety of declaratory relief

While the Supreme Court of the Philippines has its own definition of a
declaratory relief, it is not necessarily applicable to a school setting. Should any legal
document or process described in the statutes of the Court run parallel to those of
the Republic, the definition given by the Court shall take precedence. Quoting Title I,
Section 6 (1) of the SJC Rules of Court 2014:

In determining cases related to the internal governance of the Sanggunian, the
Undergraduate Constitution and its by-laws are given primary application.

The Student Judicial Court aimed to simplify the requirements for a petition
to merit a declaratory relief, knowing that any student who files for such is
interested and may be affected directly or indirectly by any statute, resolution or
policy. Quoting Title III, Section 12 (2) of the SJC Rules of Court 2014:

(a) Petition for Declaratory Relief. Anyone interested under any act or policy of a
Sanggunian official or entity, or whose rights are effected by a resolution or policy may,
before breach or violation thereof file a petition for declaratory relief before the Court to
determine the question of constitutionality, legality, or jurisdiction arising, and for a
declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. (Emphasis ours)

In filing such a petition, Ms. Tanjangco represents the Sanggunian as the
Chairperson of the John Gokongwei School of Management School Board. As the
only Chairperson duly elected, she would naturally be concerned with the
succession difficulties that would afflict the other School Boards and the Central
Board. Given the many possible interpretations of the provision on Special Elections
in Article XV, Section 4(a) of the Constitution, it would be pragmatic for Ms.
Tanjangco (or the Sanggunian) for that matter to clarify the implications of the law.

It is also worth noting that by institutional precedence, the previous
petitioners for declaratory reliefs do not necessarily have an adversary except the
law itself. An example of which would be the Petition for Declaratory Relief from Ms.
Antonia Potenciano. The question of whether the Constitution allows for the
vacancies of the positions of Chairpersons and a President to be filled through a
Student Judicial Court 3 Decision (July 15, 2014)

Special Election is indeed a justiciable controversy brought about by the vagueness
of the law. The three possible interpretations of the law do give rise to a controversy.
Given the urgency of the situation and the silence of the Constitution on the matter,
the issue is indeed ripe for judicial determination.

Thus, the Court rejects the appellants statement that Ms. Tanjangcos
Petition should be disregarded.

On the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration

First and foremost, the declaratory relief was not meant to be precedent in
case of any failure of elections. It is only the extraordinary nature of the failure of the
2014 General Elections that led to such a decision. Such a decision would only be
valid until COMELEC made a decision on the relief itself. Should any other failure of
elections occur and a petition for declaratory relief is issued to the Court, the
decision might be different.

The decision opened up the possibility of having the elections for President
and Chairpersons for the 2014 Special Elections. It did not dictate, per se, that there
should be a special election for such positions. The discretion of holding such
elections had been given to COMELEC because of the logistical and technical
concerns needed in order to hold an election.

Thus, it was the extraordinary circumstance of having both president and vice
president and chairperson and secretary-treasurer vacant after the general elections
which caused the Declaratory Relief addressed. The relief, albeit setting a legal
precedent for this particular circumstance, was of course not meant to set a
precedent for all future elections where the succession mechanisms provided by the
Constitution, discussed supra, will apply.

As of July 8, 2014, COMELEC had decided on the matter. While dismissing
the motion for reconsideration on the grounds of it being moot and academic is
possible, the motion seemed to seek a reinterpretation that may have
repercussions beyond the timeframe of the original Petition.






Student Judicial Court 4 Decision (July 15, 2014)

III. DECISION

Due to a 3-3 deadlock of the Magistrates, the Court shall uphold status quo
ante. According to Title VI Section 29 (3) of the Rules of Court, the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Abelardo Hernandez and Andre Miko B. Alazas on July
8, 2014 is in effect dismissed and the Court upholds with finality all the contents
of the Declaratory Relief issued on July 6, 2014. As there is no majority opinion
that can be published as binding, the arguments for upholding the Declaratory
Relief and for the reversal of the same are provided infra.

SO ORDERED.

LORENZO PEPITO
Chief Magistrate

DANIELLE JOANNA GAITE
Magistrate

MAGDALENA MARIE PINEDA
Magistrate

ALDWIN SEGISMUNDO
Magistrate

PAOLO JAMES STA. ISABEL
Magistrate

CRISTINE MARIE VILLARUEL
Magistrate


CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 30 of the Rules of Court, I hereby certify that the
conclusions in this decision have been reached in consultation with the rest of the
magistrates before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of this Court.



LORENZO PEPITO
Chief Magistrate

Student Judicial Court 5 Decision (July 15, 2014)

PER CURIAM OPINION FROM PEPITO, C.M., PINEDA & VILLARUEL, M.:

On the spirit of the Constitution

The spirit of the Constitution is against possible vacancies in positions to
promote representation. However, given the extenuating circumstances leading to
the current vacancy of both the positions of President and Vice-President for the
Central Board, and also both the positions of Chairperson and Secretary-Treasurer
for the School Boards, the writers of the Constitution were unable to provide for this
scenario when they made the 2005 Constitution. Moreover, the reason why the
positions of President and Chairpersons were not allowed to run was because the
writers were assured that there were mitigating controls through the succession
mechanism.

This mechanism pertains to the provisions that provide for the succession of
the second-highest position to the highest position for both the Central Board and
the School Boards. This succession mechanism is explicitly provided in the
Constitution for the Central Board in that the first two (2) of the enumerated
responsibilities of the Vice-President include:

1. To assume the responsibilities of the President if the President is absent or
incapacitated;
2. To automatically assume the Presidency in the event that such office is
permanently vacated;

The same succession mechanism is also explicitly provided in the
Constitution for the School Boards in that the first two (2) of the enumerated
responsibilities of the Secretary-Treasurer include:

(a) To assume the responsibilities of the Chairperson if the Chairperson is
absent, or incapacitated;
(b) To automatically assume the Chairpersonship in the event that such office
is permanently vacated;

Returning to the current context of the Sanggunian, circumstances have it that
these mitigating controls, through the said succession mechanism, are inoperative
provided the recent vacancies of both the highest position and the second-highest
position in both the Central Board and the School Boards. As such, the Court
welcomed the controls that allow for the filing of the vacant President and
Chairperson positions through the holding of another Special Elections under the
discretion of COMELEC.


Student Judicial Court 6 Decision (July 15, 2014)

PER CURIAM OPINION FROM GAITE, STA. ISABEL & SEGISMUNDO, M.:

Rationalization of the Declaratory Relief

The Constitution provides provisions on succession should the presidency or
the chairpersonship be ever permanently vacated. The Constitution provides that the
Vice President immediately assumes the presidency
1
and that the Secretary-
Treasurer immediately assumes the chairpersonship
2
should these positions be
permanently vacated, the situation which arises if these positions are left vacant after
a general election. Therefore, granted that the positions of vice president and
secretary-treasurer are not permanently vacated, the issue of including the positions
of president and chairperson in special elections simultaneous with freshman
elections became irrelevant as there were already people prescribed by the
Constitution to assume these positions without need for additional election.

The Declaratory Relief merely opened up the possibility of having special
elections for the positions of president and chairperson on a different date from the
immediately upcoming special elections and ahead of the immediately upcoming
general elections. The Court through the Declaratory Relief granted discretion to the
Commission on Elections as the Electoral Code was still subject to its initial
interpretation and the logistical and technical concerns of the elections was of course
still within its affairs.

Constitutional interpretation

We disagree with the appellants that the provisions in Article XV, Section 4(a)
are automatically subject to the plain-meaning rule. The fact that three
interpretations have arisen from certain readings of the rule means that the
provisions are not clear, plain and free from ambiguity.
3
(Bolos vs. Bolos)
Nevertheless, it is these interpretations that merit such attention from the Court, in
spite of whichever interpretation is correct.

The appellants argue that the exception of the Chairperson and President
should stand timelessly; however, this argument is in fact also an interpretation of
the concerned provision that is closely related to the first possible interpretation
presented by Ms. Tanjangco in her petition for declaratory relief. From a literal
reading, the provision simply states that the positions left vacant after the General

1
Art. VII, Sec. 2(b)(1) of the Constitution
2
Art. VIII, Sec. 2C(b) of the Constitution
3
Bolos vs. Bolos (G.R. No. 186400)
Student Judicial Court 7 Decision (July 15, 2014)

Elections and before the election of Freshman Officers, except the President and
Chairpersons, will be filled via Special Elections simultaneous with the Freshman
Elections.

Quoting the appellants Motion for Reconsideration:
The exception stated in the provision represents that the positions of president and
chairpersons must be exempt from any elections beyond the general election a clear
exception to the rule of how the electoral body responds to vacancies in the
Sanggunian.

To argue that the provision exempting the positions of President and
Chairpersons from Special Elections and can never be elected outside General
Elections is in fact another interpretation of the Constitution. In the introduction of
the same Annotated 2005 Constitution that the appellants cite, it states that:

While these footnotes may give a glimpse of what was intended by those who penned the
constitution at the time of the most recent amendments, each Sanggunian administrations
circumstances may necessitate re-evaluation and reinterpretation that are of course always
in line with the Sanggunians principles, purposes, and policies.

Where differing interpretations of this document lead to conflict, the Student Judicial
Court remains final arbiter on matters of constitutionality. (emphasis ours)

In the light of the massive failure of elections, the Court, through its previous
Declaratory Relief promulgated on July 6, 2014, has interpreted the contested
provision to be as such. The Court believed that having the vacancies filled will be
helpful to the service of the student body. While the appellants can offer their own
interpretation of the provision, the Court has the final say on matters of
constitutionality, and it will be the Courts interpretation that shall prevail due to
the authority that the 2005 Constitution grants to the Court.

Thus, we reject the appellants argument on Constitutional Interpretation.

On the silence of the Constitution and Mitigating Mechanisms

However, we agree with the petitioners that the silence of the Constitution on
such a matter should not automatically permit any other interpretation without
basing it on sound legal principles.

In such situations, the silence of the Constitution calls one to err on the side of
caution, especially when no other statutes or by-laws expressly give support to a
certain interpretation. It would be best to interpret all controversies in a manner that
is closest to the spirit of the law.

Student Judicial Court 8 Decision (July 15, 2014)

That the Constitution had not explicitly provided for the vacancies of the
President and the Chairpersons is coupled with the explicit exception made for the
said positions. While vacancies for almost all of the other Sanggunian officers have
been covered by the Special Elections, the President and the Chairpersons are not.

Instead, the writers of the Constitution indeed considered the possibility of
the President or Chairperson being absentin the sense that there is a lack or non-
existenceby embedding succession responsibilities in the officers who are next in
line, namely, the Vice-President and the Secretary-Treasurer. They can only do so in
an acting capacity.

Furthermore, mitigating controls, such as the Top 4s individual powers to
create additional units to fulfill the positions function,4 ensure that the Sanggunian
can still operate until such positions are filled during the Special Elections (in the
case of the Top 3) / General Elections (in the case of the Presidents and
Chairpersons).

Right now as it is, Sanggunian Central Board has created ad hoc committees
to perform the vital functions of the Top 4 positions. An example of which would
be the Knowledge Management Group that currently fulfills the functions of the
Secretary-General. The Central Board, by virtue of the Article VII Section 1 (j) of the
2005 Constitution, is given the power To create such departments, committees,
staffs, task forces, and offices as may be necessary to discharge specific functions
of the board. (emphasis ours) The above clause ensures that the Central Board is
indeed capable of filling the functions left empty by the Failure of Elections last
school year. It is empowered to create departments that can be used to perform the
functions of the Presidency, or any vacant position, as long as it remains vacant.

Furthermore, each Sanggunian official in the Central Board is expected to
be prepared when it comes to performing additional functions. The last of the list
of duties and responsibilities of the Central Board members, from the Top 4 to the
Central Board Representatives and Sectoral Representatives, all follow that each
Central Board Member is expected to perform such other functions the Board may
so direct. (emphasis ours) Article VII Section 2 A12, B4, C10, D11, E3 and F4 of the
2005 Sanggunian Constitution all point to this specific clause. This means that the
Central Board members can be used as an avenue to discharge specific functions as
long as the Central Board, acting collectively, approves these functions.

A similar clause is parallel to the School Board members, who are also
expected to do the same. This means that the School Board acting collectively can
Student Judicial Court 9 Decision (July 15, 2014)

direct the members to perform certain functions that must be performed.

These clauses state that should even without a President and vacancies still
occur even after Freshman and Special Elections, the remaining officers can still
function. While the Executive Committees do not have the power to create
additional units to carry out its function (a power that the Central Board enjoys),
they are empowered by Article VIII Section 2 A of the 2005 Constitution to
coordinate and assist in the implementation of Central Board policies and programs
in the best interest of their constituents. Here, the autonomy of the School Board is
preserved as extenuating circumstances prevent it from functioning properly. It can
seek help from Central Board in the event that it cannot function properly, and
Central Board can formulate policies to provide for the creation of additional units to
discharge certain functions.

In its current state, Sanggunian is functioning for the service of the students.
While it is struggling by the lack of officers, it is in no way permanently
incapacitated. It is empowered to create units in case it lacks officers to carry out
its functions.

In this view, the second and third interpretations presented in the original
petition are indeed contradictory. One interpretation expressly prohibits them from
being open for elections while the other opens the possibility. In any case, the
Constitution shows explicit exception for the President and Chairpersons. Should
the Constitution have absolutely no exception, then it would be possible for the
positions to be filled via special elections.

We uphold the second interpretation in light of the mitigating controls in
place for the failure of the elections and the spirit by which the Constitution was
written. While the plain-meaning interpretation is not the only interpretation that
exists for the provision, we are inclined to agree with it as it is the closest to the letter
and spirit of the Constitution.

Thus, we vote to accept the motion for reconsideration and reverse the
declaratory relief.